Matthew 12:
1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
the accusation ((verse 2)) is that Christ's disciples do what is according to the Law not to be done on the sabbath.
the reply is threefold:
- that David did what was forbidden by the Law and was not condemned for it ((vv. 3-4))
- that by the Law itself the priests weekly desecrate the sabbath ((vv. 5-6))
- that the Son is Lord of the sabbath ((v. 8))
i rather believe that quoting "He is Lord of the sabbath" as though it is incontrovertible evidence that believers must ritually observe the day reveals a very superficial and ignorant understanding of the passage. Christ's reply is frankly shocking. instead of directly defending the disciples actions He gives two examples of the Law being set aside, in the temple and on the sabbath, and declares Himself Lord over both things. a plain reading - astounding as it is - actually says quite the opposite of what is normally the intention of people who cite verse 8. is it any wonder then that the context is normally ignored?? the context makes this statement incredible!!
The Mainstream Preachers of Christ's time condemned the Disciples for doing what was Lawful for them to do, yet they were silent and willfully ignorant that David actually took the Show Bread. (With consent from the Priest in charge of the sanctuary)
Was David in trouble at the time? Was the Priest in charge of the Sanctuary helping his brother in need as instructed by Moses? Did God intend for the Priest to shut the door on David? Was that what the Law was intended for? What was the Showbread for?
There is a lot to this story that religious man don't seem interested in. They seem only interested in justifying the rejection of God's Sabbath He created for man.
I don't believe Jesus intended us to use this scripture to destroy any of God's Commandments, just like the example of David being helped by the High Priest wasn't intended as an excuse to ignore or reject God's Commandment.
In my opinion.
- 1
- Show all