INTRODUCTION
In 1 Samuel 13:14 and Acts 13:22 King David was called a man after God’s own heart, but even he did things contrary to God’s Law. When David ate the Shrewbread of the Temple in Samuel 21:1-6 he broke the law and yet in Matthew 12:3-4, Mark 2:25-26, and Luke 6:1-5 Jesus uses David’s example of eating the shrewbread to justify his disciples. This paper is going to show how David’s actions compare to the Law, how Jesus describes David’s actions, and how David’s actions compare to the kings of other nations.
HISTORY OF ISRAEL LEADING UP TO DAVID
To fully understand the story of David and the shrewbread the reader needs to have a brief history of Israel and the events leading up to David coming to the holy place at Nob. In the book of Exodus the reader is shown how the nation of Israel is formed. The nation of Israel comes together as though own independent nation when the cast off their shackles of slavery and emerge from Egypt as a free people. This group of people had more in common than just being freed slaves. These people exiting Israel are all descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They are bounded together by their family bond.
After exiting Egypt together the people of Israel the people are lead by their leader Moses to Mount Carmel. It is at Mount Carmel that Israel would make a covenant with their God. The people agreed to follow God and his laws and in return he would bless them and their descendants. All the people of Israel would be subject to the Law of God, from the richest man to the poorest slave. No one was above the law, not even the king.
In the book of Joshua the people of Israel are finally brought into the land of Canaan. The people are lead by a warrior named Joshua. Joshua leads the people ...
... middle of paper ...
... the king David was entitled by his position as king to supersede the Law and eat the bread that was reserved for the priest. In this case Jesus would be claiming the same right to supersede the law as David’s descendant and as the Messiah. This argument also is unlikely because there is no scriptural Law or even any later interpretation of the Law that would allow Jesus or the king to supersede the Law. Also this would not fit in with the other statements of Jesus such as, “I came to fulfill the Law not destroy it.”12
The most likely interpretation of Jesus’ words is that He is calling into question the validity of the Pharisees’ interpretation of the Law. Jesus is saying that God made the Law for the good of the people rather than to inconvenience. This is also strengthened by Jesus’ statement that, “the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.” 13
S: Well, as followers of Jesus we should fulfill the Jewish law; we should even take it as far and fulfill it better than the Pharisees and scribes. In my opinion, the Gospel of Matthew does not tell to abandon the Jewish law; it in fact, says the opposite. Jesus fulfills this Law and prophecy!
In his article “Applying the Old Testament Law Today”, J. Daniel Hays brings out many positive and negative reasons why some believers tend to ignore many Old Testament Laws and embrace others. Hays emphasize how different evangelical scholars use moral, civil and ceremonial laws to help believers know whether a particular Mosaic Law applies to them. (Hays, 22) Ironically, we were taught in church and Bible study different ways to apply Matthew 25:39, “Love your neighbor as yourself”, to our daily living. Once an individual put this into action, they will begin to understand the true meaning of giving and how to love the way Jesus directed us to in the Bible.
... an opportunity to escape his unjust conviction. He tells his would be saviors what we call today a social contract. A social contract states, simply, that you must obey all laws, no matter if they cause you an injustice because it is the same laws that protect the citizens. There would be no point of laws if people could ignore the ones that they felt were unjust or inconvenient.
Long ago, in the desert of Egypt, Hebrew slaves known as Israelites escaped from the tyranny of the pharaoh. This story has a common theme that an unlikely hero leads people out of a wasteland and into a place of new life. The Israelites heroes' name was Moses. There are several attributes that his quest shares with Joseph Campbell's theme of the journey of the spiritual hero, found in The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Departure, initiation, and return are all part of the journey. Moses' journey will take him away from his familiar surroundings, separating him from all that he knows, so that he can return to perform the tasks God commanded him to complete.
