David and the shewbread

[Countryside]

This has probably been discussed plenty but it concerns the event in 1st Samuel 21:1-6. David and his men, while fleeing from Saul, came to Nob which had become an area for Hebrew worship after Shiloh was destroyed. It is presumed that the tabernacle with the ark was at this location though the text doesn't say specifically. They were weary and famished and needed to eat. The priests gave them what the text says is "holy bread," also known as showbread and/or showbread. What is mainly focused on is that the priests gave David and his men some of this bread which was dedicated unto the Lord and technically was "unlawful" for them to eat. In the New Testament, in Luke 6:3-5 Jesus mentions it as well after His disciples were accused of unlawfully rubbing stalks on the Sabbath, and Christ rebuts them by mentioning what David did with the bread. I have heard most comment on David and his men eating it as being along the line of "Yes, it was a violation of God's law but God overlooked it." But having studied this, I'm not so sure there was a clear "sin" in what they did, otherwise I don't think Christ would have used the event as comparison to what His disciples were doing. What the disciples were doing was a violation of a man-made tradition that was held by the Pharisees as a "law," but it wasn't a violation of the true, Biblical law. I think v.6 in 1st Samuel 21 is key. It clearly states that the bread they ate had been taken from before the Lord in order to put fresh bread in its place. In other words they didn't take the current fresh showbread and just to give it to David and his men, but what they ate was older showbread that had been used, but had been removed and replaced with fresh showbread. David himself says in v.5 that the bread itself was technically "common" even though it had been dedicated earlier that day. This also seems to fit into the flow of the text that it had been showbread, but that it had been replaced with newer showbread, and it would not have been wrong for the priests and any men with the priests to eat under certain conditions. I checked some Jewish sources that have commentary on this passage and they pointed to the text that mentions the bread had been replaced and could be eaten under the certain conditions by the priests and men with them. I also encountered another source which mentioned that the law was never intended to deprive famished people of food they really needed. I think perhaps Jesus' comment to the Pharisees about David eating the showbread was intended to point out that the "unlawfulness" of David's actions is not clear nor Scriptural...no more so than what His disciples were doing. I think Jesus presented that particular event because it was possibly a debated event among scribes even by Jesus' time...and He knew it.
Am I off base here?

 

[Complete]

@Countyside:
I have heard most comment on David and his men eating it as being along the line of "Yes, it was a violation of God's law but God overlooked it."

'So the priest gave him hallowed bread:
for there was no bread there but the shewbread,
that was taken from before the LORD,
to put hot bread
in the day when it was taken away.'
(1Sam. 21:6)

Hi Countryside,

Praise God!

* Another error bites the dust.

Thank you,
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Ravindran]

I think looking at the overall context and the point driven home by Jesus, we can understand both disciples and David did not break the law. Going by what Jesus said, if David broke the law then disciples also broke the law. Or else, both of them did not.

It would have been unlawful for David to eat the bread which was currently put out. David ate the bread which had been taken away from presence of the Lord. But people would generally consider this also as unlawful. It was with good intentions though. Just like how we would tell our kids they cannot watch TV for more than 1 hour a day. It is with good intentions. However, the Law of God does not demand that addition.

Same way Pharisees were known to add on top of God's law. They made it a burden. They were implying the same on Jesus and His disciples as well. That is why Jesus replies in that fashion. If pharisees were okay with David being unlawful (as per man's way), then why not disciples. Sabbath was made for man. It would not mean a poor person who is starving to death cannot pick up some grains to feed himself or herself. That is the point Jesus is explaining. He is explaining to pharisees the intent of Biblical Law and how the pharisees have made it complicated by adding things on top of it.

It would be wrong to say God would overlook any type of sin.

 

[Abdicate]

