# Luke 6:1-11 Jesus, Lord of the Sabbath



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 9, 2009)

Taught on this passage at Evening Worship this past Sunday: Jesus, Lord of the Sabbath (Luke 6:1-11) | Hope of Christ Church

Listen: http://www.hopeofchrist.net/teaching/misc/Luke6;1-11.mp3



> ...It is actually quite natural that the Pharisees would be concerned about the Sabbath. The fraternity of the Pharisees was originally founded for the purpose of seeking to take seriously the Law of God after the Babylonian captivity. In the Law of God, God had commanded that the Nation of Israel celebrate a Sabbath Year once every 7 years. Israel was in captivity for 70 years because the Nation had disregarded the command of God to give the land a rest one year in every seven for 490 years. And so God judged the Nation by taking them out of the land and giving the land rest for the 70 years they had neglected to celebrate.
> 
> Thus the Pharisees, after the captivity were like a child who had burned his hand on a hot stove. A hot stove is very useful but if you touch the burner it is quite painful. A child, properly disciplined, will return to the stove someday and use it properly. But one way around never getting burned is to never go near the stove again.
> 
> ...


----------



## Prufrock (Jun 9, 2009)

> Thus the Pharisees, after the captivity were like a child who had burned his hand on a hot stove. A hot stove is very useful but if you touch the burner it is quite painful. A child, properly disciplined, will return to the stove someday and use it properly. But one way around never getting burned is to never go near the stove again.



Creative picture, Rich. I look forward to listening.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jun 10, 2009)

Rich,

This was the first time I've listened to you teach. Well done! After hearing that, you'd have a difficult time convincing me that your heart is truly in what you do for the Corps...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 11, 2009)

Thanks Ben. Let's just say the study and teaching of the Word of God is my first love but I do enjoy IT as well. I appreciate the encouragement. I'm working on my M.Div. deliberately to see where Providence leads because I have so many external encouragements for the ministry that I need to prepare my heart for it, if the Lord wills.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 11, 2009)

Yes, we need solid biblical reformed church officers...

and we need you in the military too!


----------



## blhowes (Jun 11, 2009)

I look forward to listening to your message tonight. Interesting that for the last couple weeks from time-to-time this part of the passage has come to mind, and made me wonder:

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.”​
It may be touched on in the message, but here's what I was wondering. Why was it ok for David to do what he did if it was not lawful. I don't have time now to dig up the verses, but I was wondering why this was ok, but when others did unlawful things it wasn't ok - I'm thinking of 1) the passage where they're transporting the ark of the covenant on the cart and somebody reaches up to steady it and 2) the time when the guy was picking up sticks on the Sabbath. All three are unlawful, but...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 11, 2009)

In parallel passages, the answer is essentially that one aspect of the Law takes precedence over the other. In this case the ceremonial aspect of the the Showbread being for the priests is trumped by the necessity of the preservation of human life. One of the interesting things that Christ notes in Matthew 12:5 is that the priests in the Temple "profane" the Sabbath because they work on a day of rest but that work is a work of necessity and mercy. You actually see Christ doing quite a few things in the Scriptures that a Jew would not do if all they cared about was their ritual cleanliness - he touches lepers to make them clean and, in a later passage, stops a funeral procession and touches a dead body to resurrect the boy and restore him to his mother. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the two people that pass by on the other side of the road are doing so for ritual purity reasons and so the Samaritan is the only one that is said to fulfill the Law to love neighbor.


----------



## blhowes (Jun 12, 2009)

I enjoyed listening to your sermon (both times). It was one of those sermons that, after you hear it, makes me want to dig deeper into the scriptures to learn more. Well done. Thanks for posting it.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 12, 2009)

> Matthew 12
> 
> 2But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
> 
> ...



It seems that in relation to the priests, at least (v. 5) their work which was commanded by parts of the Levitical Law, was not a violation of the fourth commandment.

I have heard that called an exception of "piety" but see also how it is work of necessity and mercy (must be done for corporate worship on the sabbath). So that work, at least, was never a violation of the Sabbath. If I'm understanding that correctly, it's not that it was "work" and got an exception but that works of this kind, being both of the nature of true necessity and mercy and specifically commanded by Scripture are, from the beginning, not sabbath violations- never were.

It seems though David's actions were violations, from the beginning, sabbath violations but then "excepted"? 

Is that a valid distinction?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 12, 2009)

David's violation was not a Sabbath but a ceremonial one. In this case Christ is focusing on the High Priest and commending his actions. The story is an interesting one to bring up because David withheld some information from the High Priest in that particular scenario. Without getting into those particular details, I do think the application primarily addresses a preservation of life over the violation of a ceremonial ordinance.


----------



## blhowes (Jun 12, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> David's violation was not a Sabbath but a ceremonial one. In this case Christ is focusing on the High Priest and commending his actions. The story is an interesting one to bring up because David withheld some information from the High Priest in that particular scenario. Without getting into those particular details, I do think the application primarily addresses a preservation of life over the violation of a ceremonial ordinance.


When David and those with him ate the shewbread, how would they have known it was ok to eat it? Or did they know?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 12, 2009)

[bible]Lev 24:9[/bible]
David and his men knew it was for the Levites.


----------



## blhowes (Jun 12, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> [bible]Lev 24:9[/bible]
> David and his men knew it was for the Levites.




-----Added 6/12/2009 at 09:29:49 EST-----

So, David of course knew that it was for the Levites. Could/would he also have known that it was ok for him to eat it?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 12, 2009)

Some commentators think he had the authority to do so but it seems as if he's really asking the High Priest for permission here and he concedes after David assures him that the men are all clean.

When you think about it, there are times when certain ceremonial things have to be broken. If you could never go near a dead body then you'd have to skip the funeral of your own parents. If you avoided sexual relations with your wife all the time in order to remain clean then you would end up having the whole nation die out.

I noted in my exhortation the case of Christ touching lepers and dead people to note Christ's willingness to become ritually unclean for a larger purpose. The Pharisees seem to care more about the ritual than the person forgetting that Law is meant for good.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 12, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Some commentators think he had the authority to do so but it seems as if he's really asking the High Priest for permission here and he concedes after David assures him that the men are all clean.
> 
> When you think about it, there are times when certain ceremonial things have to be broken. If you could never go near a dead body then you'd have to skip the funeral of your own parents. If you avoided sexual relations with your wife all the time in order to remain clean then you would end up having the whole nation die out.
> 
> I noted in my exhortation the case of Christ touching lepers and dead people to note Christ's willingness to become ritually unclean for a larger purpose. The Pharisees seem to care more about the ritual than the person forgetting that Law is meant for good.



So, what we have was ceremonial law in both cases:

1) David taking bread reserved for ceremony for the priests
2) The Levites (priests) doing work- the worship act of sacrifice on the sabbath

So neither were fourth commandment violations, _ab initio_ (from the beginning)

That's interesting because these passages are often described as "exceptions" established, _de novo_ by Our Lord in the New Testament.

We know from reformed theology moral law like the forth commandment is binding on all men in all generations whereas the ceremonial law was fulfilled in Christ and is therefore its general applicability was abrogated by Him and in His Resurrection.


----------



## tdowns (Jun 12, 2009)

*Great message Rich!*

Rich, when you hit the gospel, man, just fed my soul...powerful, what a testament to the power of Law and Gospel and how it transforms us...I thank God for His message through you...I thank you for standing up and delivering it!


----------

