Augustine of Hippo : In many other testimonies of the divine Scriptures, Christ appears both as king and as priest. With good reason, therefore, he is declared to be David's son more frequently than he is said to be Abraham's son. Matthew and Luke have both affirmed this: the one viewing him [David] as the person from whom, through Solomon, his [Jesus'] lineage can be traced down, and the other taking him [David] for the person to whom, through Nathan, his [Jesus'] genealogy can be carried up. So he [David] did represent the role of a priest, although he was patently a king, when he ate the show bread. For it was not lawful for any one to eat that, except the priests alone. — HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS 1.3.5 Bede : The priest therefore gave him the sanctified bread. Because he heard that they were clean who were to receive it, he consented to give them the sanctified bread; which he would in no way dare to do if he had not recognized them as clean in all respects. But if such careful attention to purity was required of him who was to taste the typical bread sanctified by the hands of Moses, how much more necessary is it for those who, having accepted the bread sanctified into the sacrament of Christ's body in his holy and venerable hands, received in memory of his death, are to partake of it as a help to eternal life, to take care of their purity? Indeed, it is necessary for one always to remember the saying of the Apostle: "For whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup" (1 Cor. 11). The priest therefore gave him the sanctified bread. — Commentary on Samuel Bede : For there was no bread there but that, etc. The apostles gave to those who believed, and were baptized from among the Gentiles, the word of the law and the prophets, sanctified by the grace of the Gospel. For there was no literal knowledge among the apostles and the disciples of the apostles, except only the prophetic books, which had been openly proposed to the ancient people for reading, and had recently been fulfilled by the Incarnation of the Lord, so that they were no longer held to be said, in order that the books of the New Testament might be written, to refresh the souls of priests, that is, those united to the eternal priest's members, warmed by the fire of the Holy Spirit. And it should be noted that David asked for bread, not five or twelve (for that was the number of the showbread), but it is said that he received sanctified bread singularly; just as he is remembered to have put five stones into his pouch, but struck down Goliath with one. There are five books containing the elements of legal doctrine. But, as the apostle says, the whole law is fulfilled in one word: You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22; Mark 12). It can also rightly be understood that the sanctified bread is singularly named, either because of the unity of faith and love, but should be understood plurally due to either the various works of virtues or the multiple abundance of divine Scriptures by which we are instructed in virtues; just as what is written singularly in the Psalms: He sent among them swarms of flies, which devoured them, and frogs, which destroyed them (Psalms 77), there is no doubt that it must be understood in the plural, especially since the Lord in the Gospels, preferring mercy over sacrifice, affirms that the bread given to him must be understood in the plural (Matthew 9). Have you not read, he says, what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him, how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests (Luke 6)? Where, according to the interpretation in which we said that the Lord our Savior was figuratively shown in this reading as both priest and king, it must be understood as prefigured, that the priestly food, upon the coming of the Lord, was no longer to be given to Levi or the people of the children of Israel only, but to all the Gentiles who are to be called to faith. For it has been said to all who hunger for righteousness, who wish to belong to the company of the true David: But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession (1 Peter 2). And because we have spoken about the mystery to the best of our ability, Josephus's statements (Antiquities 3, 13) also help to elucidate the plain sense of the letter more clearly regarding the showbread, which we thought should be briefly looked into and inserted into our treatise for the benefit of the readers. For, since the religion and status of Jerusalem and the temple were still standing in his times, he could very easily know and reveal to the readers what was carried out by the priests through hereditary succession, as he himself was a priest. He says, therefore, "they used to make them out of fine flour without leaven, twenty-four in number." And he adds: "They are baked two by two, split before the Sabbath, and on the Sabbath morning, they are placed on the sacred table, facing each other, with two golden dishes full of incense placed on top of them, which remain until the next Sabbath, when other loaves are brought in their place. Those loaves are then offered to the priests, and after the incense is burnt in the sacred fire, in which all holocausts are made, other incense is added to the other loaves." — Commentary on Samuel Ephrem the Syrian : Our Lord put forward the clear example of David, who was not accused either over this, as he was over something else. It was not permissible, he said, for David to eat [the holy bread] since he was not a priest. However, he was a priest, because he was a temple of the Spirit. Because they did not understand this, he openly proved them wrong with regard to their own [position]: "The priests were defiling the sabbath in the temple, and they were not guilty of sin." Another element is depicted for us there. Before David was persecuted, he partook of the bread with authority. — COMMENTARY ON TATIAN'S DIATESSARON 5.24