(Following is the completion of an article begun last month. It deals with Matt. 12:1-8 and the two incidents cited by the Master to establish that the disciples were guiltless in plucking and eating ears of corn on the sabbath day. The incidents were the priests offering sacrifices on the sabbath and David’s eating of the shewbread.
In the first article, the author indicated the passage needs to be read with the proper emphasis on not lawful in verse 4 and profane the sabbath in verse 5 . Both highlighted phrases indicate the erroneous conclusions of the distorted Pharisaic perception of the sabbath. Yet in both incidents, the actions of the priests and of David were innocent in the eyes of God.)
David’s eating of the shewbread
The narrow, condemnatory approach of the Pharisees would require a wrong view of the conduct of David when “he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence…” (Matt. 12:4 all references from RSV). The Pharisaical view of the law would force the categorization of such action as “not lawful.” They would doubtless maintain:
- That it was not lawful for the priest to share this bread with any “outsider.”
- That it was emphatically not lawful to share it with David and his companions under the prevailing circumstances.
- That it was not lawful for David to accept the bread.
Regarding # 1.
The following scriptures are relevant:
Ex. 29:31-34: consumption of the flesh and the bread was limited to the High Priest and his sons. This restriction applies specifically to the occasion of their consecration and ordination.
Lev. 22:10: “An outsider shall not eat of a holy thing.” The entire chapter deals with “the holy things of the people of Israel, which they offer to the LORD” (v.15). This restriction applies to the sacrifices offered by the people, not to the bread of the Presence, which was prepared by Levites (I Chr. 9:32),
Lev. 24:5-9: After the bread was “removed from before the LORD” (I Sam. 21:6), it was “for Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place, since it is for him a most holy portion out of the offerings by fire to the LORD, a perpetual due” (Lev. 24:9). It was given to the priest; there was no prohibition against sharing it with others.
Isa. 58:6-7: “Is not this the fast that I choose:.. .to share your bread with the hungry…” The priest probably chose to go hungry himself, that David and his companions might be fed. Self-denial for the benefit of others is distinctly lawful.
Regarding #2.
Pharisees of every era would insist that David was manifestly unworthy to receive the bread of the Presence on at least the following grounds: David lied to the priest (I Sam. 21:2); his faith was weak in that he chose to rely on the sword, which he had earlier scorned (I Sam. 21:8- 9; 17:45-47); his judgment was poor in that he was about to flee for refuge to the Philistines! These factors demonstrate that David, indeed, did not deserve to enter the house of God to partake of the bread of life. Which of us ever does? God did not intervene to bar him; Jesus did not condemn him. Grace is not a New Testament concept; it is the primary element of the Law of the LORD (Ex. 34:6,7).
Regarding #3.
Where else should David have turned in his time of need? Where else can we turn? (John 6:68,69). When the bread of life is freely offered by the priest of God, should it not be accepted with humble gratitude? Repeatedly David would pray, “Turn thou to me, and be gracious to me; for I am lonely and afflicted. Consider my affliction and my trouble, and forgive all my sins. Oh guard my life, and deliver me; let me not be put to shame, for I take refuge in thee” (Psa. 25:16,18,20). It is lawful to seek and accept divine grace.
The Pharisees misconstrued the Law both in the letter and the spirit. In rebuking them, Jesus adds, “I tell you, something greater than the temple is here” (Matt. 12:6). Principles of divine grace had been operative in the house of God in the past, demonstrated in the two examples given. Now the same grace and truth would be manifested in even greater abundance and clarity in the person of the anointed Savior. Those who would impugn the conduct of the king and the priests of the past, those who were blind to the message of the prophets (Matt. 12:7), would soon plot to destroy the Son (Matt. 12:14), bringing upon themselves the condemnation, “Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets, I have slain them by the words of my mouth, and my judgment goes forth as the light. For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God, rather than burnt offerings” (Hos. 6:5,6).
Warning and encouragement
In this episode there is, for us, both warning and encouragement. With an unshakable conviction of the absolute reliability of the scriptures and of God’s consistency in His revelation and application of eternal principles, we can confidently affirm that there are no scriptural commandments in conflict with each other. To maintain otherwise is dangerous. Readers aware of any such apparent conflicts are invited to identify them for possible consideration in future articles.
There can be conflict between the commandments of God and those created by men, even by brethren. When we institute structures, rules, policies and procedures that effectively deny the bread of the Presence to faithful, needy brethren, when we bar from the house of God a single individual who is truly a servant of God, we align ourselves with the Pharisees. We then have reason to tremble. We are all unworthy servants. We stumble along the way, but vow never to leave it. We strive to look and to move in the right direction, falling far short of perfection. Others may even bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on our shoulders (Matt. 23:4). Look then, with abounding thankfulness, to the One who calls: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28).
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One