Did Yeshua Endorse David's Eating Of The Showbread To Excuse His Apostle's Supposed Sabbath Breakings?
At that season Jesus went on the sabbath day through the grainfields; and his disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears and to eat.
But the Pharisees, when they saw it, said unto him, “Behold, thy disciples do that which it is not lawful to do upon the sabbath.”
But he said unto them, “Have ye not read what David did, when he was hungry, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and ate the showbread, which it was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests?”
So reads the inspired narrative of Matthew’s Gospel record (12:1-4). There are those who employ this narrative as biblical precedent for the philosophy of situation ethics.
Situation ethics is the notion that there are no absolute rules governing right and wrong. Rather, all human activity is determined by the situation of the moment—supposedly guided by love alone. The aforementioned case regarding Israel’s great king is cited as authoritative for this concept of human conduct.
On a certain occasion, David and his men were hungry (see 1 Samuel 21:6). In a time of crisis, they resorted to eating the sacred bread that was reserved for priests. This act was not lawful, but the desperation of the hour justified the conduct—so we are told.
It is alleged that Jesus himself cited with approval what David did. Supposedly, Christ endorsed David’s practice of situation ethics, and, thereby, justified the law-breaking conduct of his own disciples.
Joseph Fletcher contended that Jesus “blessed David’s act on the basis of the situation.” And so, he argued, it is clear that “only the end justifies the means: nothing else” (1966, 133; cf. 85, 86).
This philosophy of situation ethics is bereft of merit, and for the following reasons:
First, human conduct cannot be regulated solely upon the basis of some sort of ambiguous “love.” That is like a criminal court judge admonishing all the participants in a trial to merely be fair, without any regard for a recognition that law exists.
Similarly, love, outside the boundary of specific guidelines (e.g., the law of Christ [1 Corinthians 9:21; Galatians 6:2]), is but a subjective, unregulated emotion. And one person’s love can be another person’s hate.
Suppose one should argue that Adolf Hitler acted in “love” when he exterminated six million Jews. On what possible ground would such a claim be made? On the basis that Hitler felt that by eliminating those whom he considered to be inferior, he was nudging humanity toward a higher plateau on the evolutionary scale (see The Holocaust: Why Did It Happen?). Never mind how perverted his thinking was, the issue is if he believed he was acting in love, was his conduct moral?
Subjectivity can never be the standard for human conduct. “All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes” (Proverbs 16:2). If situation ethics is valid, there is no act under heaven that cannot be justified!
Second, the narrative in Matthew 12 does not provide support for the dogma of situation ethics. On a certain Sabbath day, the Lord and his disciples were passing through a grain field. The disciples, being hungry, began to pluck grain and eat it. Certain Pharisees saw this and charged the Savior’s men with breaking the law of Moses.
Did the disciples violate divine law? They did not. Admittedly, they transgressed the uninspired traditions of the Jewish elders, but they had not broken the law of God. Alfred Edersheim, himself of Jewish extraction, carefully discussed this passage. He observed that the disciples’ conduct “was not a breach of the Biblical, but of the Rabbinic Law” (1947, 56).
Additionally, it is not accurate to suggest that Jesus endorsed David’s conduct in partaking of the showbread, which only priests were authorized to eat. In fact, just the opposite is true. The Lord said that Israel’s king ate that “which it was not lawful for him for him to eat” (v. 4). Could a statement be plainer?
That, then, brings us to this question: why did Christ introduce the case of David and the temple bread?
The use of this Old Testament illustration is an example of a form of reasoning known as ad hominem argument. An ad hominem (literally meaning, “to the man”) argument is not made for the purpose of establishing positive truth. Rather, it is employed to highlight an opponent’s inconsistency. The Lord’s point may be paraphrased as follows:
You Pharisees revere David as a great king and Hebrew hero. David once broke the law of Moses by the illegal consumption of sacred food. But you do not condemn him for that!
By way of contrast, my disciples have violated only your silly traditions—yet you charge them with sin. How very inconsistent you are!
