Were David and his men allowed to eat the bread of the Presence?

[tonychanyt]

Regarding the bread of the Presence, Leviticus 24:

9 It shall be for Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place, since it is for him a most holy portion out of the Lord's food offerings, a perpetual due."

The Bread of the Presence was meant to be eaten only by the priests only in a holy place. It was considered a most holy portion of the offerings to God.

But then, 1Sa 21:

1 Then David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest.

His father Ahitub was the high priest (1Sa 22:20), perhaps semi-retired.

And Ahimelech came to meet David, trembling, and said to him, “Why are you alone, and no one with you?” 2 And David said to Ahimelech the priest, “The king has charged me with a matter and said to me, ‘Let no one know anything of the matter about which I send you, and with which I have charged you.’

David lied to Ahimelech.

I have made an appointment with the young men for such and such a place. 3 "Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever is here.” 4 And the priest answered David, “I have no common bread on hand, but there is holy bread—if the young men have kept themselves from women.”

Strictly speaking, according to the Levitical law, David and his men were prohibited from eating this bread. However, Ahimelech made an exception due to the urgent need and lack of other food.

5 And David answered the priest, “Truly women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition. The vessels of the young men are holy even when it is an ordinary journey. How much more today will their vessels be holy?” 6 So the priest gave him the holy bread, for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence, which is removed from before the Lord, to be replaced by hot bread on the day it is taken away.

Did Ahimelech, David, and his men do the right thing?

From the legalistic viewpoint, no. Ahimelech violated the Levitical law by giving the holy bread to non-priests. David lied to Ahimelech about his circumstances. David's men ate bread that was forbidden to them.

However, Jesus cited this incident in Matthew 12:

1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?

Jesus justified Ahimelech, David, and his men's actions. Human need could sometimes supersede ceremonial law. This aligned with Jesus's other teachings, where He emphasized the spirit of the law and compassion over strict adherence to rules.

Were David and his men allowed to eat the bread of the Presence?

No, according to the letter of Moses' law.

Yes, according to Ahimelech, the leading priest.

Yes, according to Jesus.

 

[RDKirk]

Well...it was outdated bread. There was actually fresh bread already in place.

This is something of a foreshadowing of Paul's comment about eating meat that had been dedicated to idols. There is not actually anything done spiritually to the food. It is always just food. The spiritual effect is in the ceremony itself, would have for the bread been significant only while it was immediately in the Presence. That is the only time it was "holy." Without being in the Presence...it was just bread.

 

[tonychanyt]

This is something of a foreshadowing of Paul's comment about eating meat that had been dedicated to idols.

Are you comparing the bread of the Presence to bread dedicated to idols?

That is the only time it was "holy." Without being in the Presence...it was just bread.

Was the bread that David and his men ate holy?

 

[RDKirk]

Are you comparing the bread of the Presence to bread dedicated to idols?


Was the bread that David and his men ate holy?

I'm saying that Paul stated the spiritual fact that food itself is just food and remains just food. It's the ceremony the food is involved in that makes spiritual changes to the humans involved. The food is only "holy" or "idolatrous" only while it's being used in holy or unholy purpose. That's why Jesus did not condemn Daniel for having eaten it. Paul explained why.

 

[tonychanyt]

I'm saying that Paul stated the spiritual fact that food itself is just food and remains just food. It's the ceremony the food is involved in that makes spiritual changes to the humans involved. The food is only "holy" or "idolatrous" only while it's being used in holy or unholy purpose. That's why Jesus did not condemn Daniel for having eaten it. Paul explained why.

Let proposition P1 = David and his men ate the holy bread of the Presence.

True?

This is the 2nd time I have asked.

 

[RDKirk]

Let proposition P1 = David and his men ate the holy bread of the Presence.

True?

This is the 2nd time I have asked.

It was no longer holy, but there was no other way to describe "bread that had been holy."

If it had remained holy and never eaten, it would have lasted forever...there would still be piles of edible bread in Jerusalem from thousands of years ago.

 

[tonychanyt]

If it had remained holy and never eaten, it would have lasted forever.

verse?

 

[RDKirk]

verse?

What do you think "holy" means? Why do you think it means the bread could never be eaten, when Jesus clearly did think it could be eaten?

Question Jesus.

 

[tonychanyt]

What do you think "holy" means?

verse? This is the 3rd and the last time I have asked.

 

[RDKirk]

verse? This is the 3rd and the last time I have asked.

There was nothing physical or spiritual done to the bread. Food is not changed by ceremony, only the human spirit is changed by ceremony. Food will just be food.

Verse: Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. -- 1 Corinthians 8

 

[tonychanyt]

There was nothing physical or spiritual done to the bread. Food is not changed by ceremony, only the human spirit is changed by ceremony. Food will just be food.

Verse: Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. -- 1 Corinthians 8

Are you familiar with first-order logic?