Law, commands, or instructions?

[FollowingHim]

@Mark C (and @ZecAustin) - @Slumberfreeze has asked a simple question, that has been repeatedly posed in different forms already. Whenever you respond to it, your responses are to jump all over scripture to restate the point you've already made (that the law applied to Yeshua) - but don't actually address the question. I agree with your overall conclusions - yet I still must point out that you haven't answered the question. You haven't discussed these actual verses, what He actually said, and shown how His words align with the interpretation of the passage you are presenting. Can you directly answer this question with direct reference to the text of these specific verses?

Please explain to me how Jesus' defense in verses 3-4, and 5-6 are relevant to the disciple's case, and vindicates the disciples in a manner that satisfies the Law.

Show me your simple logical solution, for I much desire to see it.

Here's the passage in question, Matthew 12:1-8. Note that this is repeated in Mark 2:23-28 and Luke 6:1-5, and in all three instances the conclusion is identical: "the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath".

At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

On a cursory reading, it does strongly sound like he's simply saying "yes, I know you're not supposed to do this on the sabbath, but I'm the boss and I say I can anyway".

The most consistent explanation that I can think of is that He was establishing a "kingdom of priests", where all members are a new priesthood, under Him as Melchizedek, and thus entitled to do what the priests in the temple were also entitled to do, as priests. But I'm not completely comfortable with that.

 

[Mark C]

Ah, sir. That was directed towards Zec.... and you didn't even address what I was looking for him to address.

Ah, but I did.

 

[Mark C]

Here's the passage in question, Matthew 12:1-8. Note that this is repeated in Mark 2:23-28 and Luke 6:1-5, and in all three instances the conclusion is identical: "the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath".

The number of explicit mishpatim, mitvot, chuqqim that have to do with Sabbath can almost be counted on your fingers. Nevertheless, the "law" that Yahushua called burdensome and hypocritical (because it was an "addition to" Scripture, Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32, and "the last command in Scripture") specifies over fifteen HUNDRED more!

Who has "authority" to define what "work" means, and what it doesn't -- if not the Head of the House?

The end of Matthew chapter 7, which concludes His "Sermon on the Mount" informs us that, unlike the Pharisees et al, "He spoke as One having Authority."

The entire "initial exposition" of the rhetorical device He used in that speech was to contrast what "you have heard it said," with what the Author actually WROTE. He outta know. And He had just finished saying it was NOT going to change, so long as heaven and earth (yeah, ha 'olam' -- everything, all that you see, to the limits, as long as IT lasts, etc) still exist.

If the Author isn't also the "Lord of His very own Sabbaths," who is?

But I keep coming back to the central point; and it IS central:

He Wrote His Instruction for us. He gave us the prophetic Word, in part, so those who knew His Word would know Him. He said He wasn't gonna change it -- not in the teeny, tiniest bit.

Who is the Torah Made Flesh? Who is Master of "ha olam"? Who is telling the Truth when He says to keep "kol" of His "statutes, judgments, and commandments," and then gave us examples, warnings, and yes, parables, to help us UNDERSTAND His Instruction?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

For verily I say unto you, Till † heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till † all be fulfilled.

Let's address this. Your perspective of this verse is that until the earth and heaven is no more, that the law will still be a valid authority. Since the earth will never end until there's a new heaven and a new earth, the law is still indefinite.
At the very least, the verse obviously gives a point where the law becomes benign, when all is fulfilled. In comparison with the view that the law is forrrrrevvveeerrrr, indefinite and without end, this presents a contradiction. In comparison with the view that the law, feast days, sacrifices etc are "owlam," extending till a future moment that the audience then, presently could not see, it has perfect harmony.

If you do a little digging within the context, the point at which all is fulfilled is the moment when "heaven and earth pass." Your perspective depends on the word "pass" being defined as ending. However, this word for pass is the Greek word parerchomai S#3928. It means to come near or aside (alongside), i.e. To approach, go by (or away), (figuratively) perish or neglect, (causative) avert:--come (forth), go, pass (away, by, over), past, transgress.
The English word "heaven" is translated from the Greek word "ouranos" (where we get our word Uranus from) and it can be used to describe one of three "heavens". 1) the Canopy of Space, 2) the Atmosphere of Earth or 3) a planetary body or star within the Canopy of Space.
The English word earth is self explanatory.
In other words, the definition that your perspective depends on is not the only plausible interpretation of the phrase.
Another way of defining this phrase would be as follows. [Till a heavenly body goes whizzing past earth,] one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, [but when it does, all will be fulfilled].

