On a Sabbath,while he was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked and ate some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands. But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?” And Jesus answered them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?” And he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.” – Luke 6:1-5
This passage puzzled me for a long time. Questions arose every time I read it. Wasn’t David wrong for eating that bread? Is Jesus condoning David’s blantant violation of tabernacle law? Why would Jesus appeal to David eating the bread of the Presence when defending himself against accusations of Sabbath breaking?
I haven’t looked in any commentaries on this yet, my collection of the three volume Word commentary on Luke only includes the last two volumes so far. Besides, I like to work on it myself for a while before going to the commentaries. So here’s what I’ve wrestled with so far.
Jesus refers to the episode in 1Sa 21:1-6 where David has fled empty-handed from Saul and is now looking for food and weapons. He goes to the tabernacle which was at Nob and speaks to Ahimelech the priest, begging for food. Ahimelech says that they only food available is the show bread, the bread that is baked and placed on the tables in the holy place of the tabernacle. That bread is only supposed to be eaten by the priests when it is replaced weekly (Lev 24:5-9). He appears to indicate that it is only available to them if they’re clean; in this case if they’ve abstained from sex. Where did that come from?
In the end, David claims that they have and gets the bread as well as Goliath’s sword and he leaves. 1There is no mentioned in this story that David was traveling with companions, it appears that he was traveling alone. But Jesus indicates that he had young men with him. There is nothing in 1Sa 20 and 21 to indicate that he was entirely alone. The author only speaks of David but he could have had men with him who do not get mentioned because the author doesn’t want to divert our attention from David at this point. That is to say, the author never explicitly says that David traveled alone. Jesus wasn’t wrong. But what just happened? Did David and Ahimelech do something wrong here? By a strict interpretation of the Law, yes they did. What should give us pause on that is that this is never pointed to as one of David’s sins. There is no divine condemnation on the act and therefore we should be careful not to judge it ourselves. Of course that doesn’t mean that every action that is wrong in the Bible must have divine judgment to tell us it is wrong, but when it applies to one of whom it is said “he is a man after my own hear” and then Jesus holds up the episode as an example, well I think it should slow us down in rushing to judgment.
Alright Tim, then what did happen? 2I’m tempted to steal from Luther At The Movies and yell “SILENCE, IMAGINARY INTERLOCUTOR!” but that’s Martin Luther’s gig so I’ll let him have it. We have to include Jesus’ understanding of the text to get to the meaning. And in this case, we need to specifically include Jesus’ teaching on the Law to get to the point. According to Jesus, the entire Law hangs on two commandments, love God and love man (Matt 22:40). Obedience to the Law 3Notice that I capitalized ‘Law’. I did that to show that it has a specific reference to the Mosaic Law and not God’s moral law that is written on humanity’s heart. It is never okay to commit adultery or to murder or to worship a false god. was never intended to be a ridged thing like the Pharisees tried to make it. In the next story in Luke (6:6-11), the Pharisees attack Jesus for healing on the Sabbath and he asks “is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it?” The Law said that no work was to be done on the Sabbath but it did allow for certain things. Rituals were performed on the Sabbath so the priests worked. If your ox fell in a hole on the Sabbath you could pull it out. Theologians call these acts of necessity and acts of mercy that are permissible on the Sabbath. So it would be a mistake to take as absolute the statement that no work shall be done on the Sabbath and make it absolute. The example of the Law should lead us to that conclusion.
The way we make the decision on whether a thing is permitted or not when it appears to violate the Law requires wisdom and that is the case with the David story that Jesus points to. To get to the heart of the issue, we need to first understand what it means to be holy. The bread that David and his men ate was holy. By ‘holy’ it meant that it was set aside for God’s purposes. It wasn’t to be treated like other things, God had a purpose in it. Similarly, God had a purpose in David, David was holy. Since these things were holy God gets to decide how they were used. Both David and the show bread were used according to God’s purposes. David was God’s man and would ascend to the throne of Israel. God could have provided food for David in any number of ways as he traveled to Nob but he didn’t. He didn’t provide for David till David arrived at the tabernacle and asked for whatever they had on hand. Even here God could have provided for David in a way that would involve the tabernacle. Ahimelech could have had a bountiful harvest. But God used the show bread to keep his king alive. God showed that he was Lord of the Tabernacle and Lord of the Kingdom in doing this.
