Jesus said;- Have you not read what David did?

“Have you not read what David did when he was hungry?” (Matthew ch12 v3)

In fact it’s worth reading the full account of what David did (1 Samuel ch21 vv1-6), for a fuller understanding of the way that Jesus is using the story.

David was making his final flight from the court of Saul. He arrived at the sanctuary of Nob. This was not an ordinary local altar, because the priests were keeping up the ritual of placing “shewbread” in front of the Lord. The bread for each week was laid out on the sabbath, and replaced by a fresh batch on the following sabbath (Leviticus ch24 vv5-9). Surely, then, this must have been the place where the sanctuary of the Lord initially found refuge after Shiloh was destroyed, presumably by the Philistines. When commentators explore “the mystery of what happened to Shiloh”, they don’t seem to notice that clue, so I offer it free of charge.

Ahimelech the priest came forward to meet David “in fear and trembling”. This was probably because he saw the unexpected presence of the king’s greatest commander as a warning sign of other dangers in the neighbourhood (e.g. Philistines), though he may have been a little nervous of David himself. David told the priest that he had been sent out on a mission by the king, and he needed some bread for himself and for the body of “young men” which he was about to join. But the sanctuary had no bread in hand except the just-removed shewbread, so the five loaves which David wanted had to be taken from what would have been twelve loaves, and the priests must have been on short rations for a few days.

David’s conduct was in conflict with strict law in a number of ways. For one thing, he was lying. The king had not sent him out on a mission. If the band of young men existed, they were forming a private force, not an official force.

Another point, which emerges when we read between the lines, is that he was travelling a long distance on the sabbath. That is implied by the fact that the removed shewbread was available. David confirms it, indirectly, when he assures the priest that the “vessels” of the young men were always kept holy when they went to war, and even more so “today”; that is, on the sabbath, the holy day.

Also the law says that the shewbread is holy and must be consumed by the priests in a holy place. Allowing half of it to be taken away and consumed by non-priests is a bending of the rules.

David is said to be a “man after God’s own heart”, but this and other incidents show that he did not win that place by scrupulously fulfilling the works of the law. He must have been saved by his faith.

Jesus brought up this story because the Pharisees were criticising his disciples again, It was on the sabbath. He and his disciples were walking through the local grainfields, which was legal. As they were passing through, they ate some of the heads of grain, which was legal (Deuteronomy ch23 v25). Luke ch6 adds the detail that they rubbed the heads in their hands (in order to get rid of the husks). The Pharisees were claiming that the act of plucking the grain and/or the act of rubbing it in the hand was “work”, and therefore not legal on the sabbath.

Before looking at the response which Jesus made, let’s consider the other responses which he could have made instead.

In his place, I think I would have argued about the meaning of the word “work”. That’s the most obvious line of defence. What the disciples were doing was nothing more than food preparation. Was that “work” in any real sense of the word? Surely the point of the sabbath command was to enforce rest from regular employment, not to put a stop to domestic activities in general. I can’t help thinking that this is the line which Jesus would have followed if he really “respected the law, and rejected only the interpretations of the law”, which is the conventional understanding of his attitude.

Jesus chooses to base his argument on the example of David. But since the issue is sabbath observance, we might wonder why he does not refer to the “sabbath travel” aspect of David’s example. “If David can do that on the sabbath, then my disciples can do this on the sabbath.” Just as in the following “withered hand” story, he uses the hypothetical example of what the Pharisees would do themselves to save an animal on that day.

He prefers to use the “shewbread” example, because he’s making “hunger” the common ground between the two cases, The actual argument is “If David can do that when he is hungry, then my disciples can do this when they are hungry”.

This makes a big difference to the generalised moral implied in his comments. In the withered hand case, the generalised moral is that the sabbath taboo is unimportant enough to be set aside in time of need. The implication of quoting the shewbread story is that ritual taboos in general are unimportant enough to be set aside in time of need. This questions the value of the entire ritual side of the legal code. Does God really want us to understand “Love the Lord your God” in such a way that it interferes with “Love your neighbour as yourself”?

In all three gospel accounts, Jesus concludes his case with “The Son of man is lord of the sabbath”. He means himself, not the human race in general. Sent by the Father, and speaking with the authority of the Father, he has the right to declare what God really wants from the sabbath.

Matthew (ch12 vv5-7) expands this closing argument. The priests in the temple are “working on the sabbath”, if we want to be pedantic, but that doesn’t matter because they are serving God directly. But now “something greater than the temple is here”. Again, meaning himself. So this is another version of “the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath”.

