| |
|
| |
(1) At that time Jesus went through the grainfields
on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain
and to eat. (2) And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, "Look,
Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!" (3) But He
said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those
who were with him: (4) 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? New
King James Version Change your email Bible version
Consider the disciples' motivation for what they did. First, they were
hungry. Second, they were itinerate, using "shoe leather express," traveling
with Jesus as a part of His entourage. He
instructed them, giving them examples of His way of life, all along the way. He
Himself said that He had no place to lay His head. They had, therefore, no place
to prepare a meal. They did not have homes that they could readily return
to.
These were strong, young men, probably in their twenties or early thirties
(about the same age as Jesus), so they could have fasted without damage. But,
because it was the Sabbath, Jesus deliberately drew
attention to one of the Sabbath's main purposes: It is a day of mercy and not a
day of sacrifice.
Christ's justification comes from I Samuel 21:1-6. He reasoned that, if it was all right for David
to allay his hunger under an unusual circumstance by eating bread that had been
consecrated for holy use, His disciples could provide for their needs in this
manner. (The showbread was put into the Tabernacle on the table, and it sat
there during the entire week. Then, every Sabbath it was exchanged for new
bread. David ate the week-old bread that had just been exchanged for the
new.)
So what is He saying? The Sabbath is a day of mercy. And if one can rightly,
lawfully use "holy bread" to do something that, according to the letter of the
law, was illegal, then it was also legitimate for the disciples to provide for
their needs also in an unusual circumstance.
The emphasis here is on the word unusual. How frequently was David fleeing
for his life and finding himself hungry? It did happen, at least this one time,
but it did not happen every Sabbath. Maybe in David's lifetime something like
this occurred a few times, but even for a man of war like David, it did not
happen all that frequently.
The overall lesson, however, is that it is not the intention of God's
law to deprive anybody of good things. The intent of God's law is to ensure
life. If the need arises, one should not feel conscience-stricken to use the
Sabbath in a way that would not "normally" be lawful. Christ admitted that what
David did was not "normally" lawful. Neither was what the disciples were doing
"normally lawful," except for the extenuating circumstance.
In this case then, they were blameless because a larger obligation overruled
the letter of the law. The larger obligation was to be merciful.
The letter of the law said that they could not have that bread. The larger
obligation said that it was more important to eat than it was to fast (to
sacrifice eating). Holy bread, or holy time (the Sabbath), can be used
exceptionally in order to sustain life.
— John W. Ritenbaugh
To learn more, see:
The Fourth Commandment (Part 3)
Related Topics:
Larger Obligation
Mercy
Mercy as Larger Obligation
Sabbath
Sabbath as Blessing
Sabbath, Keeping Properly
Sabbath, Liberating Intent of
Please cancel my subscription to The Berean |
|
|
|
|
Posts