So when we consider how Jesus pointed to this episode and then announced that he was Lord of the Sabbath, he is doing much more than an “in your face” with David’s supposed violation. He is telling the Pharisees that since the Sabbath is holy and these men are holy, He can decide how they are used for his purposes. He is the Lord of the Sabbath after all. The Sabbath and his disciples were holy unto him. Jesus told the Pharisees that he was God.
| ↩1 | There is no mentioned in this story that David was traveling with companions, it appears that he was traveling alone. But Jesus indicates that he had young men with him. There is nothing in 1Sa 20 and 21 to indicate that he was entirely alone. The author only speaks of David but he could have had men with him who do not get mentioned because the author doesn’t want to divert our attention from David at this point. That is to say, the author never explicitly says that David traveled alone. Jesus wasn’t wrong. |
|---|---|
| ↩2 | I’m tempted to steal from Luther At The Movies and yell “SILENCE, IMAGINARY INTERLOCUTOR!” but that’s Martin Luther’s gig so I’ll let him have it. |
| ↩3 | Notice that I capitalized ‘Law’. I did that to show that it has a specific reference to the Mosaic Law and not God’s moral law that is written on humanity’s heart. It is never okay to commit adultery or to murder or to worship a false god. |
2 Comments
Tim:
This passage always puts a hitch in my gettyup too. However, I think that you are on the right road to properly understanding it.
Regarding David traveling alone, it is reasonable, in the absence of specific scripture to the contrary, to believe that David was accompanied. Historically, travel through open ground was a dangerous business in the Late Bronze Age. There were bandits in the hills, and no 911 to call if you were attacked, or just got sick or injured. It was normative to travel armed, and in the company of at least a few armed buddies or male family members. (Arab traders and nomads continue to travel in that manor even today, and for the same reasons.) A solo road trip, though possible, would have been very unusual.
Regarding our Lord’s words to the Pharisees, I am always impressed (and very grateful!) for how different Jesus’ response is from the one that I would have given. I would have pointed out that the definition of rubbing a handful of grain in order to eat a snack as the work of milling was a rabbinical accretion, not the literal word from Moses. Yawn. Instead, our Lord responds in terms of the central theme of all of His teaching, and all of His responses to His enemies; His identity, and authority as the only Son of God. In this case, he draws the attention of His hearers to His title as Son of David (the significance of which could not possibly be lost on friend or foe), and extrapolates reasonably to the fact that His rule as king extended to heavenly things (the Sabbath) as well as earthly things (Israel). He does this subtly, never saying, “I am the Son of David”, but clearly and decisively, nevertheless.
Looking back to 1Sa 21:1-6 through the clarifying lens of Jesus’ use of the text, I am reminded that the psalmist also calls David, in his role as king of God’s people Israel, His son. Yes, this is typology, looking forward to Christ, but it also makes David God’s son, in a lesser, but entirely real sense. If I am not completely stupid here, it now looks like when David ate the showbread, he was sharing a meal with his Father. A hungry child humbly eating from the plate of his generous, compassionate, and always sufficient father. This would be a blasphemous sin if another were to do it, because they would be acting on unconscionable presumption or simple disobedience. However, David was in a unique son relationship with God by God’s choice and decree. Yes, I know, the psalms were written years after this event. However, God’s choice of David as his royal, mortal son was already established in heaven, and announced to David in the anointing by the prophet Samuel.
If there is any merit to this argument, then Jesus is not bothering to justify His actions or engage in fruitless debate with hardened unbelievers. Instead, He is again announcing His identity and authority, not for the benefit of the lost, but for the benefit of His disciples, and through them, all of His church.
May God bless your reading of His word.
Yea, that was where I was stuck. But like you said, “Yawn.” Jesus is only kind of in their face with that answer. His “I am the Lord of the Sabbath” also seems kind of incongruous.
But his response goes even beyond his identity as Son of David, he claims divinity.
As for the other part of your observation, there is some merit to it, however, Israel was called God’s son in a similar fashion (Hosea 11:1). This too was typological and fulfilled in Jesus (Matt 2:15) as well. So I don’t think it works quite as tightly as the holiness motif I put forward. But then again, it was my theory! :)