J. W. McGarvey described the matter in this fashion:
Now the real argument of Jesus is this: David, when hungry, ate the show-bread, which it was confessedly unlawful for him to eat, yet you justify him: my disciples pluck grain and eat it on the Sabbath, an act which the law does not forbid, and yet you condemn them (n.d., 104).
This incident contains not a vestige of support for the concept of situation ethics. Those who attempt to justify situation ethics by the use of Matthew 12:1ff have totally misconstrued the force of Christ’s argument.
Situation ethics is a voguish belief in a world of immoral rebels who are determined to cast off divine restraints and “play God.”
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/297-did-jesus-endorse-situ...
But the Pharisees, when they saw it, said unto him, “Behold, thy disciples do that which it is not lawful to do upon the sabbath.”
But he said unto them, “Have ye not read what David did, when he was hungry, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and ate the showbread, which it was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests?”
So reads the inspired narrative of Matthew’s Gospel record (12:1-4). There are those who employ this narrative as biblical precedent for the philosophy of situation ethics.
Situation ethics is the notion that there are no absolute rules governing right and wrong. Rather, all human activity is determined by the situation of the moment—supposedly guided by love alone. The aforementioned case regarding Israel’s great king is cited as authoritative for this concept of human conduct.
On a certain occasion, David and his men were hungry (see 1 Samuel 21:6). In a time of crisis, they resorted to eating the sacred bread that was reserved for priests. This act was not lawful, but the desperation of the hour justified the conduct—so we are told.
It is alleged that Jesus himself cited with approval what David did. Supposedly, Christ endorsed David’s practice of situation ethics, and, thereby, justified the law-breaking conduct of his own disciples.
Joseph Fletcher contended that Jesus “blessed David’s act on the basis of the situation.” And so, he argued, it is clear that “only the end justifies the means: nothing else” (1966, 133; cf. 85, 86).
This philosophy of situation ethics is bereft of merit, and for the following reasons:
First, human conduct cannot be regulated solely upon the basis of some sort of ambiguous “love.” That is like a criminal court judge admonishing all the participants in a trial to merely be fair, without any regard for a recognition that law exists.
Similarly, love, outside the boundary of specific guidelines (e.g., the law of Christ [1 Corinthians 9:21; Galatians 6:2]), is but a subjective, unregulated emotion. And one person’s love can be another person’s hate.
Suppose one should argue that Adolf Hitler acted in “love” when he exterminated six million Jews. On what possible ground would such a claim be made? On the basis that Hitler felt that by eliminating those whom he considered to be inferior, he was nudging humanity toward a higher plateau on the evolutionary scale (see The Holocaust: Why Did It Happen?). Never mind how perverted his thinking was, the issue is if he believed he was acting in love, was his conduct moral?
Subjectivity can never be the standard for human conduct. “All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes” (Proverbs 16:2). If situation ethics is valid, there is no act under heaven that cannot be justified!
Second, the narrative in Matthew 12 does not provide support for the dogma of situation ethics. On a certain Sabbath day, the Lord and his disciples were passing through a grain field. The disciples, being hungry, began to pluck grain and eat it. Certain Pharisees saw this and charged the Savior’s men with breaking the law of Moses.
Did the disciples violate divine law? They did not. Admittedly, they transgressed the uninspired traditions of the Jewish elders, but they had not broken the law of God. Alfred Edersheim, himself of Jewish extraction, carefully discussed this passage. He observed that the disciples’ conduct “was not a breach of the Biblical, but of the Rabbinic Law” (1947, 56).
Additionally, it is not accurate to suggest that Jesus endorsed David’s conduct in partaking of the showbread, which only priests were authorized to eat. In fact, just the opposite is true. The Lord said that Israel’s king ate that “which it was not lawful for him for him to eat” (v. 4). Could a statement be plainer?
That, then, brings us to this question: why did Christ introduce the case of David and the temple bread?
