Nevertheless, these were probably not the same reasons the jewish scholars and teachers had for justifying this act of david. My opinion is that they focused on who david was. Since david was Gods anointed, Israels next king, it was right for he and his men to eat the consecrated bread and thus to save their lives. Their motto might have been, better fed than dead. Davids men could well eat the consecrated bread because of whom it was they followed. The implications for Jesus followers should not have passed them. Luke, in his account of the same event, adds this statement of our Lord, which presses home the point: The son of Man is Lord of the sabbath (luke 6:5). 0 If for davids sake (and thus Israels) the law could be temporarily and technically violated, how much more for the sake of his Lord?
Is this a good thesis statement about being against abortion?
Ahimelech volunteered to give david some of this bread so long as his men had not been defiled. I think that there were three reasons why Ahimelech gave this bread without reservation: (1) Ahimelech did not find the law bio so rigid as to prohibit meeting the needs of men under such special circumstances. (2) he believed that david had come from the king. (3) he believed that david had been sent on an important assignment by the king. These considerations led the priest to the conclusion that the prohibition of the law could be set aside in the case of david and his men. Note well that Ahimelech did not cast aside his obligation to preserve the sanctity of the bread. He did insist that davids men must be free from defilement. One must assume that if this condition were not met, the bread would not have been given these men. The sanctified battle bread was not profaned in the process. Ahimelech had some good reasons for giving david and his men bread.
We can see that the similarities in these two situations are similar enough so that the justification for davids actions (and, of course, his men) might also vindicate our Lords disciples from planner the charge of Law-breaking. Let us pay close attention to the argument which our Lord puts forward here, for it is a master-stroke. First, our Lord assumes that the actions of david and his men are acceptable to the judaism of His day, 255 and thus, to his adversaries. Nobody wanted to accuse david of wrong-doing here. Second, if this is so, then the Pharisees granted exceptions to the law. Third, if Law-breaking was allowed in some cases, it must be to some higher reason or consideration. What, then, are the reasons for which david could be acquitted, and for which our Lord and His disciples could be as well? 1 Samuel 21, david did not specifically ask for any of the sacred bread, that is all that was at hand.
Note the common denominators of both incidents, which make the Old Testament case a precedent for our Lords actions, along with His followers. (1) david and the lord both had followers with them, who participated in their Sabbath-breaking. 254 (2) food was eaten to alleviate hunger. Hunger prompted Jesus essay disciples to pluck the grain, just as it necessitated david and his men eating the sacred bread. (3) Something which was sanctified, story set apart for a special use, was profaned by being put to a common use. In davids case, sanctified bread, set apart for use only by the priests was eaten. The lords disciples, too, profaned the sabbath (which was sanctified) by gathering grain, which was common labor. (4) There were considerations which justified actions that normally would have been condemned as Law-breaking.
Instead, jesus chose to let these technical matters go by the boards. He wanted to discuss the interpretation of the sabbath and His activities which could be construed to be a breaking of the fourth Commandment. Here is a matter Jesus did want to discuss, and he sidestepped every peripheral issue to get to the heart of the matter. Bearing these things in mind, notice how skillfully our Lord answered the challenge of the Pharisees. Knowing full well that he would not change the Pharisees minds about the disciples actions being viewed as work, jesus allowed the allegation of Sabbath-breaking to go unchallenged (even though wrong). Our Lord then turned His critics attention to an Old Testament event which beautifully paralleled His own situation in critical points. He points to the time when david was fleeing from saul, accompanied by a few men, and when david and his hungry men took consecrated bread from Ahimelech the priest and ate it (cf.
Thesis, statement, for Pro, abortion
These verses describe two separate incidents: (1) the protest of the Pharisees that Jesus disciples violated the sabbath by gathering grain and eating it as they walked through the fields; and (2) the issue raised by the synagogue leaders, 253 knowing Jesus was about. The savior meets Jewish objections in the first instance by citing two incidents in the Old Testament where people were vindicated for technically breaking the sabbath: david, when he took the sacred shewbread and shared it with his men, and the Old Testament priests, who. Undaunted business by the challenge of the Pharisees, our Lord catches His opponents completely off guard by referring to an Old Testament text which remarkably paralleled this situation: But he said to them, helpful have you not read what david did, when he became hungry, he and. Before looking at the response of our Lord, let us make several important observations about what is happening here that is foundational to an accurate interpretation of this text. (1) Our Lord was not being accused of wrongdoing here. The issue here is the harvesting and threshing of grain by our Lords disciples.
Jesus was being challenged to either condemn the deeds of His disciples or to condone them, thereby opposing the authority and the interpretation of the Pharisees. (2) While the torah (the law of Moses) nowhere condemns such an act, the halakah (the jewish collection of interpretations) did. (3) Amazingly, jesus granted the assumption that the actions of His disciples was work and thus a breaking of the sabbath. These three facts provided the lord with a golden opportunity to avoid the issue of the sabbath, and to concentrate only on the technical questions involved. Often, jesus did avoid creating a scene, whether it be that of performing a miracle publicly, or that of inciting a dispute prematurely between Himself and His adversaries. Here, jesus could have referred His critics to his disciples, since he had not gathered any heads of grain for Himself, nor had he eaten any. He could have pointed to the fact that the torah nowhere called such a minimal effort work, and that this was only the fallacious conclusion of some misguided, knit-picking scholars.
