POSTMIL Russ

CHRIST JESUS SAVES • CHRIST JESUS REIGNS

Simply, a Christian husband and father who believes in the KING & KINGDOM.

[POSTMIL Russ @PostmilRuss]

That still does not establish your claim. Leviticus 22 does not say priests could feed holy food to anyone who happened to be ritually clean. It says the opposite: “No lay person shall eat of a holy thing” (Lev. 22:10). It then gives specific exceptions for members of the priest’s household, such as a purchased slave or a daughter who has returned to her father’s house (Lev. 22:11–13). Ritual cleanness alone was not enough.

And the showbread is even more restrictive. Leviticus 24:9 calls it “most holy” and says Aaron and his sons shall eat it in a holy place. Leviticus 7 uses the same “most holy” language and says, “Every male among the priests may eat of it” (Lev. 7:6). So appealing to Leviticus 7 and 22 actually strengthens the point: sacred food had defined recipients. The priest could not simply redefine those recipients because he “owned” it.

That is why Jesus says plainly that David ate what “was not lawful for him to eat… but only for the priests” (Matt. 12:4). You can argue that necessity explains why David was not condemned, but you cannot turn Jesus’ “only for the priests” into “any ritually clean person with priestly permission.” The text never says that.

[POSTMIL Russ @PostmilRuss]

@anonemus349832 @BrysonGray Where does Lev. say the priests own it?

[POSTMIL Russ @PostmilRuss]

That is exactly the assumption you still have not proved. Leviticus 24:9 does not describe ordinary private property. It says the bread was “most holy” and that Aaron and his sons “shall eat it in a holy place.”

And Jesus removes all ambiguity in Matthew 12:4: David ate what “was not lawful for him to eat… but only for the priests.” Your claim that priestly ownership made it lawful for anyone they chose is directly contrary to Jesus’ explanation.

So again, where does Scripture say, “The priests own it, therefore they may authorize anyone to eat it”? It doesn’t. You are supplying that rule yourself, then insulting people for not finding your rule in a text where it does not exist.

[POSTMIL Russ @PostmilRuss]

@MattTucker1776 What a weird conflation. "His people"? The ones who rejected and killed Him?

[POSTMIL Russ @PostmilRuss]

@DrShayPhD Is this a good-faith question or are you trying to make a point?

[POSTMIL Russ @PostmilRuss]

Christian political cooperation does not require ecclesiastical uniformity.

If Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians and Pentecostals must settle every theological dispute before they can cooperate politically, the secularists can sleep soundly tonight.

[POSTMIL Russ @PostmilRuss]

@BrysonGray I see no lie

[POSTMIL Russ @PostmilRuss]

@GuyJones1111 I seriously laugh out loud at your posts. 😂

[POSTMIL Russ @PostmilRuss]

@GuyJones1111 😂

[POSTMIL Russ @PostmilRuss]

Where does Leviticus 24:9 say Aaron and his sons could give the showbread to anyone they wished? It doesn’t. It says “they shall eat it in a holy place” and that it belongs to Aaron and his sons. You are adding a “permission makes it lawful for anyone” rule that the text never states.

Jesus’ own interpretation settles it: David ate what “was not lawful for him to eat… but only for the priests” (Matt. 12:4). Jesus does not say, “It became lawful because the priest gave permission.” That is your explanation, not His.

And nothing in Matthew 12 says “new moon,” “new moon Sabbath,” or “permission to pick grain on the new moon.” You are repeatedly supplying the very premises your argument needs instead of producing them from Scripture. Where does the text actually say any of that?

[POSTMIL Russ @PostmilRuss]

You are adding the word “permission” into Jesus’ explanation. Jesus does not say, “It was unlawful until the priest permitted it.” He says David ate what “was not lawful for him to eat… but only for the priests” (Matt. 12:4). Leviticus 24:9 likewise assigns that bread specifically to Aaron and his sons. Ahimelech giving David the bread did not make David a priest or change the ordinary rule.

That is exactly why Jesus uses David as the example. Necessity and mercy explain why David was not condemned despite doing what was ordinarily unlawful. Then Jesus says His disciples are likewise “guiltless” (Matt. 12:7) and concludes, “the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath�� (v. 8).

