6 On a Sabbath, while he was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked and ate some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands. 2 But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?” 3 And Jesus answered them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?” 5 And he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”
In the phrase I have added bolding to, reportedly Jesus is speaking of himself, and he claims to be "lord of the Sabath." This seems to be a claim to be God. YWHW would be considered the "lord of the Sabath" by those he is speaking to. If this isn't the case, how does one understand this claim? Could it be simply a claim that YWHW gave that authority to the man Jesus? What would the author of Luke's motivation be to present Jesus as "lord of the Sabath?"
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
Tcg wrote: ↑Sun Apr 24, 2022 4:20 pm
Could it be simply a claim that YWHW gave that authority to the man Jesus?
Yes, biblically it could.
MATTHEW 28:18
Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth
EPHESIANS 1:20, 21
... he [God] exercised toward Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named, not only in this system of things but also in that to come.
PHILIPIANS 2: 9, 10
For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground.
To learn more please go to other posts related to...
We all know what this is about - the persistent gospel message that Religious Law and ritual don't matter and it is 'doing Good' that matters. Which of course I would agree with. But somehow the argument that Jesus makes here - that Sabbath Church attendance doesn't matter and mowing your neighbour's lawn or cooking her kids breakfast is more meritorious - gets missed by the Believers (1). For some reason Jesus' message that Sunday Church -going is unimportant hasn't got through, especially to those who insist on hanging all 10 commandments in Government buildings, including the 4th and 5th even though Jesus declared them irrelevant, pretty much.
I have no doubt in my own mind that 'David and the Shewbread' is Paulinist Greek/Gentile Christian polemic against Judaism, as is pretty much all of the gospel. It is for me a Touchstone testcase for Paulinist polemic, because the argument is terribly poor, and even more than the 'withered arm' sabbath -breaking argument, shows that it cannot be considered true, as the Pharisees and teachers of the Law (Rabbis, effectively) would or should have debated the argument, not been struck dumb and slunk away to plot murder as is the habitual behaviour imputed to Jesus' Jewish opponents by the Gospel -writers.
Look at the argument, effectively the same in all the synoptics: Jesus and his disciples were walking through the fields husking (and nibbling) grain. They are leaped upon by the Pharisees who said they were breaking the ritual law. That all of them should have been in the synagogue isn't important in this set -up polemic scenario of the original writer. It is to make Jewish rites and customs look silly and trivial and there are good reasons to drop them (The Paulinist messahe).
With the withered arm, it is that doing Good beats observing the Sabbath Law not to do work, is the message. Here, is it plainly stated that the sabbath does not matter. Why? Because Jesus beats the Jewish law. He is Lord of the Sabbath, he is Greater than the Temple, he has replaced the old Eye for an eye with revised commandments that Jesus has spoken, and never mind Moses. Not destroying the Law, mind you, but 'Fulfilling it'. Which means the spirit of the Law is maintained, but the letter can be binned along with everything else Jewish. Including the Jews, unless they convert.
But aside that, the argument is truly wretched. David ate the shewbread. So apparently David (the Hebrews' own tribal hero) did what was forbidden, Therefore that's a green light to toss the commandments in the bin.
But look at the story. The priest asked a few questions first before deciding that it was ok to give David the bread. It was deemed by the priest a kosher act and not Tref. And even if it was tref or forbidden, David was no saint or prophet. He was a great king but was not sinless. Just because he did something bad is no permission to go criminal in everything else.
This argument is garbage and the teachers of the law should have been on Jesus' neck with objections right away. But of course, nothing like that happens. They are stumped silent like an atheist confronted with 'Darwin repented on his deathbed'. This is Christian polemic written for other Christians to do what was important for them in their day (early days of Christianity when it still had to contend with Jewish Christianity) and is intended to be polemic, not a debate.
(1) and what staggers me, by apparently all Bible -critics, too. I just never see this criticism, and it's all 'one angel or two?' We goddless just let the Believers direct the discussion too much. And I suspect we should know the Bible better.