But that seems to make the argument from David’s example redundant. How do we relate the two lines of thought? The answer may be in the verse also found in Matthew, as quoted by Jesus; “I desire mercy, not sacrifice”.

We have the authority of the Son of man, mediated through the Holy Spirit sent by Father and Son together (John ch14). It is on that authority that we, like Jesus, judge mercy to be more important than sacrifice, love more important than ritual, the spirit of the law more important than the letter of the law.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
“Have you not read what David did when he was hungry?” (Matthew ch12 v3)

We have the authority of the Son of man, mediated through the Holy Spirit sent by Father and Son together (John ch14). It is on that authority that we, like Jesus, judge mercy to be more important than sacrifice, love more important than ritual, the spirit of the law more important than the letter of the law.

Christians are under the covenant of Jesus, grace, never subject to the laws of Moses, if we were we would be Jews
Jesus commanded that Christians should operate through love not legalism.
Even in the Old Testament we could see reflections of love over law constantly
The laws were made to protect people not condemn people.

I have been watching the “Chosen”, explains this very well. Let love be the whole of the law

Romans 13
8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not covet,"[ a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[ b] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor.

The Pharisees were double minded vipers! They had no love, and will have no part of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Their names are not in the Book of Life. Gnashing of teeth, canker worm food. Eternal torment.

a reply to: Raggedyman
Exactly so. Apart from the fact that Paul wrote after the Cross, and Jesus spoke before the Cross took place, there is no difference between their teachings.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Raggedyman
Exactly so. Apart from the fact that Paul wrote after the Cross, and Jesus spoke before the Cross took place, there is no difference between their teachings.

There is one difference in their teachings? If you want to find the difference you will need to read from the KJV and compare contexts and teachings they used the verse for. they are slightly different.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
Some people can find what they are looking for.

a reply to: DISRAELI

yep and you are that some people.

Did you notice in Raggy's post that n Romans there is NO SABBATH DAY REQUIREMENT MENTIONED?

a reply to: ChesterJohn
And the whole point of the passage in the OP is that the sabbath day requirement is not absolute.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Rightly Dividing will tell you who is to do it and when. Today it is not an absolute. But during the Tribulation and Millennial kingdom it will be again.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Because, we won’t be under grace, Jesus removes His grace from the church and breaks His covenant with Christians, am-ah?

That’s an interpretation CJ, from a bible you believe is Gods word, unfortunately I am not so fundamental.
If you are right, ok but, not really that important unless you are trying to prove your value

As for Diz’s thread, it’s about God’s love to Gods people and that the law is made for man and not man for the law. Thinking that’s in the KJV

I had a KJV, my dog got bored and tore the whole book to shreds, literal shreds (leather), bit annoyed as I had lots of my notes in it, it was pretty good
I didn’t worship it though
See, love is more important than the law, also more important than what bible you read as well, as I understand
That’s the theme

a reply to: Raggedyman

Man is not generic with Jesus as his ministry was to the lost tribes of Israel. Paul on the other hand Ministry was to the gentiles that he might through that ministry bring some of his own people to the Jesus (context of Romans 9-11).


My value is in Christ.

I understand what Disraeli is saying but the point is Paul's teachiing and Jesus Teaching agree on some points but no sabbath Observance, Jesus Did teach it.

a reply to: Raggedyman

The lesson here... Don't read your bible to your Dog

LOL

originally posted by: visitedbythem
The Pharisees were double minded vipers! They had no love, and will have no part of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Their names are not in the Book of Life. Gnashing of teeth, canker worm food. Eternal torment.

Not really
The Pharisees with all their faults were mostly considered righteous, doing their best
Not all of them but many were really trying to make Israel a better place as best they could
They just didn’t understand God’s plan

Many Christians I know are not much different from the Pharisees, condemning, judging, just generally demanding law over love
Take the recent gay debate in my country, condemning homosexual marriage.
Jesus never got involved in affairs of state, He just loved people, mostly broken people
I see more Pharisees in the Christian church than I read in the bible

a reply to: Raggedyman


LOL!