This phrase is later repeated three more times, in Judges 18:1, 19:1, and 21:25. Since the phrase is repeated several times, it emphasizes the need for a king to govern the people and lead them in better ways. The Davidic covenant also exemplifies this positive view, since God showed favor on David and his descendants. God said that King David’s descendants are God’s sons, and that the LORD will establish a “royal throne forever”, as in a line of kings until the end of time (2 Sam. 7:13). God also promises to give David “rest from all your enemies” (2 Sam. 7:11) and a place for his people to live (2 Sam. 7:10). Just like Abraham, King David is promised descendants, blessings, and land. Hezekiah, another good king of Judah, was also viewed favorably. In the LORD’s sight, Hezekiah did what was right, just like David (2 Kgs 18:3). 2 Kings 18: 5 also states that “and neither before nor after [Hezekiah] was there anyone like him among all the kings of Judah.” Unlike Solomon, Hezekiah observed the commandments and thus, “the LORD was with him, and he succeeded in all he set out to do” (2 Kgs 18:7). Therefore, the Deuteronomistic History looks favorably upon kings, since the need for a king is stated multiple times in Judges, and kings like David and Hezekiah are looked upon with favor by God and the people
Following the creation story of the book of Genesis is the book of Exodus. In Genesis, God promised Abraham a “great nation from which all nations of the earth will be blessed (Gen 12:1-3)” and in Exodus God completes this promise through the creation of the holy nation, Israel. Exodus tells the story of the God who rescued his people out of Egypt because of the promise he had made to Abraham. God calls to Moses to complete his promise. God’s call to Moses is not only important because he liberates the Israelites but also because God reveals His name(s) along with His true Nature. God calls upon Moses and tells him that He’s back to help the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt and that Moses is to lead them. God then gives him full instructions on what to tell the Pharaoh and, more importantly, the Israelites, who are promised, land “flowing with milk and honey”.
The Bible is the holy, inspired, infallible Word of God. Within the Bible, there are different stories and principles that the Lord gave us through special revelation. In the New Testament there were Jewish or religious groups that began teaching unbiblical doctrines. Two of those sects were the Pharisees and the Essenes. The importance of learning about these groups is so that we can see how they were wrong and to make sure we don’t mirror their actions. In this paper I will be comparing the Pharisees’ views on God and Jesus with that of the Essenes’.
What Jesus meant by this is the subject of vigorous debate. However, what is obvious is that many laws changed under the New Covenant; Christians were freed from many of the ancient Jewish laws on circumcision, Sabbath-observance and temple sacrifices. So it is not a question of whether the Talmudic laws were changed or dropped; the only question is how many were. If some Christians maintain that at least the civil and criminal laws of the Talmud are still valid in their entirety, then we should expect that they actually subscribe to all of them. This would include the commandment requiring two or three eye-witnesses for a capital conviction, and the initiation of the death penalty in all the above instances. Needless to say, no Christian would ever agree to such a legal code.
While the Hebrews were expected to abide by the laws laid out in the Old Testament by Moses, the coming and crucifixion of Jesus negated many of these laws, as the Law of Grace took precedence over everything prior. In his Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, Milton uses scripture from both the Old and New Testaments and argues that the Law of Moses was more lenient than that of Grace, and therefore makes more sense.
the Israelites. Joshua leads the people after Moses and God’s plan is now in motion. First He instructs Joshua to cross the river Jordan and then go into battle for the Promised Land. In the following essay we will see how Gods Plan through Joshua, Moses and Rahab brought about the victories in their lives with the Lord guiding them.
The Bible takes a unique turn in the book of 1 Samuel, Israel requests the appointment of an earthly king. The prophet Samuel warned them against trading their Divine King for an earthy one. In Matthew 7:13 Jesus told us, “..For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction..,” cautioning believers not to long to be like everyone else.
Throughout the Bible, bread was of great importance. It was a source of food, a currency of exchange, an example of hospitality, and even a gift from God. Because bread was of such great importance in the Israelites lives, it became a term that represented the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus became known as the “Bread of Life.” This paper will go into more depth about the importance of bread and the “Bread of Life.”
Jesus has broken the rule! Doing work on the Sabbath day is unlawful and wrong. Is the sabbath day not the day where we rest and reflect on our religion?
The rule of Biblical interpretation that was not followed and should have been was when a contradiction like this appears, the emphasis should only be given to the multiple passages that are clear rather than to a passage that is isolated and obscure. The only basis for establishing a doctrine cannot be based off the historical occurrence of an event. As well as the writer’s original intent must be the only valid interpretation of a Scripture passage.
That was Jesus final charge against him when he was crucified. In James Tabors article, he states “I have not the slightest doubt that he laid claim to the royal Davidic lineage and understood himself as the legitimate King of Israel or “messiah” It was questioned as Jesus’ role as King of the Jews, while he was on the crucifix. If he was truly who he claimed to be, why is he not saving himself?