Situation ethics is a commonplace approach to behaviour and lifestyle today. “What you feel in your heart” has become the guiding light even for many of those who profess to follow God. To one degree or another substituting what one feels for a ‘thus saith the Lord’ is rife, and considered a measure of one’s spirituality. Interpreting Scripture by the dictates of the heart has produced a more fractured Christianity.
I often say we need to read the familiar passages more carefully. An incident found in Matt.12:1-7; Mark 2:23-27 and Luke 6:1-5 (where the Pharisees accuse Jesus’ disciples of breaking the sabbath when they picked some corn to eat as they walked through a cornfield) is often appealed to as evidence that benevolent circumstances, say hunger, dictates one can disobey other laws of God. Certainly a casual reading of the incident could lend to being pressed into service such an idea.
A couple of things immediately trouble me about that approach. First, surely God would have anticipated such things when He formulated His laws, and second, who decides how hungry you have to be? In the case in point, how hungry were the disciples? Were they about to die? Why didn’t Jesus eat?
Though Jesus Himself didn’t eat (which proves to me the disciples weren’t on the point of starvation), a teacher was generally held to be responsible for his students and so the Jews remonstrated with Jesus, accusing them of breaking the sabbath. Jesus defends His disciples, saying they were guiltless (Matt.12:7). Part of His defence was a reference to David eating the shewbread.
We need to go back to that incident to get the facts, because they are different from what is often presented. David has met with Johnathon before he becomes a fugitive on the run from King Saul. David doesn’t flee to his hometown of Bethlehem, most probably because he fears that would be the first place Saul would look. Instead he goes to Nob, not far from Jerusalem, where the tabernacle was located at the time. (1 Sam. 21:1-10)
On reading this event again and reflecting on it, we can surely say that this was not David’s finest hour. Compare David here with the David who faced Goliath and there is no comparison. Now he is afraid and under stress and so he behaves differently (even as the disciples at the arrest of Jesus – what happened to “Let us go and die with Him” or “This will not happen unto you”). If we justify David here we need to ask the question, “Would Jesus have done this?”
When David arrives Abimelech the priest trembles (v.1). Why? Because a king’s son-in-law with no entourage is something strange. Perhaps he had also heard of Saul’s attempt to take David in his bed. Verse 2 records the first lie – no that’s a lie – this had been preceded by another in I Sam.20:6 where David conveyed to Saul that he had gone to Bethlehem for a family feast. The third lie about troops waiting at a rendevous quickly follows and then the lie about the lack of weapon because of a hasty departure tags along to keep up the subterfuge. O what a wicked web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Naturally David would regret all this later (22:22) when he realises he occasioned the death of many innocents.
David asks for bread but all that was present at the tabernacle was the shewbread. David knows better than to request it and the priest knows better than to offer it. Lev. 24:5-9 said the shewbread was for priests to eat in the holy place. One commentator acknowledged that but, wanting to justify David, said but it didn’t say that others couldn’t eat it. How many false things have been taught on that premise? When God authorises something then everything else is eliminated. Note what Jesus said in Mk.2:26 – it was not lawful for him to eat it.
There is obviously something extremely hasty in this incident. Is it really possible that in a collection of people at Nob there was no other food? Note in 22:18,19 that 85 priests plus men, women, children, oxen, asses and sheep from Nob were slaughtered at the behest of Saul. Is it reasonable to suggest that the shewbread was the only food in Nob?! Not a piece of fruit? Not a vegetable? Not a piece of salted meat was to be found amongst hundreds of people?! It would seem that David is at the tabernacle itself, wants food, and wants it now. Perhaps he feels he could trust the priest but had misgivings about being seen in the village (of course this caution proved to be futile as he was seen by Doeg who reported the event to Saul)
But to the point in hand. If this was simply a case, as is often suggested, that David’s hunger overrode the law of the shewbread and humanitarian considerations dictated that benevolence should be offered, why did the priest show concern about whether David and his companions were ceremonially clean? To put this in a contemporary context if someone is hungry and in dire need of food surely we wouldn’t consider whether they were Christians or non-Christians, clean-shaven or bedraggled, short or tall! The priest was troubled – on the one hand there was the law of the shewbread, but he is being pressured by the King’s son-in-law. So he attempts some sort of weak-handed compromise. Consequently both David and the priest were culpable.
So why did Jesus refer to this incident? All speakers and writers have characteristic turns of phrase. For example, Paul used questions, not to wait for answers, but to introduce subjects he wanted to pursue (cf. Rom. 3:1,3,5,6,7,9,27,29,31; 4:1,3,9,10). Similarly one of Jesus’ characteristic expressions was Have you not read? When He used this expression he wasn’t insinuating they hadn’t read the passage under consideration (cf. Matt.19:4; 21:16; 21:42; 22:31). He knew full well they were familiar with them, but He wanted them to reflect upon them.
I was curious to know how Jewish scholars and commentators viewed David’s actions at Nob. If they condemned David for breaking the law then it would make sense for them to condemn Jesus’ disciples for breaking the sabbath law. However, a little research revealed the fact that the Jews generally justified David in what He did – for such reasons as because he was the future king and light of Israel and his life needed to be preserved and so on.
So Jesus’ argument was this: if you justify David in breaking the law, why do you condemn my disciples? To strengthen the argument He makes it plain His disciples hadn’t broken the law – it was an accusation of extreme hypocrisy – you justify the law-breaker but you condemn the innocent! (Matt.12:7). The sabbath day was not a day of fasting. The law was quite general – Ex. 20:10. The myriad of hair-splitting rules they had developed over the years were not from God. You were allowed to pick grain in another’s field as long as you picked it for personal use and didn’t enter the field with a sickle and a sugar-bag (Deut. 23:25)
What the disciples had broken was the Pharisees traditions concerning the sabbath. But as Jesus pointed out, the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. It was a God-ordained day of rest where one ceased from normal labour. It was never intended to stop the spiritual life of the nation (the priests still interceded – Matt.12:5), and neither was it intended to stop a sick man or beast being helped on that day (Matt.12:11,12). Some people, like Paul, worked really hard on the Sabbath, going to the assemblies in the synagogue and speaking the word of God, but this was not a breaking of the law, but rather an intended use of that day.
Is it ever right to do wrong? God would never create a situation where to attempt such was necessary.