The use of this Old Testament illustration is an example of a form of reasoning known as ad hominem argument. An ad hominem (literally meaning, “to the man”) argument is not made for the purpose of establishing positive truth. Rather, it is employed to highlight an opponent’s inconsistency. The Lord’s point may be paraphrased as follows:
You Pharisees revere David as a great king and Hebrew hero. David once broke the law of Moses by the illegal consumption of sacred food. But you do not condemn him for that!
By way of contrast, my disciples have violated only your silly traditions—yet you charge them with sin. How very inconsistent you are!
J. W. McGarvey described the matter in this fashion:
Now the real argument of Jesus is this: David, when hungry, ate the show-bread, which it was confessedly unlawful for him to eat, yet you justify him: my disciples pluck grain and eat it on the Sabbath, an act which the law does not forbid, and yet you condemn them (n.d., 104).
This incident contains not a vestige of support for the concept of situation ethics. Those who attempt to justify situation ethics by the use of Matthew 12:1ff have totally misconstrued the force of Christ’s argument.
Situation ethics is a voguish belief in a world of immoral rebels who are determined to cast off divine restraints and “play God.”
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/297-did-jesus-endorse-situ...
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Pastor valentine on
-
God forgave david and his men ,for the eating of the temple bread. In the old trestament we were under law. In the new testament we are under grace. Jesus is the lord of the sabbatth, and can do as he pleases. we even find today as God forgave david,so has he also forgiven us.
-
Permalink Reply by James Pierce on
-
Shalom Pastor,
I believe the point really is this: The Pharisees were accusing Yeshua and the Apostles for breaking the Sabbath, yet they did not accuse David for eating the consecrated bread that was only given to the Priests. Yeshua and His Apostles were not actually sinning by plucking grain on the Sabbath. There is no such teaching in the Torah condemning one for doing so. Yeshua and His Apostles were breaking "traditions of man."
In the Old Testament, we were under the Torah, and in the New Testament, we are still under the Torah. Going under grace does not change the fact that we are to be obedient to the Torah. Wasn't it Paul that said in Romans 3:31 that our faith does not throw away the Torah, but upholds the Torah? Wasn't it Paul that said that he only agrees with what accords with the Torah and Prophets, in the book of Acts?
You stated that Yeshua can do as He pleases on the Sabbath. That cannot be true at all. Death came to them who broke the Sabbath, and if Yeshua did as He pleases, then He would not be the Messiah, for the Messiah must be free from sin. John 15:10-11 records Yeshua stating that He kept His father's Torah, and that includes the Sabbath. So the Torah still stands for us to obey.
Let us not forget 1 John 2, which says that we should walk as Yeshua walked. How did Yeshua walk? He walked in His father's Torah! What should WE do? We should walk in the father's Torah. May HaShem be gracious to you, Pastor.
Shalom
-
-
Anthony,
John 15:10,"just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love." His father's commandments are contained nowhere but in the Torah, and that includes the Sabbath(Exodus 20).
I am not sure if you read my article on Acts 15, but I expound in detail on the background and understanding of it. The Apostles never said not to impose the written Torah on the Gentiles, but rather the traditions of men. Notice verse 21, which says that Moses has in every city, someone to teach the Torah. The meaning is this: The Gentiles will learn the Torah every Sabbath.
Jeremiah 31 cannot be even clearer. You highlighted the fact that this covenant will not be like the sinai covenant, but does that mean that Torah will be excluded? Of course not. You said that HaShem will write the laws(not the Torah) on our hearts. Friend, you did not look at the Hebrew for law, and the word is TORAH. So, He will write the Torah on our hearts.
But what is different about this covenant? Let us see the words of HaShem: my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. Hebrews 8: For he finds fault with them when he says.
This new covenant will NEVER be broken... EVER. There will be NO fault found in HIS people under the NEW COVENANT, which includes the Torah. THAT is what the new covenant wont be like compared to the sinai covenant. No more of your false exegesis, Pastor.
