12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? 6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7 And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”
I ventured this question to those who were studying with me: "How did Jesus know that David did not sin through the eating of the Bread of the Presence?"
If you read the account of David's eating in 1 Samuel 21, there is no mention of sin or sinlessness on his part. Certainly some of his other involvements might be suspect at this point but not the eating. To further confuse the issue, Jesus admits that "it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him but only for the priests."
From the context, we would gather that Jesus' antagonists were unable to offer rebuttal to Jesus' interpretation of the 1 Samuel event. Of course, as Jesus freaks, we would also conclude that Jesus was indeed correct in his interpretation.
So the question remains, "How does Jesus know that David did not sin in doing what was 'unlawful'?"
The only thing I can gather is that Jesus saw David's need as surpassing in priority the requirements of the Law or that since the historian did not explicitly condemn David, that He also saw David as innocent in this matter.
And on top of this, Jesus takes his interpretation of an otherwise obscure passage and applies it to his disciples.
What kind of "hermeneutic" is Jesus using? One where the intention of the Law subordinates the Letter of the Law?
11 comments:
Superb! i wanna jump on this train 'fore the People Who Already Know Everything take over. ;-)
Ain't it just a li'l haunting that He seemed to be able to just make it up as He went along? But then you gotta think that His interlocutors weren't a bunch of idiots. "Dumdeedum... So if David, umm, ate the bread, and... dumdeedum.. wasn't smitten with spontaneous combustion...dumdeedum... then... he must not've sinned!! And so, um, you guys must not've sinned either! Man, were we ever outta line! You sure got us there, woo boy!"
Very interesting.
Hi brothers,
I really appreciate the thoughts around Matthew 12 and hermeneutics. Jason made a good point about the priority of human need. What does this have to do with hermeneutics/interpreting the Bible? I think most Bible readers will maintian that we speak where the Bible speaks. So we look to clear commands/principles and theological truths to make sense of God, reality and life.
Our initial concern in dealing with 1 Samuel 21 is that David violated a clear command. And then Jesus drops the bombshell, "yet he was innocent/guiltless." His breaking of the law was not an act of defiance against God ... or even indifference to God's law. Uzzah's problem was indifference. I would love to pursue the discussion of hermeneutics some more later. Have to go for now.
Love you guys
I think the story of David eating the Bread of the Presence serves to illuminate the point that Jesus was driving home. Some things are better than others and some things are greater than others. To misquote a line from Orwell, 'All scriptures are true: some are more true than others.'
How did Jesus know that David was guiltless? I think it has less to do with herman's new ticks and more to do with the fact that Christ was actually present when Dave and the boys took and ate the bread. After all, the bread was not an empty symbol, but a sacred living reality.
Jesus argued that something greater than the rules of the sanctuary was at stake. The Lord of the Rest desires mercy, not sacrifice.
When David and his companions were hungry, weary, and persecuted the Lord of the Sabbath granted them rest and refreshment. The Lord Jesus refreshed them "sacramentally" by the Bread of the Presence. Doesn't he do the same for us?
So what does this mean for us? It means we should speak and act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. (Jms.2)
__________
I think the Uzzah's case is different than David's case. Uzzah's intent to steady the ark the final straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.
Israel were already in deep trouble (under judgment) by the time Uzzah touched the ark which, by the way, was just returning from a tour of captivity in Philistia.
I realize that the Lord's wrath struck Uzzah down because of his irreverent act (ESV), but in a sense even Uzzah's death was judgment mixed with mercy. I think it was redemptive because his death was representative: one man died on behalf of God's people. It was a sobering moment that served to bring the nation back to its senses. The irreverent nation was judged (in Uzzah) which resulted in repentance and renewal.
After a season of remorse and reflection Israel applied the scriptures to the situation and carried the ark back to Jerusalem with reverence and awe.
I agree with Marq that the Lord of the Sabbath was present with Ahimelech gave the shewbread to David and companions. He judged David innocent even after Ahimelech/David violated a clear command. All I can come up with is that not all laws carry equal weight. Marq pointed this out in his response. Jesus said that "justice, mercy and faithfulness" were weightier matters of the law. The other laws were also important but they did not carry equal weight. Ahimelech's actions were consistent with the weightier matters of the law even though it violated the "less weightier" matters. I judge that there is a great principle of interpretation for us here. Let me illustrate this for us. The Scripture teaches about the role of women in the assembly. The must be silent, are not allowed to teach or to have authority over a man. Is this a weightier matter of the law? I don't think so. Is it an important matter? Yes, it is. It's important for us to study it out and obey it because it is a word from God. Is it possible for someone to be wrong on this issue and still be innocent? There are those who would disagree. Perhaps my example is way off base. I'd love to hear from those who disagree or who could offer another explanation in this regard.
Love to all
Thanks for thoughtful replies.