I can hear it now, VV's off the deep end! Lol! However, when I look at the crucifixion, I find several unexplainable phenomenon. 1). The entire earth is darkened for a period of 3 hours. This cannot be explained by any currently known explanation within our known solar system. It's Passover, which means the moon is on the wrong side of the earth and even if it wasn't, it would only account for a darkness lasting at best 7 minutes. Mercury and Venus are too small and too far away to be of consideration. 2). There is a massive earthquake where the rocks rent and graves are opened, followed 3 days later by another massive quake. 3) Whatever it was, it was unusual enough to have a battle hardened centurion convinced that he had just been part of killing the son of God. All of this is highly indicative of a large planetary body passing in close proximity to earth.
Two men who have been instrumental in my thoughts this direction are Immanuel Velikovsky, author of Worlds in Collision, and Gil Broussard, Christian astrophysicist and host/author of Planet 7X.
After studying this premise in some depth, I can no longer accept your definition as valid.

A few supporting passages to the idea that when Christ is Crucified all is fulfilled
Daniel 9:26&27. Messiah is cut off and the covenant is confirmed or finished strong, with power.
John 19:28-30. Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture (graphe' - written law) might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. . . . . And they filled a sponge with vinegar (the bitter dregs of wine), and put it upon hyssop, (huge) and put it to his mouth. When Jesus had therefore received the vinegar, he said, "teleo": (Greek) to end, complete, execute, conclude, discharge (a debt):-- accomplish, make an end, expire, fill up, finish, go over, pay, perform.
In Hebrew. Asah. : See the nails, behold!!
Hebrews 9:15. And for this cause he is the mediator of the new covenant, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16. For where a covenant is, there must also of necessity be the death of the covenantor. 17. For a covenant is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the covenantor liveth. 28. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

I asked a question above, Why didnt Israel observe the feasts, sacrifices, circumcision etc during the 40 years in the Wilderness? The simple answer is that Moses (the mediator/covenantor) wasn't dead yet. Kinda funny how after he died, his covenant went into effect. And it was different from, though similar to the previous covenant.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Sorry guys, I'm not going here. If you want to raise your understanding of what God really meant then go ahead. If you're wise enough and smart enough to discern what God's goals are and so can skip His instructions and skip straight to the finished product then there's nothing we can agree on. I can put any number of scriptures in front of you and you can say ," Nah, that's the written word. It's not as good as what I know. Unless it's in the Epistle of Barnabas. That written word is good."

Come on guys, this is how the monogamists got in power. They had "revelation" that trumped the clear words of scripture.

If you are willing to throw away the perfect Word of God that will not pass away as long as heaven and earth remain and substitute in what you think it was intended to achieve despite being warned to reject anyone who preaches a gospel other than what is written down then we have nothing to talk about.

You're certainly wasting your time with polygyny which is a doctrine firmly rooted in the Old Testament.

Remember this though, if all you keep is the Ten Commandments then lose prohibitions again bestiality and most incest. You lose almost all definitions of sexual immorality. Your God, I should say god, becomes a weak and silly creature who makes pronouncements He does not mean and that you must sit in judgement of to figure out the truth of.

Your God is either a sinner or a liar. Either He violates His Word or His Word is not true. Take your pick but either way I can't go here.

As far as David and the shew bread, I am going to go check but I believe that it was old and had to be disposed of and could be disposed of anyway the priest chose. I'm not sure yet I'm checking as soon as I post this but if that was so then Christ was telling th Pharisees that they didn't know the Law and He used the example of the priest to expose the absurdity of their. Ignorance.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

As far as David and the shew bread, I am going to go check but I believe that it was old and had to be disposed of and could be disposed of anyway the priest chose. I'm not sure yet I'm checking as soon as I post this but if that was so then Christ was telling th Pharisees that they didn't know the Law and He used the example of the priest to expose the absurdity of their. Ignorance.

