Matt. 12 : 01 - 02 Picking grain on the Sabbath?

[Prodigal Girl]

I haven't been able to figure this one out. Mosaic law says to stay home, not go out and gather on the Sabbath. So why were the disciples picking and"shucking" the grain they were eating? I understand that you can break the Sabbath and other laws if life is in danger. I am assuming that David and his men were on the verge of starvation when they ate the temple bread, for instance, but I am not sure about that. But were Yeshua's disciples in the same kind of fix? So far, I have come up with the following list of possible explanations, some are what I was taught in Sunday School:
1. Jesus broke the law and we are no longer to do the Sabbath.
2. Jesus really did not break the written law, just the oral law, and we are no longer to do the Sabbath, at least not like "the Jews" do.
3. Jesus did not break the law, just interpreted it differently than certain of his opponents. We are still to do the Sabbath, but interpret it differently than his opponents did/do.
4. It was not the weekly no work Sabbath that Jesus broke, but another type of Sabbath which allowed some work, so he did not really break the weekly Sabbath law. Halacha said that the poor WERE allowed to glean from fields on some Sabbaths, but not on the weekly Sabbath.
5. It was OK for Jesus to change the rules on the Sabbath if He wanted to because He is King (like David) and Divine Messiah.
6. His opponents were being legalistic and going outside the bounds of Sabbath law. They were too strict.

So, anyone else have any other explanations? Right now I am trying to research explanation #4.

[Yitzchak]

prodigalgirl said:

I haven't been able to figure this one out. Mosaic law says to stay home, not go out and gather on the Sabbath. So why were the disciples picking and"shucking" the grain they were eating? I understand that you can break the Sabbath and other laws if life is in danger. I am assuming that David and his men were on the verge of starvation when they ate the temple bread, for instance, but I am not sure about that. But were Yeshua's disciples in the same kind of fix? So far, I have come up with the following list of possible explanations, some are what I was taught in Sunday School:
1. Jesus broke the law and we are no longer to do the Sabbath.
2. Jesus really did not break the written law, just the oral law, and we are no longer to do the Sabbath, at least not like "the Jews" do.
3. Jesus did not break the law, just interpreted it differently than certain of his opponents. We are still to do the Sabbath, but interpret it differently than his opponents did/do.
4. It was not the weekly no work Sabbath that Jesus broke, but another type of Sabbath which allowed some work, so he did not really break the weekly Sabbath law. Halacha said that the poor WERE allowed to glean from fields on some Sabbaths, but not on the weekly Sabbath.
5. It was OK for Jesus to change the rules on the Sabbath if He wanted to because He is King (like David) and Divine Messiah.
6. His opponents were being legalistic and going outside the bounds of Sabbath law. They were too strict.

So, anyone else have any other explanations? Right now I am trying to research explanation #4.

I think the most telling part of the verses related to this story have to do with the explanation of David HaMelech and the eating of the "Bread of Presence". I would have to make the argument that David was no more starving then were the Talmdidim of Yeshua. However, it is important to note that the Cohanim gave David the bread. The question is then, what would be the reason they would give him the bread.

From my research it would appear that they considered David to have been on an important mission for the King, and thus it was important to support this mission by giving him this bread. Taking it forward, of course Yeshua like David was on an important mission for the King. Further, there is the one verse in which He states that something greater than the Temple is amongst them. This not only speaks to His deity, as there was no authority greater than the Temple considering that YHVH dwelt there.

The argument can be made that His authority exceeded their Melachot (Labors), which are the 39 laws regarding the Sabbath.

There is more, but I will start with this.

Shalom,

Yitzchak

[Mpossoff]

Yitzchak, correct me if I'm wrong please but wasn't David also a priest, king and prophet as Yeshua was? And if so that gave David the 'right' to eat the "Bread of Presence". David and his me were hungry therefore it was valid and especially more valid since David was the anti-typical Yeshua?

Could Yeshua have been relating to that? 'Just like David.....'

Marc

[Prodigal Girl]

The king (David) was not a priest. I am also intrigued that the priest inquired as to his ritual purity. I know that the war mission he was supposedly on was considered a holy act. Not sure how this relates to being allowed to eat the holy bread. But this was all very significant to Yeshua, that is why he talked about it. I think I need to hit the books some more to know what was going on there. Another interesting twist is that David deliberately deceived the priest.

[Mark]

Here we have one of the inconsistencies in the englist translations of the Greek text (understanding that the words Messiah spoke were most likely in Hebrew or Aramaic; but Greek is what we have here to work with in most cases) . The word word that we typically see translated as Law is nomos and understood in Jewish contexts to be referring to . Yet, another word is often translated law or lawful is the Greek word "estemee". Estemee can be understood as "law" but it is a much softer word, generally referring to what would be understood as appropriate, customary or good etiquite.

Something that is often forgotten is that the priests were as bound to laws of hospitality as anyone else. It was inappropriate for David to ask for the bread; but it would have been against for the Priest to refuse it.

[Mpossoff]

prodigalgirl said:

The king (David) was not a priest. I am also intrigued that the priest inquired as to his ritual purity. I know that the war mission he was supposedly on was considered a holy act. Not sure how this relates to being allowed to eat the holy bread. But this was all very significant to Yeshua, that is why he talked about it. I think I need to hit the books some more to know what was going on there. Another interesting twist is that David deliberately deceived the priest.

I'm going to find the scripture but I believe David was and he wore the ephod.

Or that the when one was annointed it meant he was being annointed into '3 positions' prophet, king and priest.

And this would make sense as David is the anti-typical Yeshua.

Marc

[Mark]

One possible element you're looking for is Psalm 110.

David wore a linen ephod in 1st Samuel 6:14 and again referenced in 1st Chronicles 15:27; but the ephod used for communication with Eloheem was likely warn by Abiathar in 1st Samuel 23, 30.