This has probably been discussed plenty but it concerns the event in 1st Samuel 21:1-6. David and his men, while fleeing from Saul, came to Nob which had become an area for Hebrew worship after Shiloh was destroyed. It is presumed that the tabernacle with the ark was at this location though the text doesn't say specifically. They were weary and famished and needed to eat. The priests gave them what the text says is "holy bread," also known as showbread and/or showbread. What is mainly focused on is that the priests gave David and his men some of this bread which was dedicated unto the Lord and technically was "unlawful" for them to eat. In the New Testament, in Luke 6:3-5 Jesus mentions it as well after His disciples were accused of unlawfully rubbing stalks on the Sabbath, and Christ rebuts them by mentioning what David did with the bread. I have heard most comment on David and his men eating it as being along the line of "Yes, it was a violation of God's law but God overlooked it." But having studied this, I'm not so sure there was a clear "sin" in what they did, otherwise I don't think Christ would have used the event as comparison to what His disciples were doing. What the disciples were doing was a violation of a man-made tradition that was held by the Pharisees as a "law," but it wasn't a violation of the true, Biblical law. I think v.6 in 1st Samuel 21 is key. It clearly states that the bread they ate had been taken from before the Lord in order to put fresh bread in its place. In other words they didn't take the current fresh showbread and just to give it to David and his men, but what they ate was older showbread that had been used, but had been removed and replaced with fresh showbread. David himself says in v.5 that the bread itself was technically "common" even though it had been dedicated earlier that day. This also seems to fit into the flow of the text that it had been showbread, but that it had been replaced with newer showbread, and it would not have been wrong for the priests and any men with the priests to eat under certain conditions. I checked some Jewish sources that have commentary on this passage and they pointed to the text that mentions the bread had been replaced and could be eaten under the certain conditions by the priests and men with them. I also encountered another source which mentioned that the law was never intended to deprive famished people of food they really needed. I think perhaps Jesus' comment to the Pharisees about David eating the showbread was intended to point out that the "unlawfulness" of David's actions is not clear nor Scriptural...no more so than what His disciples were doing. I think Jesus presented that particular event because it was possibly a debated event among scribes even by Jesus' time...and He knew it.
Am I off base here?

Jesus was pointing out that man added to God's laws making it possible, just like today's churches, to keep everyone in bondage, Matt 23:14. Jesus is the Showbread (Bread of life) and the same word for bread in Hebrew is to fight, make war, to do battle. He fights for us, 1Tim 6:12, 1John 2:1! The bread sat on a table of wood covered in gold. The whole scene screams Marriage Supper of the Lamb, Rev 19:9! Glory to God, everything points to Jesus!

 

[Countryside]

I have studied the life of Christ and His teachings, and I have also deeply studied the Hebrew Scriptures. (What we call the "old" testament. Years ago I took a Jewish evangelism course from a converted Jewish man. He said though we mean no offense, calling it the "old" testament is insultive toward many Jewish folks. It unintentionally sends the message we think it is unimportant. He advised to try to develop the habit of saying "Hebrew Scriptures" or the "Tanakh." I thought that was wise.) I hear many say that Jesus violated God's laws...but He didn't. He violated many man-made traditions that had been exalted to the level of Scripture, and while doing it He kept pointing His own people back to the Scriptures. He often said "It is written...it is written," and He would ask those who should have known what was written "Have you not read?" I have often pondered after an encounter with Christ how many hunted down a scroll and looked a little closer to truly see what was written?

 

[Major]

This has probably been discussed plenty but it concerns the event in 1st Samuel 21:1-6. David and his men, while fleeing from Saul, came to Nob which had become an area for Hebrew worship after Shiloh was destroyed. It is presumed that the tabernacle with the ark was at this location though the text doesn't say specifically. They were weary and famished and needed to eat. The priests gave them what the text says is "holy bread," also known as showbread and/or showbread. What is mainly focused on is that the priests gave David and his men some of this bread which was dedicated unto the Lord and technically was "unlawful" for them to eat. In the New Testament, in Luke 6:3-5 Jesus mentions it as well after His disciples were accused of unlawfully rubbing stalks on the Sabbath, and Christ rebuts them by mentioning what David did with the bread. I have heard most comment on David and his men eating it as being along the line of "Yes, it was a violation of God's law but God overlooked it." But having studied this, I'm not so sure there was a clear "sin" in what they did, otherwise I don't think Christ would have used the event as comparison to what His disciples were doing. What the disciples were doing was a violation of a man-made tradition that was held by the Pharisees as a "law," but it wasn't a violation of the true, Biblical law. I think v.6 in 1st Samuel 21 is key. It clearly states that the bread they ate had been taken from before the Lord in order to put fresh bread in its place. In other words they didn't take the current fresh showbread and just to give it to David and his men, but what they ate was older showbread that had been used, but had been removed and replaced with fresh showbread. David himself says in v.5 that the bread itself was technically "common" even though it had been dedicated earlier that day. This also seems to fit into the flow of the text that it had been showbread, but that it had been replaced with newer showbread, and it would not have been wrong for the priests and any men with the priests to eat under certain conditions. I checked some Jewish sources that have commentary on this passage and they pointed to the text that mentions the bread had been replaced and could be eaten under the certain conditions by the priests and men with them. I also encountered another source which mentioned that the law was never intended to deprive famished people of food they really needed. I think perhaps Jesus' comment to the Pharisees about David eating the showbread was intended to point out that the "unlawfulness" of David's actions is not clear nor Scriptural...no more so than what His disciples were doing. I think Jesus presented that particular event because it was possibly a debated event among scribes even by Jesus' time...and He knew it.
Am I off base here?

