By Ken Yates

Introduction

In Luke 6:1-5, the Lord is involved in a controversy with the Pharisees. These religious leaders take exception to the disciples eating grain from a field on the Sabbath. It was okay to eat the grain, but the disciples were rubbing it with their hands. The Pharisees said rubbing involved work, which was prohibited on the Sabbath.

Since the disciples were following Christ, the Pharisees’ accusation was really directed towards Him. How could He allow the disciples to commit such a blatant sin? Keeping the Sabbath was one of the chief hallmarks of Jews in the first century. The Pharisees saw the disciples’ actions as a denial of the faith.

How would the Lord respond to this attack? He does so in a way that raises several questions.

David Did the Same Thing

Christ reminds the Pharisees that King David and his men did something that was not lawful (1 Sam 21:1-6). The Lord clearly draws a parallel between David and his followers and Himself and His disciples.

In 1 Samuel 21, David was fleeing from Saul. God had anointed him king, but Saul was on the throne and sought David’s life. David and those with him were hungry when they arrived at the Tabernacle. The priest had nothing except the bread set aside exclusively for the priests to eat. The priest asked if the men were ritually clean. After David assured him they were, the priest gave them the bread.

Some have suggested that this bread was placed in the Tabernacle on the Sabbath and that this event occurred on that day. If so, the parallels between Jesus and His disciples are even clearer. David and his men were hungry on the Sabbath, but what they did violated the Law. In the eyes of the Pharisees, the Lord and His men were doing the same thing.

The Lord assumes that the Pharisees would not have condemned David. Though the priest had allowed the Law to be violated by giving David and his men the bread, there is no indication in 1 Samuel that the Lord disapproved of what the priest did. With all the similarities between the two accounts, why would the Pharisees rebuke the Lord and the disciples but give a pass to David and his men?

The Pharisees were certainly inconsistent. But an even bigger issue is involved here. Was the Lord saying that His people can violate His commandments if they find themselves in a difficult situation? Was He a proponent of situational ethics?

What Is Going On?

In answering those questions, some say that Jesus did indeed teach that under certain circumstances it is acceptable to disobey His Word. David and his men could eat the prohibited bread because there was a greater need. The men were hungry. Connected to this view is the idea that some of God’s commandments are not as important as others. David broke a ceremonial law that dealt only with food. He did not break a moral law, such as one of the Ten Commandments.

I am not comfortable with such a view. I don’t think we can divide God’s commandments in the OT into various kinds of laws. I think the Law of Moses must be taken as a unit. Plus, David did break one of the Ten Commandments during this episode. He lied to the priest (1 Sam 21:2).

A second view related to the first is more acceptable. It is possible that a person serving the Lord will be in a position in which a law of God must be violated because a choice must be made between two laws. In this case, David and his men were serving the Lord. He was the anointed king of Israel but was being hunted down. In the process of being obedient to the Lord, his men became hungry and needed nourishment. It is righteous to meet the physical needs of people, especially servants of the Lord. God’s people are commanded to do so. The bread in the tabernacle was the only option.

This appears to be part of the Lord’s reasoning. The Lord commanded to keep the Sabbath for the good of the people (Mark 2:27). It was good for these men to eat. The priest was fulfilling the purpose of the Sabbath.

Some say that David’s mission as the anointed servant of the Lord placed him in the position of a priest. The men with him were doing priestly work. David was on a holy mission, and the priest recognized that. He asked David if he and the men were ritually clean. Only after David stated they were did the priest give them the food.

An observation that is not frequently stated might also explain what happened in 1 Samuel 21. The Law said that the bread was only for the priests to eat. It seems that this prevented others from taking what was to be used to support and feed the priests. But once the priests received it, could they do with it what they wanted? It was given to them for food, and the priest willingly gave it up for those in need. In this sense, maybe there was no violation of the Law at all.

The Lord explicitly states that His disciples did not sin when they rubbed the grain in the field on the Sabbath. He could make this statement because He is the Lord of the Sabbath (Luke 6:5). As Lord, He had established that day of rest for the good of His people. He was the One who could determine how the purpose of the Sabbath could be fulfilled without violating it. If David and his men were innocent in their actions because they were on a holy mission, serving the Lord—and the Pharisees agreed that they were—how much more would that be true for Christ and His disciples?

Applying the Law

At the heart of the dispute between the Pharisees and the Lord was how they applied the Law of Moses. The Lord had said that the Jews could not work on that day. But what constituted work? The Pharisees had come up with a long list of what they said was prohibited. Their list was not found in the OT. They had decided that rubbing grain in one’s hands was to engage in harvesting and preparing food. These things were not allowed.

It was one thing to develop such a list. It was another thing altogether to demand that everybody follow that list. One would think that even if a Pharisee believed that what the disciples were doing was work, he should have realized that this was his opinion and that there were other ways of looking at the situation. In the case of men who were hungry, that Pharisee should show a little mercy. Maybe he was wrong. The Lord tells the Pharisees confronting Him that they were merciless in their condemnation (Matt 12:7).

We can learn from the words of the Lord here. Sometimes we come to a passage of Scriptures and wonder how we can apply it. We come up with how we will do so in our own lives. We must realize, however, that those applications are not mandated in the Bible.

Marshall says concerning this incident: “But surely the point of the saying is that here Jesus claims an authority tantamount to that of God with respect to the interpretation of the law” (Luke, p. 233). Stein agrees, “It is thus the Son of Man, not the Pharisees by means of their regulations, who ruled and properly interpreted the Sabbath” (Luke, p. 189).

When it comes to the Sabbath, I am reminded of my past. When I grew up, it was common for church people to say that we should not work on Sundays. Their motives were good. They determined that a day of rest would be beneficial. But determining precisely what that looked like was difficult.

Some said you couldn’t eat at a restaurant on Sunday because the people there were working. Women were to prepare their meals on Saturday to not cook (and work) on Sunday. Mowing a yard was definitely out. Going fishing was debatable. Some said yes, and others said no.

Whatever rules each believer developed, one thing should have been clear. Like equating the rubbing of grain in one’s hands to harvesting a crop, people could have different views. What was allowable in one person’s eyes was not acceptable to someone else. They were all well-meaning attempts to do what was wise, but they were still just man-made applications.

Unfortunately, in my younger days I saw and heard a lot of condemnation of people who did not “keep the Sabbath.” We should all have realized how dumb that was. We didn’t even have the ordained day right. Sunday wasn’t even the OT Sabbath. The Jews rested on Saturday! We should have been a lot more gracious.

Conclusion

There are different ways of interpreting what happened with David and his men in 1 Samuel 21. I don’t think the Lord was teaching situational ethics.

But I do think He was giving us some instruction on situational application. A Pharisee could decide never to rub grain in his hands on the Sabbath. For him, that was too much like work. But he should have been merciful towards others who did not share his view. It was just a personal application. Mercy would have been especially needed at a time when men were hungry.

We should act that way. There are many times when the Scriptures clearly teach truths, and we should tenaciously hold to those truths. However, there are other times when different interpretations are possible. These differences will often lead to varied applications.

In those situations, may we be gracious dispensers of mercy.

____________________

Ken Yates is a retired Army chaplain (Lt. Col). He has many theological degrees, including a Ph.D. from D.T.S. in New Testament. He leads the GES international ministry, cohosts the daily podcast, and assists Bob in all aspects of the GES ministry. His new book, Elisabeth, is a powerful testimony to the power of God manifested in a Christ-centered family. He and his wife, Pam, live in Columbia, SC.