Well, do tell me what you find, then.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

@Mark C (and @ZecAustin) - @Slumberfreeze has asked a simple question, that has been repeatedly posed in different forms already. Whenever you respond to it, your responses are to jump all over scripture to restate the point you've already made (that the law applied to Yeshua) - but don't actually address the question. I agree with your overall conclusions - yet I still must point out that you haven't answered the question. You haven't discussed these actual verses, what He actually said, and shown how His words align with the interpretation of the passage you are presenting. Can you directly answer this question with direct reference to the text of these specific verses?

Here's the passage in question, Matthew 12:1-8. Note that this is repeated in Mark 2:23-28 and Luke 6:1-5, and in all three instances the conclusion is identical: "the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath".

On a cursory reading, it does strongly sound like he's simply saying "yes, I know you're not supposed to do this on the sabbath, but I'm the boss and I say I can anyway".

The most consistent explanation that I can think of is that He was establishing a "kingdom of priests", where all members are a new priesthood, under Him as Melchizedek, and thus entitled to do what the priests in the temple were also entitled to do, as priests. But I'm not completely comfortable with that.

Exactly!! You're on the right track. I refer you back to the Last Supper, specifically the Bread

 

[The Revolting Man]

I checked. This is at least a distinct possibility. The bread was no longer holy after it came off of the table. This is alluded to in the text. I'm not ready to declare this the answer but it is very likely that Christ was pointing out that the priests and David himself would be indicted by the Pharisees false standard.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Sorry guys, I'm not going here. If you want to raise your understanding of what God really meant then go ahead. If you're wise enough and smart enough to discern what God's goals are and so can skip His instructions and skip straight to the finished product then there's nothing we can agree on. I can put any number of scriptures in front of you and you can say ," Nah, that's the written word. It's not as good as what I know. Unless it's in the Epistle of Barnabas. That written word is good."

Come on guys, this is how the monogamists got in power. They had "revelation" that trumped the clear words of scripture.

If you are willing to throw away the perfect Word of God that will not pass away as long as heaven and earth remain and substitute in what you think it was intended to achieve despite being warned to reject anyone who preaches a gospel other than what is written down then we have nothing to talk about.

You're certainly wasting your time with polygyny which is a doctrine firmly rooted in the Old Testament.

Remember this though, if all you keep is the Ten Commandments then lose prohibitions again bestiality and most incest. You lose almost all definitions of sexual immorality. Your God, I should say god, becomes a weak and silly creature who makes pronouncements He does not mean and that you must sit in judgement of to figure out the truth of.

Your God is either a sinner or a liar. Either He violates His Word or His Word is not true. Take your pick but either way I can't go here.

As far as David and the shew bread, I am going to go check but I believe that it was old and had to be disposed of and could be disposed of anyway the priest chose. I'm not sure yet I'm checking as soon as I post this but if that was so then Christ was telling th Pharisees that they didn't know the Law and He used the example of the priest to expose the absurdity of their. Ignorance.

Sorry, couldn't isolate the item of the shewbread. The shewbread is a unique bread that as best I can tell is a kind of leavened bread that could not be leavened from without the Temple. No one really knows the ingredients as that was restricted information to the family of Korah and when the wrong people came into authority in the Temple, they refused to continue to make it. The recipe died with them. It was unique in that it was baked, brought into the holy place to the table of shewbread and placed in two stacks of 6 loaves toward the end of the Sabbath. It would remain upon the table for 7 days to be removed at the next Sabbath. The interesting thing was that after a week on the table, it was still piping hot. The "old" Shewbread was then restricted to be eaten by the priests only as a statute for ever (olam)

Priests ONLY, by order of the Torah. Commoners not allowed. Lev 24:5-9

 

[Mark C]

For verily I say unto you, Till † heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till † all be fulfilled.

Let's address this. Your perspective of this verse is that until the earth and heaven is no more, that the law will still be a valid authority...