These things to them were the essence of religion. Their religion was a legalism of petty rules and regulations. 252, we can hardly be surprised to find a head-on collision between the scribes and Pharisees and our Lord over the issue of the sabbath. The gospel writers record numerous occasions when the jewish religious leaders clashed with Jesus over the interpretation of the sabbath. Almost always this resulted from an incident in which are lord violated the sabbath according to the legalistic teachings and interpretations of the scribes and Pharisees. Such incidents are helpful to us in our study of the sabbath, for they allow us to see some of the ways in which the bible was wrongly interpreted, as well as the true interpretation of the sabbath as given by our Lord.
Let us learn from the errors of the jewish religious leaders, and especially from the divine interpretation of the sabbath by our Lord. Our method in this message will be to consider a few of the key sabbath texts in the gospels, and to attempt to learn how the legalistic interpretation of the scribes and Pharisees was in error. Further, we will compare and contrast the wrong interpretation with the correct interpretation of our Lord. Then, at the end of the lesson we will try to summarize our Lords teaching on the sabbath, and to seek to discover some pertinent principles which are relevant to our lives as Christians. In the next (and final) lesson on the sabbath we will see how the apostles interpreted the sabbath and how the new Testament church sought to apply the sabbath in a new dispensation. For now, let us turn to the gospels of the new Testament to see how our Lords view of the sabbath differed from that of religious leaders of His day. Matthew 12:1-14, a seemingly innocent act on the part of our Lords disciples precipitated an incident in which the Pharisees challenged the lord Jesus to defend or denounce his disciples: At that time jesus went on the sabbath through the grain fields, and His disciples. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, behold, your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a sabbath (Matthew 12:1-2). Let us begin by gaining a sense of the context, gaining an overview of the passage.
Good thesis statement on abortion
That is a great principle. But these jewish legalists had a passion for definition. So they asked: What is work? All kinds of things were classified as work. For instance, to carry a burden on the sabbath day is to work. But next a burden has to be defined. So the Scribal Law lays it down that a burden is food equal in weight to a dried fig, enough wine for mixing in a goblet, milk enough for one swallow, honey enough to put upon a wound, oil enough to anoint a small member. So they spent endless hours arguing whether a man could or could not lift a lamp hard from one place to another on the sabbath, whether a tailor committed a sin if he went out with a needle in his robe, whether a woman might wear.
These interpretations were first preserved and passed on as oral traditions and then later put into writing. In the third century. A written compilation stories of the oral traditions of the scribes was completed, which was known as the mishnah. It contained 63 tractates on various subjects of the law, requiring about 800 pages in English. 250, later Judaism set itself to the task of interpreting these interpretations. These commentaries on the mishnah are called Talmuds. Talmud there are 12 printed volumes; and of the babylonian. Talmud there are 60 printed volumes. 251, the law lays it down that the sabbath day is to be kept holy, and that on it no work is to be done.
of the sabbath commandment. During the 400 silent years between the two testaments a great deal of attention was given to the interpretation of the law (in general) and of the sabbath (in particular). The detail to which the inspired writers went was nothing compared to the embellishments performed on the sabbath commandment by the jewish scholars and religious leaders, the scribes and Pharisees. We would not be correct to conclude that all of these efforts to clarify the law are silly and senseless. While the method of interpretation may be wrong, not to mention the conclusions reached, there was ample motivation for probing the obligation of the individual Israelite to the fourth Commandment. During the maccabbean Period (a century or so prior to the coming of Christ) a 1,000 Jews had been slaughtered because they were attacked on the sabbath and would not break the sabbath to defend themselves. Little wonder, then, that Jewish scholars sought to clarify the sabbath commandment. A large body of teaching regarding the interpretation of the sabbath thus began to emerge before and after the coming of Christ.
In chapter 20 of Exodus the sabbath became the focus of the fourth Commandment. Keeping this day holy required that the Israelites finish their weeks work by the end of the sixth day, so that the seventh could be a day in which men abstained from the normal occupations of the other six. In Exodus chapter 31, the keeping of the sabbath was declared to be a sign of the mosaic covenant, with the death penalty prescribed for any violator of this commandment. Throughout the rest of the Old Testament further clarification was given regarding the keeping of this commandment. Sabbath rest was further defined in terms of changing conditions. Even the land summary was to have its rest every seventh year. Further, the emphasis shifts from a cessation of normal activities to the ways in which the Israelite should worship God on the sabbath. The prophets pointed out abuses of the sabbath and urged the Israelites to keep the sabbath in spirit and truth.
Thesis statement against abortion
Introduction, there are few things i enjoy more than watching a master craftsman at his trade. I delight at watching a football player like bill Bates on a safety blitz, or like ed Jones sacking the opposing quarterback. I love to and watch John maurer skillfully fashioning a piece of wood, a master musician playing his instrument, or an artist catching the essence of a segment of life. One my great joys this past week has been to closely observe the skillfulness of our Lord in His handling of the Old Testament Scriptures. Our study this week of the sabbath controversy in the gospels will enable each of us to look on with amazement at the ease and skill with which our Lord handles the Old Testament text. In our lesson last week, we saw how the sabbath was established in principle in the second chapter of the book of Genesis, when God rested on the seventh day, having finished the work of creation. Because of this, god blessed the sabbath and sanctified it—set it apart. It is not until Exodus chapter 16 that the seventh day was divinely prescribed as a day of resting from the harvesting of manna.