12.23.07
Through the Controversy Over Grain (Matt. 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5)
Christ’s Authority over the Sabbath (continued)
Through the Controversy Over Grain (Matt. 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5)
Well…Jesus was so good at answering the accusations of the Jews (that He was guilty of blasphemy) that the charge was not pursued. Those that opposed Him must be vigilant for other opportunities to catch and accuse. They didn’t need to wait long!
Observation – Jesus and His disciples were passing through a grain field on one Sabbath day. Because the disciples were hungry, they took some of the heads of grain, rubbed them in their hands (to get rid of what they didn’t want to eat) and then gobbled them up. The law allowed this – a hungry man could pick grain along a pathway to satisfy his hunger. But the Pharisees didn’t see this as acceptable because it violated their tradition about the Sabbath.
Edersheim notes: … according to Rabbinic statues, at least two sins. According to the Talmud, what was really one labor, would, if made up of several acts, each of them forbidden, amount to several acts of labor, each involving sin, punishment, and a sin-offering. This so called ‘division’ of labor applied only to infringement of the Sabbath-rest – not of that of feast-days. Now in this case there were at least two such acts involved: that of plucking the ears of corn, ranged under the sin of reaping, and that of rubbing them, which might be ranged under sifting in a sieve, threshing, sifting out fruit, grinding or fanning. … One instance will suffice to show the externalism of all these ordinances. If a man wished to move a sheaf of his field, which implied labor, he had only to lay upon it a spoon that was in his common use, when, in order to remove the spoon, he might also remove the sheaf on which it lay! And yet, it was forbidden to stop with a little wax the hole in a cask my which fluid was running out, or to wipe a wound! With views like these, the Pharisees who witnessed this conduct considered this as a gross desecration of the Sabbath.
As on the previous occasion of being accused of blasphemy, Christ defended Himself. He offered a number of proofs that He was not guilty of a Sabbath violation. The first proof was based on their own ignorance of the Scriptures. Christ referred to a time when David and his companions were hungry. David went into the house of God and at the bread that was only to be eaten by the priests.
1 Samuel 21:1-6 David went to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech trembled when he met him, and asked, “Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?”
2 David answered Ahimelech the priest, “The king charged me with a certain matter and said to me, ‘No one is to know anything about your mission and your instructions.’ As for my men, I have told them to meet me at a certain place. 3 Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you can find.”
4 But the priest answered David, “I don’t have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread here — provided the men have kept themselves from women.”
5 David replied, “Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual whenever I set out. The men’s things are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!” 6 So the priest gave him the consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence that had been removed from before the LORD and replaced by hot bread on the day it was taken away.
So the question here needs to be asked – why was David blameless in this instance? The Sabbath law as not only a law for rest, it was one for rest and of worship. The object was the service of the Lord. The priests worked on the Sabbath because this service was the object of the Sabbath. David was allowed to eat the shew-bread, not because there was a danger to life of starvation, but because he pleaded that he was in the service of the Lord and needed provisions. The same with the disciples – they were looking at a higher reason; service to the Lord. The service of God superseded the Sabbath law.
Want more arguments?
- the law itself permitted men to work when they were involved in worship and service (see page 166)
- after appealing to the law, Christ appealed to the prophets and argued based on an interpretation of Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.
- and in Mark we see Christ appeal to the original purpose of the Sabbath (see page 166) where men were not to be bent to the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was to conform to the needs of men
- also in Mark (vs. 28) we see an argument based on the authority of the Messiah Himself. All things are subject to this authority
During His ministry Jesus defended Himself only when His deity was attacked and His authority questioned. Since Israel’s salvation depended on faith in His person as the Son of God, it was only on these occasions that He sought to defend Himself against those that were His adversaries.
So – when do we feel the need to address those that question us? Every time anyone asks? Or only on those hills where the flag should be planted? When others question our actions or beliefs, can we go to the source (the Word of God) and answer? If not, why not? And if not, what are our beliefs based on – personal ‘experience’ or the word of someone else other than God (even if it’s a pastor)?