No, my 'perspective' is that He meant what He said. Otherwise, He is NOT Who He said He was, and the greek doesn't matter. Especially since we know He referred to the Hebrew words in the Hebrew Scriptures, and those who listened knew that. This is becoming asinine, sorry. You twist so much out of context that I think Peter really understated the case, and Shaul was soft-pedaling his concern that if someone peddles "another jesus, whom we have NOT preached" you might get suckered.

And, good grief, I've already ADDRESSED the issue of "Law != Torah". 'Law' is NOT an accurate translation of the Hebrew "torah" (and the greek "nomos" is ambiguous, since it conflates "man's law" with the Real Thing)

I see a whole lotta obfuscation to avoid the obvious. And ZA is correct. If the Scripture as Written, from his Sabbaths, to His warnings, to His prophecies are subject to being changed by people who claim to be 'christ' (guess that includes 'his vicar', since that's where this started) -- we have built a whole lot on nothing but sand. What, fer cryin' out loud, basis do you have for not making similarly ridiculous arguments about polygyny being "done away with"?

If "man's law" -- as twisted -- or as they CLAIM "Jesus did" -- is what matters, then all of this "tilting against windmills" about what constitutes a "covenant" is just as malleable as things He said to keep and do "ha olam." Why bother? Isn't 'mono-gamy' a greek word, too?

What is so hard about simply taking YHVH at His Word? No doubt about it, though, it is clear in context why He did NOT 'regather' the lost tribes of the northern kingdom (Israel) and we are STILL in exile.

"As for me and my house, we will serve YHVH." And Him alone. And if we know Him, we ought to know that His Name, and His character, are one in the same, and "change not". Yesterday, today, tomorrow, ha olam.

 

[Mark C]

Remember this though, if all you keep is the Ten Commandments then lose prohibitions again bestiality and most incest. You lose almost all definitions of sexual immorality. Your God, I should say god, becomes a weak and silly creature who makes pronouncements He does not mean and that you must sit in judgement of to figure out the truth of.

True, and you didn't even mention the one that I harp on, that arguably will be a plague that will kill more than the bio-engineered ones on tap:

The inevitable meltdown of EVERY single fiat currency in history (that "love of [fake] money" thing) which will soon include the Almighty Dollar...

"Dishonest weights and measures" -- are they "done away with", too? Yeah, you could (and I do) argue that they're "theft" -- but I'm sure a good greek twisting is prolly on the Fed website somewhere...


("In God we trust" ??? It's certainly NOT the One who called things like that "abomination". Funny - the Hebrew word for "money" is "qesef", which explicitly means "silver". And according to both the Bible, and the Constitution, they're the same thing. Funny how "the law is done away with" applies there, too.)

 

[Slumberfreeze]

While I wait for Zec to finish his fact checking, I'd like to clarify my understanding of "the doctrine I'm bringing"

1) To admit a seemingly random story as a doctrine with the weight of law or prophecy is not something I would consider lightly. In fact, it is not something I would consider at all if it weren't for Jesus doing just that.
2) This type of thinking is admittedly ripe for abuse by those who would mishandle scripture. I could take any random story and use it to justify whatever act I consider just or pleasurable. For instance, if my sister was raped, I could find a handy little story about reactionary genocide that would be very appealing to me.
3) Obviously the potential for misuse does not color any actual doctrine, as I think every conceivable doctrine has been perverted by somebody, somewhere.
4) I believe that any wisdom found in such a story must be found redundantly in Scripture. This is not a new concept for me because I shy away from any doctrine which hangs wholly upon one verse, especially when there are other passages that directly contradict it.
5) Further, I expect the majority of such things to point towards Jesus, as I expect that scripture points towards Him in more ways than we are able to comprehend.

This is why I am able to be comfortable with Jesus' defense:
1) He said it
2) He is not mishandling Scripture,
3) and would never do such a thing
4) The doctrine of 'Christians ignoring the dietary laws' has many defensible passages recognized by the Church, and is held to by worthy, honest, godly men. It was a well established doctrine, without bringing these particular passages into play.
5) And the story directly points towards Jesus and His disciples.