I was struck by the "silence" argument myself, Sean.
And some might argue that to imply that Jesus was present at the David incident and therefore had first hand knowledge is a wee-bit deux ex machina. But I don't know. Somehow He knew.
A sister that I know prepared and taught a quite comprehensive discourse on Truth and the idea that "God is Truth." Part of her argumentation was that Abram was not obedient to God when he left Haran because, against God's order to "leave his family," he allowed Lot to accompany him or more specifically, he "took Lot with him." Secondly, she went on to conclude that the problems that Abram faced because of Lot, were the consequences of his disobedient decision. Finally, as if his indiscretion with Hagar were not enough, her thesis assumed that Abram was also disobedient to God when he left for Egypt in the midst of a famine.
As you may know, she is not alone in her interpretation of these texts. To my knowledge, Scripture does not associate any of these decisions with sin. Certainly the Hagar incident is "condemned" and we would not condone his lying behavior in Egypt or later with the governor. However, in regards to his other actions, Scripture does not imply anything other than righteous behavior and a faithful following of the Lord's commands through obedience.
The implementation of the "Silent where the Bible is silent" hermeneutic (as we have seen in the Restoration Movement) is full of holes. Just like my own practical theology, I'm sure.
However, if we are to be people of grace, one characteristic we ought to exhibit is the notion that people (the Body) are without sin unless Scripture explicitly calls their behavior sinful. The Pharisees and the modern day ones are often guilty of creating a law where there is no Law and then ascribing transgression where there is none.
Yeah, Cody.
I wonder if the Pharisees did buy Jesus' interpretation or not.
My guess is that if they had been in China, they would have told Him to "go fly a kite."
:)
I don't favor the "silence argument." Did you think that I was pushing for it? On the contrary, I ascribe to the first part of the phrase only, "we speak where the Bible speak" and not to "silent where the Bible is silent." In this way, I am more like the Christian Churches. Or Reformed Theologians who refer to the "regulative principle" in matters such as instrumental music. My point was simply that we look to what is clearly stated first before we move in areas that are less clear.
Your point is well taken. We shouldn't judge in areas where Scripture doesn't clearly come down on the issue.
Deus ex Machina.
Very funny.
But i think the emphasis of that argument wouldn't (or shouldn't, at least) be that Jesus found Himself and His disciples justified by His convenient first-hand knowledge of the David Incident in virtue of His having been present there back in the day. Rather, having been present at the David Incident-- just as He's present at every event in all eternity-- He justified Himself and His disciples by having first justified David: He only consequently knew that David was justified 'cuz He justified 'im.
There's a Deus ex Machina for yas. And still the oddest thing is that you don't get the slightest impression that the Pharisees told Him to go fly a kite. You get the impression that they (at least publicly) accepted that they'd been handed their phylacteries on a plate. It didn't seem to occur to them to ask why or by what authority He assumed David to be innocent, even in light of the fact that He also declared his actions unlawful.
So JW, do you think my theory of Jesus' actual presence is a tad bit Deus ex machina? If so, why? If not, okay. Just wonder what else you might have to say about that topic. It piqued my interest.
By the way, I do believe there is real distinction between the Letter of the Law and the Spirit of the Law. Fundamentally, and err, humanly speaking, Jesus probably read the biblical narrative with that distinction in mind.
Hey Marq,
I am in no position to say that your comment was deux ex machina." If I did hold that view, I would do so in ignorance. However, in dealing with how Jesus understood Scripture, would we always go so far as to say "He knew because He was there."? Was there a place in the life of Human Jesus to learn Scripture, its interpretation, its meaning and its use? Did He, in fact, learn these things - either through God's people or the Scripture or the Spirit? Just some thoughts.
In this case (with the Pharisees), I do not think He was trying emphasize His eternal nature or timeless involvement in time. He does go on to say, "Son of Man" and "Lord of the Sabbath" but I don't think these phrases would be the key to the Pharisees' interpretation of the David/Shewbread incident.
Does this answer your question?
------
Sorry, Sean. I know you are a not SWTBS,BSWTBIS kinda guy. I just wanted to use your name to give weight to my argument. Silence is valuable in interpretation if it keeps us from condemning the righteous. That was my only point.
Strum, strum, pluck, strum. Just playing a song I wrote from Ephesians 5 and Colosians 3. Its called "Sing with your heart."
------
Cody,
I just got your little comment "Superb! i wanna jump on this train 'fore the People Who Already Know Everything take over." On that train, I guess I would be the Engine since I wrote the original post. You and John would be the Conformists or at least the Coal Cars - People Who Don't Know Everything and Sean and Marq would be the "People Who Already Know Everything." Those unruly Passengers. Uncooperative Cabeese.
Too funny.
my knowledge is surpassed only by my ignorance. - jmt
Post a Comment