-
-
Anthony,
I would like to address the problem of Acts 15. Before one jumps forward to the conclusion of Acts 15, one must ask themselves,"Why did the Jerusalem council come together, and what was the problem?" The problem is laid out in Acts 15's premise, verses 1-2:
Acts 15:1-2,"But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
As we see here in Acts 15's premise, the reason why this council of Jerusalem came together, was because certain men were teaching that If you are not circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. Paul and the Apostles came together to discuss this very matter., and its so much to the reasons they came together.
First off, we have to consider some key things before actually diving into Acts 15. Background information is critical here. Notice that these men, who were most likely Jews, was teaching that circumcision saves you, and that it is according to the custom of Moses. I have come to tell you that there is not one single verse in YHWH'S Torah that even hints that circumcision saves a person.
The bible does shows us that YHWH commanded his people to be circumised, because it is the sign of the covenant He made with Abraham. The not so nice consequence of not being circumcised was being cut off from his people, and not be apart of Israel, and the covenant.
The scripture states In Genesis 17:10-13,"And this is the covenant which you shall fully keep between Me and you, and between your descendants after you for their generations; every male of you shall be circumcised. And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised by you, every male throughout your generations, and the servant born in the house and he that is bought with money, of every son of a stranger, who is not of your offspring. He that is born in your house, and he that is bought with money shall surely be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."
The scripture clealy shows us what circumcision really is according to the written Torah of Moses, and not from traditions. Get circumcised as a sign of the Abrahamic covenant. Each person, including the Gentiles that went with Israel, had to undergo this commandment.
The bible shows us that Abraham was saved before circumcision was ever an instruction. Romans 4:3 states,"Abraham believed YHWH, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” You can attest to this fact. So, the premise of Acts 15 is really showing us that its not actually the written custom of Moses that tells us salvation comes through circumcision, rather, it is the written customs of man that teaches this.
Take note of Yeshua's words in Mark 7:6-8,"This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. You leave the commandment of YHWH and hold to the tradition of men."
Notice the phrase where Yeshua said that they leave the commandment of YHWH and hold to the tradition of men. That's exactly what's happening here in Acts 15. It is the mere posing of man's traditions on the followers of Yeshua and the Israelites. And so they are bringing these traditions into question at the council. These traditions are what ancient, and modern Rabbis refer to as "fences", which guard around the written Torah to conceal the truth of actual interpretation.
Another key thing to understand is that Jews back then, and even in this day and age, still hold the Oral Torah(Talmud) in higher esteem than the actual written Torah that is outlined in the 1st five books of the bible. In their world, and today's world, a Rabbi's word will take 1st place over,"This is what the YHWH says, or it is written." This is the exact background of Acts 15.
So, now you understand that its not the custom of Moses that command circumcision for salvation, but its the custom of man that does, for Yeshua said,"You leave the commandment of YHWH and hold to the tradition of men.
Now, the Apostles are there confronting this very premise, and Peter made the truth of the Gospel very clear to them all. He stated this truth in Acts 15:11,"But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Adonai Yeshua, just as they will.”
Do you see that? Peter refuted any salvation by the Torah, and made the Gospel statement, that we are saved by the grace of the Adonai Yeshua, and that the Gentiles will be saved the same way. Paul attested to what Peter said concerning salvation in Messiah when he said in Eph 2:8-9,"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of YHWH, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." There is no separate Torah, or salvation for the Jew & Gentile. All are one in Messiah, and all are saved by Messiah, and not the Torah.
Lets get to the four instructions that all the Apostles agreed upon to give the Gentile believers as the intial acceptance into the Messianic Jewish community. It is the common misunderstanding, and possible deception, to believe that these four laws that were given to the Gentiles are the only instructions that they will ever have to follow in their walk with Yeshua. But, is this actually true?