Mat 23:1  Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 
Mat 23:2  Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 
Mat 23:3  All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 
Mat 23:4  For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 
Mat 23:5  But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 
Mat 23:6  And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 
Mat 23:7  And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 

Mat 23:13  But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. 
Mat 23:14  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. 
Mat 23:15  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. 
Mat 23:16  Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! 
Mat 23:17  Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? 
Mat 23:18  And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. 
Mat 23:19  Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? 
Mat 23:20  Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. 
Mat 23:21  And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. 
Mat 23:22  And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. 
Mat 23:23  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 
Mat 23:24  Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. 
Mat 23:25  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 
Mat 23:26  Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. 
Mat 23:27  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 
Mat 23:28  Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. 
Mat 23:29  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 
Mat 23:30  And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 
Mat 23:31  Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 
Mat 23:32  Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 
Mat 23:33  Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 
Mat 23:34  Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 
Mat 23:35  That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 
Mat 23:36  Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. 




Now you want me to field the homosexuality comment as well? Seriously? Yes, you are to love homosexuals. Just not the way they want you too.

All the versions of the Bible have errors. KJV is most accurate, but it plenty of its own. You need to translate word by word from Hebrew and Greek to fully understand, and to get the whole unadulterated picture. Use Strong's concordance. A great program for you to use online is E-Sword

a reply to: visitedbythem

the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said,
…except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no way enter the Kingdom of God.” (Matthew 5:20)
www.prevailmagazine.org...

I honestly think the Pharisees were trying their best in the situation
Yes, they did have their faults, yes they did cause problems but, many were trying their best
Not unlike many Christians today

And no, please don’t field the homosexual issue, not sure it’s even our job

My point, many Christians today are acting like Pharisees, I once did, maybe still do, unfortunately it was my best effort not malicious

Not saying you are wrong, just that they were probably trying their best

a reply to: RaggedymanMy point, . . . . unfortunately it was my best effort not malicious

SO you want our grace that it was just your best effort and not being malicious but you accuse me of maliciousness without giving me the benefit of the doubt.

That is known as hypocrisy.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn

a reply to: RaggedymanMy point, . . . . unfortunately it was my best effort not malicious

SO you want our grace that it was just your best effort and not being malicious but you accuse me of maliciousness without giving me the benefit of the doubt.

That is known as hypocrisy.

No, just pointing out that we are all flawed, Christians as well as Pharisees

a reply to: Raggedyman

They were trying their best. They did think they triumphed for a few days there too. Fortunately they triumphed, then failed, or none of us would have had a chance.

When Yeshua said …except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no way enter the Kingdom of God.” (Matthew 5:20). What I get from this, is, when you are bound by the law, it is impossible to be redeemed, as no one can keep the whole law as required.

I cant see inside the Scribes and Pharisees hearts, but I take my cue from what I see their outward behavior was. They went out of their way to attack the God that they were pretending to worship. This suggest that they did not know God, otherwise they would have recognised Him when He arrived on the scene, as their Messiah. It is written, that , a man can only have one master. To me, this would suggest that He was not their master. The other master( The dark lord) , was the one they obeyed, as proven by their works. Did you read all the names Yeshua called them in my comment above? Im surprised He didnt add assbites, dirty sons of bitches, and steaming piles of poo to the list




Thats why he said " Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Because they didnt/wont. They are in a prison, as we discuss this very subject. They are awaiting their final judgement and destruction in the Lake of fire.

Can you even begin to imagine the fury of God toward those bastards for what they did to His son? Imagine how you would feel if someone did that to your son....

Anyway, Im sorry if I sometimes get a bit aggressive with my comments. I always get tapped on the shoulder, by the Holy Spirit when I do. He doesnt care for pride, arrogance, or any of the other nonsense I sometimes fall into, and lets me know right away. Im working on it.

a reply to: visitedbythemIm surprised He didnt add assbites, dirty sons of bitches, and steaming piles of poo to the list

Not I, seeing God is much more respectful than men. He uses words like dung in place of poo, s#it or crap, he uses thing instead of Penis, he calls sexual intimacy Knew, Know, Fornication and Adultery instead of sex, make love or get down etc. God is far more respectful than man is.


BTW, how many times is YESHUA found in the Bible? I can't find it at all in my AV, I do find Jeshua.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Trying their best? Maybe. Maybe not.

I think the law sets us up much like the rules of political correctness and being Woke set up the youth of today. Everyone loves to be right, and they love even better feeling morally superior. The scribes and pharisees were supposed to be the best and most righteous of all.

How good is that? Being morally superior and spending all your time telling everyone else where they failed to be as good as you? That's the trap of the law and legalism. You get so caught up in it that you miss where your own faults are.

Why do you think the pharisees were such poisonous hypocrites?