Good question my friend. I would say to you that although Israel had a God given religion and this bread was dedicated for religious purposes, the reality of life is that there were some hungry men how needed food. That bread would have become rotten and thrown away if not eaten by David's men. That is what David was saying.

Now, when the priest gave the bread to David and his men.....Yes, he broke the letter of the Law, but not the spirit of the Law. David ate the showbread because he had a need and human needs supersedes all rituals and ceremonial laws.

 

[Countryside]

.....Yes, he broke the letter of the Law

That IS the most commonly accepted understanding, but there is evidence to hint that he didn't. I'm not that original or observant...some of these have been pointed out to me...but if you combine all things in the flow of the text and allow the context to flow, it seems that either they didn't violate the law...OR it was an unspecified "grey" area. There is the fact that it was no longer what one might call "active" or "current" showbread. It had been removed and replaced with a fresh offering before the Lord.

I would say to you that although Israel had a God given religion and this bread was dedicated for religious purposes, the reality of life is that there were some hungry men how needed food.

That is a good, general statement, but the text itself does not address that particular aspect. We can sort of presume that, but we can't specifically pull it from the text.
David, as we can tell from his writings in Psalms, had a deep love for the laws and statutes of the Lord...though he did have sinful tendencies like us. You can see both David and the Priests being thoughtful toward the law and using reasoning. Both were pretty sure it was okay, with David appearing to be the most positive by saying yes, it HAD been (past tense) dedicated, but it had been removed and replaced thus making it common. The Priests did not disagree at that point, but showed true reverence for the Lord by throwing in a "buffer zone" of sorts by asking "You guys ain't been around women in the past 3 days, right?" It seemed the Priests did have the desire to be careful. Upon further reflection it would appear that there was no real guide as to exactly what to do with old showbread. Romans 4:5 says that where there is no law there is no transgression, so it would seem that it was even by letter "okay" to eat it (unless I'm missing something), but there was a reverent caution used.

 

[Major]

That IS the most commonly accepted understanding, but there is evidence to hint that he didn't. I'm not that original or observant...some of these have been pointed out to me...but if you combine all things in the flow of the text and allow the context to flow, it seems that either they didn't violate the law...OR it was an unspecified "grey" area. There is the fact that it was no longer what one might call "active" or "current" showbread. It had been removed and replaced with a fresh offering before the Lord.

That is a good, general statement, but the text itself does not address that particular aspect. We can sort of presume that, but we can't specifically pull it from the text.
David, as we can tell from his writings in Psalms, had a deep love for the laws and statutes of the Lord...though he did have sinful tendencies like us. You can see both David and the Priests being thoughtful toward the law and using reasoning. Both were pretty sure it was okay, with David appearing to be the most positive by saying yes, it HAD been (past tense) dedicated, but it had been removed and replaced thus making it common. The Priests did not disagree at that point, but showed true reverence for the Lord by throwing in a "buffer zone" of sorts by asking "You guys ain't been around women in the past 3 days, right?" It seemed the Priests did have the desire to be careful. Upon further reflection it would appear that there was no real guide as to exactly what to do with old showbread. Romans 4:5 says that where there is no law there is no transgression, so it would seem that it was even by letter "okay" to eat it (unless I'm missing something), but there was a reverent caution used.

No argument from me.

But stop and consider for a moment that David did not have "sinful tendencies". David was a "sinner". A big time sinner. In fact if you think about it, there is hardly a sin that he did not commit.

 

[Countryside]

No argument from me.

But stop and consider for a moment that David did not have "sinful tendencies". David was a "sinner". A big time sinner. In fact if you think about it, there is hardly a sin that he did not commit.

