David and the Five Loaves

1869 Words4 Pages

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

Open Document