Finally, this doctrine does not call God a liar. This basis of this doctrine is that God's word is intentionally seeded with caveats so clever as to defy human reason, so that God may impress us with His all knowing and infinite wisdom, that He may create stark contrasts by sharply contradicting our expectations, to underline and highlight His design. It is already known that His word is populated by logical paradoxes, such as the cutting off of Jehoiakim's kingly dynasty in Jeremiah 22:30, and yet having the Messiah still be of the bloodline of David AND the legal and rightful inheritor of David's throne. God neither contradicted Himself, nor lied. He merely did something that no-one could have expected, to reveal a great many provocative things about the Messiah.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Priests ONLY, by order of the Torah. Commoners not allowed. Lev 24:5-9

Well hot dang.

That passage was even more specific than I remembered it.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I just find it supremely amusing that to every claim of breaking the Law by Jesus, the disciples, David, etc, (not to mention Hosea) the primary example is the cry, "Doctrines of Man". Yet when Torah is presented, chapter and verse, proving that untrue, there's no acknowledgement that the point has been proven. The next strategy I see used is to fall back on the statement that God never changes, and because He has chosen to work His will in one instance a certain way, this must of course mean that every other instance and situation that God chooses to work in must be viewed through the same lenses as the first, whether or not there are differentiating factors. I must point out that this strategy is one of conflation. Confusing the micro with the macro. Because the nature of God never changes (macro) the ways in which He is allowed to work out his will must also be the same (micro). Dare I point out that this is the same type of flawed logic that presents evolution as a viable theory only in reverse? Because micro evolution is observable, macro evolution is a fact.

To @ZecAustin , I'm not certain where you've gotten the idea that I don't value the Torah or the Old Testament, or the Bible as the Word of God. I value it and prize it highly, study it often and meditate on it daily, both the Old and New Testaments. In fact, I really don't spend as much time in the New as the Old. That being said, God being my helper, I will always follow truth wherever it leads no matter how many sacred cows it butchers and barbecues. Sometimes this leads to very strong positions I have held being jettisoned but only after I've studied as thoroughly as is within my capabilities, like having blinders put on me by the idea that no good will come from studying extra biblical sources. I refuse to be coerced by man made restrictions to what I am allowed to study or what is pertinent to the subject of study. There are many good sources not included in our canon because of the ignorance of the clergy of the day. I did not come up through a Protestant background as some on here have posted. No big deal as most have intimated that they have come out of that. I was raised very close to what I would term a primitive church. But even that, I've found, had some inconsistencies with the scriptures due to Protestant inroads and our Roman American culture. As to the distinctions I've made between spoken Law and Written Law, it was not do "do away" with the Written Law, only to put it into proper perspective for the purpose of rightly dividing. That "proper perspective" as I view it, is that it is not the commands but is supplemental to the commands of my Adown/Lord. I am in Christ, under His spiritual covering and covenanted directly to the Bridegroom. I realize that Moses mediated a covenant as a third party and as such, his work constantly enlightens me as to the nature and expectations of the Father. However, my Bible tells me in no uncertain terms that all power and authority has been invested or given to Jesus Christ both in Heaven and on earth. I am in Christ not through a mediator, not through the Father, but through Christ himself. Once a son is placed in authority over his own household, the Father and the mediator take a backseat to the instructions and commands of the new head of household and the finalized or completed covenant. In Hebrew households, the written covenant always held a place of high importance and esteem as is fitting. However, the spoken instructions of the husband will be what guides the house and places boundaries or gives liberties over those under his care.

 

[andrew]

There's a line in As Good As It Gets where Melvin (Jack Nicholson) says "I have not gotten personal, and you have". Personal attacks (shaming, rallying) are generally a feminine strategy, not befitting men of God, or just men, generally. Everybody here is arguing in good faith from strongly held beliefs, and there is plenty of biblical traction for both sides of this 'discussion'. Stay focused on the logical arguments supporting your beliefs. Personal attacks and questioning the bona fides (good faith) of those who disagree with you isn't helping your case; in fact, it discredits your argument and your integrity.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Look guys, I don't believe everyone is required to follow the Law. Hell, half the Law only applies to Israelites living in Israel as those Commands are clearly prefaced with the phrases like "when you have come in to your inheritance in the land flowing with milk and honey."

