Abiathar and friends...

Joseph Crea Joseph.Crea@worldnet.att.net
Wed, 30 Sep 1998 12:31:18 +0000 (00907176678, 19980930123118.QDXT4423@LOCALNAME) 

Hello, Farrell!

At 11:10 PM 9/29/98 -0700, Farrell Till wrote:

>At 02:16 AM 9/30/98 +0000, Joseph Crea wrote:

>

>>>FISK

>>>Wrong.  He went to Nob (1 Sam. 21:1), and Ahimelech gave him bread that the

>>>priests had earlier removed from the holy table (1 Sam. 21:6).  Furthermore,

>>>the text does not state that David actually ate the bread.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> [Mark 2:26]

>>>"...which is lawful only for priests to eat."

>>>

>>>Wrong.  There is no such law.

>>>

>>

>>

>>CREA

>>     That doesn't appear to be the import of Leviticus 24:9, which reads:

>>

>>

>>  [24:9]  "And it [the showbread] shall be Aaron's and his sons'; and they

>>shall eat it in the holy place:  for it is most holy unto him of the

>>offerings of the LORD made by fire by a perpetual statute."

>>

>>

>

>TILL

>Yes, many inerrantists will argue from what they call a "law of exclusion"

>that what is specified in a command is what God expects and that everything

>else is excluded.  For example, when God told Noah to build an ark of

>"gopher wood," he didn't have to say, "Don't use hickory, don't use oak,

>don't use maple, etc., etc., etc."  In stating that gopher wood was to be

>used, all other woods were excluded. Hence, in Leviticus 24:9, the

>stipulation that Aaron and his sons were to eat the show bread would have,

>according to this argument, excluded everyone else. Therefore, the

>commandment provided only for priests to eat it.



CREA
     If that were the only reference, I'd be inclined to share your
reasoning on this one.  My initial posting was done somewhat hastily, and
further delving and digging has uncovered the following reference which, I
think, should settle the question.  Let's look at an slightly earlier
passage in Leviticus -- 22:10-16 -- where it reads (TEV, which has less
obscurantist language than most):


  [22:10]  "Only a member of a priestly family may eat any of the sacred
            offerings;  no one else may eat them -- not even someone staying 
            with a priest or hired by him. 

  [22:11]  "But a priest's slaves, bought with his own money or born in his 
            house, may eat the food a priest receives.
  
  [22:12]  "A priest's daughter who marries someone who is not a priest may not 
            eat any of the sacred offerings.

  [22:13]  "But a widowed or divorced daughter who has no children and who has 
            returned to live in her father's house as a dependent may eat the 
            food her father receives as a priest.  Only a member of a priestly 
            family may eat of it.

  [22:14]  "If any person who is not a member of a priestly family eats any of 
            the sacred offerings without intending to, he must repay the priest 
            its full value plus an additional 20 percent.

  [22:15]  "The priests shall not profane the sacred offerings 


  [22:16]  "by letting any unauthorized person eat them;  this would bring
guilt 
            and punishment on such a person.  I am the LORD and I make the 
            offerings holy."



With Mettaa,

Joseph Crea
<Joseph.Crea@worldnet.att.net>