[Mpossoff]

mark said:

One possible element you're looking for is Psalm 110.

David wore a linen ephod in 1st Samuel 6:14 and again referenced in 1st Chronicles 15:27; but the ephod used for communication with Eloheem was likely warn by Abiathar in 1st Samuel 23, 30.

I don't know all the text says David wore it.

Marc

[Prodigal Girl]

I know that priests were supposed to come from Aaron's line. Except in the case of Meschizadek, who came before Aaron and Moses. Yeshua was not descended from Aaron, so could not be a high priest based on and genetic relationship to him, But he could if his priesthood came from before Aaron existed.
And also, the Bible says we are a priestly nation, so are all considered priests in some sense?
There is the discussion in Leviticus 21:10 which says that "The priest who is the highest among his brothers, on whose head the anointing oil has been poured and who has been consecrated to wear the garments... (NAS)
So I am thinking that a king annointed by G-d is a special case, and/or someone who is acting in the king's place on a "mission" (in this case, David was supposed to be acting for his king Saul) is a special case in which eating the consecrated bread is allowed. I know that by the time of the incident in the temple with David, he had already been annointed, though it was not widely known yet. I think that Yeshua was showing the comparison between himself, his mission and his annointing, and that of David. A law can be laid aside temporarily in favor of a greater law.

[Nachshon]

The prohibition against leaving your home on Shabbat was a temporary one, and refered to the time in the wilderness. That's why the term "al" was used for "do not" wrather than the normal term "lo."

[Prodigal Girl]

nachshon said:

The prohibition against leaving your home on Shabbat was a temporary one, and refered to the time in the wilderness. That's why the term "al" was used for "do not" wrather than the normal term "lo."

Yet there seemed to be in the Second Temple period the practice of only going a specified distance on the Sabbath. At any rate, there did appear to be the teaching at that time of no threshing/shucking grain as there is now. So as Yeshua seemed to be saying He was "breaking the rule" but not really breaking the because of the situation. It is the situation I am trying to figure out.

[Nachshon]

what is practice and what is Mitzwa are often two completely different things.

Also, the prohibition in is against gathering. On the Shabbat you are supposed to live off of the abundance of the week. However, since they had no homes, no crops, no businesses, RIBI and His Talmidim needed something else. They did nothing that was prohibited on the Shabbat. At least, they didn't violate any mitzwa that I know of.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

At any rate, there did appear to be the teaching at that time of no threshing/shucking grain as there is now. So as Yeshua seemed to be saying He was "breaking the rule" but not really breaking the because of the situation. It is the situation I am trying to figure out.

There is no prohibition against going through a field and snacking on grain as you happen to be walking through it on the Sabbath. This is what one of the sects of the P’rushim (Pharis.) had a problem with. The actual prohibition deals with boiling, baking, and gathering significant portions of food on Shabbat. Now, if one was harvesting the field and threshing it out…that would be another matter. The problem was the tradition that this particular sect of P’rushim had established and of which they were trying to enforce upon the people. That’s the situation. Because the stance these P'rushim were taking on this issue I believe Yeshua shared David's situation to present a slightly different view in a way they may better understand. If what His talmidim were doing was a clear violation, I don't think He would have defended their conduct. It obviously was a debatable subject.

Shalom,

Re’u’el

[Prodigal Girl]

I would assume, also, that there is probably some discussion of this issue in rabbinic literature.

[alon]

Sometimes it is as interesting to observe all the mental gymnastics Messianics go through to make scripture match our doctrine. Kind of a throwback to our Christian past, where it was necessary to do these kinds of things else doctrine had NO basis ...

The problem was in the halacha of the various sects, or even schools within the same sect. In most of the Galil at that time, halacha was that you could shell out a small ammount of grain and eat it on Shabbat. Also the restrictions on (short) travel were halachic, and varried between sects and schools. Yeshua was of the school of Hillel, which tended to be more liberal in their interpretations. Now whoever challenged Yeshua would have known this. And it wasn't the only time He was challenged based on someone else's halacha. The issue with again His disciples washing their hands before they ate was the same kind of baseless mud-slingining. 

His answer was another example of the fact He was a well trained Pharisaic Rabbi. It was a perfect example of a Rabbinical form of teaching called 'yelemmandu." This is when someone (usually a disciple, but in this case a challenger) asks the Rabbi a question, and he responds with an interpretation of scripture followed by an accepted Rabbinic opinion.

Mark 2:23-28 (ESV) One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain.  And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”  And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?”  And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.  So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

So the question/challenge by SOME Pharisees (not all of them): “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 

Next the Biblical interpretation: Yeshua gives the example of Dovid and his men eating the showbread. Note that they WERE starving. And in Judaism it has always been accepted halacha that preservation of life is the highest of the mitzvoth other than bowing before and worshiping an idol. So it was not illegal for them to partake of the Bread of Presence. 

And finally Yeshua gives a saying which can be found in many places in Rabbinical literature at that time, "“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Ref. Mekilta 103b, Yoma 85b Sukkah 49b, as well as in Deuteronomy Rabba 16:18. 

So there is no need for all the spiritual gymnastics. Just go back to Jewish history, traditions, and the culture of the times. Yeshua never broke any laws, nor the halacha of His sect. Nor did He allow His talmidim to do so. It is that while the mud-slinging of His time never stuck, to the point the Sadducees had to lie and act illegally in order to hand Him over to the Romans for crucifixion; but in the period of about 150-300 yrs after His resurrection the church succeeded in burying both Him and His message in layers of mud so deep those of us coming out of the church still have trouble getting to the truth.

Dan C 

edit: this is my recollection and interpretation based on my memory of a teaching done by Rav S