Oh yes, no argument there at all. Wasn't trying to downplay his sinful nature. But at least David would realize and be broken over his sins (even though it sometimes took him a while under serious consequences) unlike Saul who just never seemed to "get it." Saul seemed to be reluctantly religious but with no deep reverence or love for the Lord. David, while sinful and spontaneous, did also appear to deeply feel repentance (2nd Samuel 24:10) and loved the Lord. David received from the Lord what big-time sinners can receive through faith...grace.

 

[Major]

Oh yes, no argument there at all. Wasn't trying to downplay his sinful nature. But at least David would realize and be broken over his sins (even though it sometimes took him a while under serious consequences) unlike Saul who just never seemed to "get it." Saul seemed to be reluctantly religious but with no deep reverence or love for the Lord. David, while sinful and spontaneous, did also appear to deeply feel repentance (2nd Samuel 24:10) and loved the Lord. David received from the Lord what big-time sinners can receive through faith...grace.

Agreed.
Would you say that the difference between David and Saul was that Saul was not a saved man?

 

[Abdicate]

Saul was not a saved man

1 Samuel 28:19 (KJV)

Moreover the LORD will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: and to morrow [shalt] thou and thy sons [be] with me: the LORD also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.​

To use your vernacular, Saul was "saved" because he believed, and went with Samuel into paradise when he died. To keep your analogy going, Saul was a rebellious "Christian", who did things his way and not God's way and so God denied access to Himself just like most "Christians" today.

 

[Countryside]

1 Samuel 28:19 (KJV)

Moreover the LORD will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: and to morrow [shalt] thou and thy sons [be] with me: the LORD also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.​

To use your vernacular, Saul was "saved" because he believed, and went with Samuel into paradise when he died. To keep your analogy going, Saul was a rebellious "Christian", who did things his way and not God's way and so God denied access to Himself just like most "Christians" today.

I cannot say that is not what happened, nor can I say that is not what it implies, but taking into account that it is a Hebrew writing, and taking into account their possible understanding at the time it was written, Samuel could have possibly meant with him in "sheol," being the realm of the dead...where the dead go.

 

[Major]

1 Samuel 28:19 (KJV)

Moreover the LORD will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: and to morrow [shalt] thou and thy sons [be] with me: the LORD also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.​

To use your vernacular, Saul was "saved" because he believed, and went with Samuel into paradise when he died. To keep your analogy going, Saul was a rebellious "Christian", who did things his way and not God's way and so God denied access to Himself just like most "Christians" today.

You may be correct. I would only say what Samuel says, "He and his sons should be with him." Does not this mean that they were to go to paradise? I suppose it means no more than that they should all die.

From Adam Clark Commentaries...
"The rest of the verse seems to confirm the context of death......"the Lord also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand of the Philistines" which is only a repetition of what is said in the first part of the verse."

From Thomas Coke Commentary.....
"That they should die on the morrow, or rather, very shortly; for that is the signification of the word
מחר machar, in many places of Scripture. See Exodus 13:14 and Joshua 4:6. It is probable, however, that the word in this place may be taken in its literal sense of to-morrow. "

 

[Cturtle]

1 Samuel 28:19 (KJV)

Moreover the LORD will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: and to morrow [shalt] thou and thy sons [be] with me: the LORD also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.​

To use your vernacular, Saul was "saved" because he believed, and went with Samuel into paradise when he died. To keep your analogy going, Saul was a rebellious "Christian", who did things his way and not God's way and so God denied access to Himself just like most "Christians" today.

Another thing to remember...is that Jesus went and preached to the spirits of those whom had died before He did (1Peter 3:18-20.
So we know for sure that we will see him in heaven

 

[Countryside]

It's interesting how many directions a thread can go.

But just for fun...
"spirits" is more commonly used to refer spiritual beings such as angels and/or demons. While people do have spirits and posses spirit...they (people...departed people) aren't referred to as spirits in the Bible. Where they are is considered to be a "prison" as the text says. Would this not line up with Jude 1:6... the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day...which sounds like a prison? This would also seem to fit better with what Peter also wrote in 2nd Peter 2:4-5 which sort of follows the same flow as what he wrote in 1st Peter 3:18-20.
There is also a Jewish view that sheol was where the spirits of people are held for judgment...both "saved" and "unsaved"...which would imply the element of soul-sleep from Genesis until the death of Christ.

 

[Cturtle]

Just a friendly reminder that soul- sleep is a topic that should not be continued in discussion in this forum.

See http://www.christianforumsite.com/threads/topics-that-can-not-be-discussed-at-cfs.41918/

Thanks to all for your cooperation
Blessings