And while I observe the dietary laws in my home they were fulfilled as clearly stated by Christ, Paul and God Himself to Peter. They are a really good idea and there will bw blessings for following them but it isn't required. This isn't about bacon or going to church on Sunday. You can go to church any day you want. God didn't say a thing about it.

This is about how we approach scripture, what we believe about Christ and even God Himself. You guys have Christ willfully violating His Own Word, that which He actually is, before you even can claim the New Covenant came to be. He hadn't done away with it yet. So would He have been the spotless Lamb then? Wasn't He blameless on that cross? Violating the Sabbath carried the death penalty, by God's own Words. Christ's crucifixion would have been justified and warranted. It would have been a just sentence not a perfect sacrifice. This isn't about bacon men.

I stand by the stale bread explanation. It's not crucial to the argument that it be so but as far as I can tell the bread was only holy while it was on the table before the altar. After that it was not. While it was on the table it could only be eaten by a descendant of Aaron or his household. We are not given any instructions about what it's state was afterwards so we can assume God didn't care. He's pretty specific about the things Hw cares about.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

I stand by the stale bread explanation. It's not crucial to the argument that it be so but as far as I can tell the bread was only holy while it was on the table before the altar. After that it was not. While it was on the table it could only be eaten by a descendant of Aaron or his household. We are not given any instructions about what it's state was afterwards so we can assume God didn't care. He's pretty specific about the things Hw cares about.

It's sort of crucial to the argument. If your idea of 'stale shewbread being common' is true, well, it shoots my understanding of what Jesus is even saying here right in the gut.

But:

A) The priest himself, Ahimelech, calls the bread that David is being offered "not common, but holy" 1 Samuel 21:4

B) And if we doubt for whatever reason that in the mind of Ahimelech, the bread was to be regarded as holy even off the table for consumption; Ahimelech and David then discuss the relative purity and holiness of his men. Ahimelech needs them to have been kept from women in order to be pure enough to eat it. David assures him that it was so for the last 3 days, and proclaims that the men were holy and the bread is common: 1 Samuel 24:4-5

C) The AUTHOR of the book of Samuel calls the bread holy 1 Samuel 21:6

D) Jesus said it was not lawful for David or his men to eat it, but only for the priests Matthew 12: 4

E) Which is not some weird Pharisee addition, but a straightforward rendering of the actual law given to the Jews. Only the sons of Aaron may eat of the showbread, only in the Holy place, for it is MOST HOLY to Him from the offerings of the Lord made by fire, by a perpetual statute. Leviticus 12:9

Furthermore, the bread was always replaced on the Sabbath, once a week. The bread was not eaten throughout the week whenever the priests felt hungry, but only after it had been there for 7 days and had been replaced by hot bread. This, as far as I can tell, has always been the normal practice. It has never not been the practice, except for one time when David got involved. So then I do a google search on 'stale showbread" and all I find are two thoughts,

1) The showbread doesn't go stale in 7 days because it is unleavened

or

2) It does go stale, and the stale bread is precisely what the Priests are meant to eat.

I find no support for your claim that... anyone... anywhere... has ever believed that bread taken from the table was common. You have provided no scriptural evidence of this. Is it in the Talmud, then? That would seem to work at cross purposes with your assertion, but if it were there at least I could acknowledge that this was a practice of the priests, whether or not it was called for in the Law.

Your argument about the bread relies on a Law being silent where it is actually really vocal and specific.

I assert that when David proclaimed that the men were holy, and the bread was common, he was speaking by the Holy Spirit and foreshadowing what Jesus would be setting up in His Kingdom. In His Kingdom, WE are The Temples of the Holy Spirit, and bread of whatever variety on any given day is common to us.

And if the Holy Spirit delivered a prophecy that this would be so, in what way am I accusing Jesus of violating His own word? Did He not cause David to proclaim the men holy and the bread common? Did He not cause a man to record them just so? Did He not later rely on this proclamation to irritate the Pharisees while simultaneously claiming to be Lord of the Sabbath?