Let us take a closer look at these 4 instructions:
To abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols
From scripture, and historical background information, we know that things that have been sacrificed to idols are food. Even Jews are not to eat anything sacrificed to pagan gods. In the Greco-Roman world, this practice was carried out in the pagan temples, where they would have feasts, and eat meat that was given to idol gods for their own pleasures. This actually breaks the 1st commandment in Exodus 20:3,"You shall have no other gods beside Me".
To abstain from blood
Dealing with Blood, Lev 17:12,"Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘No soul of you shall eat blood, and the stranger that abides among you shall not eat blood." Technically, the Apostles were agreeing that Gentiles follow Torah here. The word stranger here refers to Gentile peoples, for the record. If Gentiles are to live with, and be in covenant with Hebrews, then they are to adhere to their Torah.
To abstain from what has been strangled
To get a clear understanding of what this actually means, one must look into the culture of the Greco-Roman people. It is shown that when these pagans do their sacrifices to eat them, they would strangle the animal, and technically, blood will be trapped in their flesh. The animal is not properly drained. Jews were commanded to stay away from this as well. Them eating strangled animals will violate the command to not eat blood. Thus, Gentiles were commanded to keep Torah here.
To abstain from sexual immorality
Lev 18 clearly gives us laws dealing with sex, and that Jews should stay away from any sexual conduct that violates Torah. Gentiles were to do the same thing, and hence, they are following Torah on here.
What am I showing? I am showing that Gentiles still obeyed Torah, and I am also showing you that these four laws were what the pagans actually did. In other words, they ate meat given to idols, things strangled, ate blood, and fornicated.
But why give them just these four instructions to obey? The answer is interesting here.
Jews of that time were already offended that uncircumcised people(Gentiles) were going into the courts, and synagogues, learning their Torah. They did not even want to be around Gentiles. In order to not offend the Jewish community, and, in other words, make them feel good, the Apostles wanted these Gentiles to keep these four basic instructions that everyone agreed on to get them accepted into the community. By the Apostles agreeing to these four instructions, they would be accepted by the Jews, and this would lead to the understanding of verse 21.
James also states a great statement that most Christians miss. He stated in acts 15:21,"For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
In other words, Every city has someone teaching YHWH's Torah every Sabbath, and eventually, the Gentile believer would learn of their new God, and his instructions every Sabbath. In fact, this is the only time they could hear the Old Testament---The Sabbath! By doing this, these new Gentile believers would also be learning about the Sabbath day and how to keep it. It would not make sense to cram every instruction of the Torah down their throats right then and there, therefore, they would learn all the Torah every Sabbath. James gave those instructions to get them accepted into the community, and to start them off with the Torah, which is the right thing to do with Gentiles who were not born into the Hebrew faith.
One may mention Acts 15:10 where it talks about putting yokes around the necks of the Apostles, and others that want to follow YHWH. The yoke is not the Torah of YHWH. The Torah of YHWH was never looked on as a yoke of burden. If that was true, then all the prophets would have been in trouble, and they would not have blessed YHWH Torah. Paul said in Romans 3:31,"Do we then overthrow the Torah by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the Torah." Its no use to uphold a Torah that is burdensome, and cannot be kept. YHWH's word declares that we can keep his Torah, and its not a burden. Duet 30:11,"For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off."
In fact, Paul stated in romans 7:12,"So the Torah is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good." No burden at all. 1 John 5:3 states that YHWH's commandments are NOT burdensome. So, the yoke he mentions is not referring to the Torah itself, but of the TRADITIONS OF MAN, which these traditions forces the Torah to become a burden to men.
This is why they did not want to put everything on these new Gentile believers. They would eventually learn the Torah every Sabbath(Acts 15:21), so that they will learn the TRUTH of the Torah so that it would not be a burden resulting from Men's traditions. I believe I have addressed this problem of Acts 15, and I hope your mind stays open to learning of the wonders of YHWH's holy Torah and prophets, for it is the foundation for which all of YHWH's word incepts(begins).
1 John 5:3,"For this is the love of YHWH, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome."
Shalom
© 2024 Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..
Powered by