If the bread is common as a matter of 'expiring holiness' then there is no harm, no foul. There is also no point in bringing it up to the Pharisees. They would have been like "Yeah? So what David ate some expired bread...? Your disciples are currently PROFANING THE SABBATH!!!"

But if the bread is Holy, then it is a matter of the men being made Holy by their association to the One who cleanses them. Holy enough to eat holy bread, or do work on a Holy day. It is not for the sons of the kingdom to pay taxes.

Which is hardly a controversial matter.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Alright, so while the bread is a very interesting side issue and one I don't have a definitive answer on it is a side issue.

The issue before us is did Jesus break the Law? We're spending a lot of time on whether David broke the Law. Like I said, an interesting and not irrelevant side issue but a side issue nonetheless.

And if the answer is yes that Jesus broke the Law then we have to reconcile His commission of something He had labeled a sin punishable by death with His claim to be without sin and spotless sacrifice.

Now you may say that Jesus instituted a New Covenant but you surely don't claim that was started before the Crucifixion so Jesus was still functioning under the Old Covenant, which He Himself had been a part of establishing.

Of course you say that Jesus was above the Law and so by definition can't break it. But you forget that He claimed to have submitted Himself to the Father and was obedient in all things. Also that was fully man as well as being fully God and even framed His sacrifice in terms where He was an antithesis of Adam but also the Son of Adam. He was tempted, which makes it very difficult to believe He wasn't capable of sin, by Lucifer who of everyone would have known the significance of such a thing.

I submit that arguing about the legality of eating the bread or picking the wheat is what the Pharisees would have done. In the meantime we risk losing our Savior and ultimately our whole faith in order to free ourselves from the Law which isn't even that burdensome when you find out what it actually says.

I'm going to bow out of this one. There is no room for agreement here. Nothing anyone can say will shake my belief that the Law is still in place even if its not required. And I know that nothing I can say will ever convince anyone not already sympathetic to the idea that there is any validity in it.

I admit I am taken aback by how much is open to be jettisoned with the Law. I am shocked how little concern is shown for the massive implications of God being unreliable or Jesus a sinner but I know that not everyone follows it through that far.

Ultimately the only things that matter are that we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, be baptized, refrain from adultery, food sacrificed to idols or that has the blood in it and to remember the widows and orphans. As long as we do that we can't refuse fellowship as far as I understand it. Let's move on and get ready for the Retreat!

 

[FollowingHim]

@ZecAustin has stated the fundamental issue that is at stake here very well. Yes, there may be issues with details. I agree the shewbread one is complex and I can't wrap my head around it fully. But our overall theology must be built first on the fundamentals (and in saying that I fully acknowledge @Slumberfreeze 's excellent, detailed analysis of the complexity of this particular case, I'm certainly not saying he's wrong, just that I can't quite see how to fit this into the big picture at this point in time). There are some serious fundamental issues here around the legitimacy of Christ as a perfect sacrifice for sin, and that fundamental point is the reason for strong emotion on this issue.

@ZecAustin and @Mark C are basing their understanding of Torah on their understanding of the overall weight of evidence in scripture - I don't think they have adequately explained this particular passage in this discussion, but that does not mean they are wrong, only that they are human and can't quite explain this particular point, or can but can't adequately express it in words. Nor does it mean that @Slumberfreeze and @Verifyveritas76 are necessarily correct, although they might be - there are many issues raised that they too have inadequately addressed. This issue just goes a whole lot deeper than this passage, and this conversation is too short to fully get into the entire mass of scripture related to this.

Our understanding of Torah is very strongly relevant to our understanding of plural marriage, because most of the verses relating to plural marriage that show us YHWH's heart in the matter, are in Torah. The degree to which we accept Torah as applicable to us today will directly influence our understanding of marriage. For this reason, this is a topic that is completely relevant for discussion on this forum - if we can do so calmly, as brothers, and not get upset at each other when we disagree (even when the other person is "obviously" completely wrong!).

 

[aineo]

For this reason, this is a topic that is completely relevant for discussion on this forum - if we can do so calmly, as brothers, and not get upset at each other when we disagree (even when the other person is "obviously" completely wrong!).

Exactly. I wish I could give this 1000 likes.