And again, the text says Sabbath, not “new moon Sabbath.” There is no verse in Matthew 12, 1 Samuel 21, or Leviticus 24 that calls this a new moon Sabbath. That category is being supplied by your theory, not by the passage.

[POSTMIL Russ @PostmilRuss]

You are now contradicting Jesus. Matt. 12:4 says David ate what was “not lawful for him to eat… but only for the priests.” Lev. 24:9 likewise assigns the bread to Aaron and his sons. Priest permission did not make David a priest.

And Scripture never says Jesus was on a “new moon Sabbath.” Matthew explicitly says the Sabbath. Deut. 23:25 permits hand-plucking grain, and Jesus calls His disciples guiltless. Your “new moon Sabbath” is being inserted into the passage because the passage itself never says it.

[POSTMIL Russ @PostmilRuss]

Matthew 12:4: David “ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests.”

So saying, “It was not unlawful for David because the priest gave it to him” directly contradicts Jesus’ own words. The priest giving it to David did not turn ordinarily prohibited bread into ordinary lawful food. Jesus’ argument is about necessity, mercy, and proper application of the law.

And 1 Samuel never says David ate the showbread on a special “new moon Sabbath.” 1 Samuel 20 mentions the new moon feast. 1 Samuel 21 later records David coming to Nob and receiving the bread. The text never calls that day a Sabbath, never says new moon days are outside the weekly cycle, and never connects David’s act to a lunar-Sabbath theory.

Nor am I saying Jesus broke the Sabbath. Jesus explicitly calls His disciples “guiltless” in Matthew 12:7. His point is that the Pharisees were falsely condemning lawful conduct and misunderstanding mercy, necessity, and the purpose of Sabbath. Then He concludes, “the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Matt. 12:8).

So your argument requires denying Jesus’ explicit statement that David’s eating was ordinarily “not lawful,” inventing a “new moon Sabbath” that 1 Samuel never mentions, and then accusing me of saying Jesus sinned when Matthew explicitly calls the disciples guiltless. That is not exegesis.

[POSTMIL Russ @PostmilRuss]

Matthew 12:4: David “ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests.”

So saying, “It was not unlawful for David because the priest gave it to him” directly contradicts Jesus’ own words. The priest giving it to David did not turn ordinarily prohibited bread into ordinary lawful food. Jesus’ argument is about necessity, mercy, and proper application of the law.

And 1 Samuel never says David ate the showbread on a special “new moon Sabbath.” 1 Samuel 20 mentions the new moon feast. 1 Samuel 21 later records David coming to Nob and receiving the bread. The text never calls that day a Sabbath, never says new moon days are outside the weekly cycle, and never connects David’s act to a lunar-Sabbath theory.

Nor am I saying Jesus broke the Sabbath. Jesus explicitly calls His disciples “guiltless” in Matthew 12:7. His point is that the Pharisees were falsely condemning lawful conduct and misunderstanding mercy, necessity, and the purpose of Sabbath. Then He concludes, “the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Matt. 12:8).

So your argument requires denying Jesus’ explicit statement that David’s eating was ordinarily “not lawful,” inventing a “new moon Sabbath” that 1 Samuel never mentions, and then accusing me of saying Jesus sinned when Matthew explicitly calls the disciples guiltless. That is not exegesis.

[POSTMIL Russ @PostmilRuss]

@CaptainHal3534 @haymes_joshua One day he will. EVERY knee…

[POSTMIL Russ @PostmilRuss]

That argument imports several things into the text that simply are not there.

Matthew 12 never says David ate the showbread on a “new moon Sabbath.” Jesus’ point is that David, when hungry, ate bread that ordinarily was lawful only for the priests (Matt. 12:3–4). He then gives a second example of priests working on the actual Sabbath (vv. 5–6). The argument is about necessity, mercy, and Christ’s authority over Sabbath regulations, not about inventing a separate lunar Sabbath.

And the statement is not “man is lord of the Sabbath.” Jesus says, “the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (Matt. 12:8), referring to Himself. Finally, Scripture nowhere calls the new moon “day 0 of creation,” nowhere says new-moon days sit outside the weekly cycle, and nowhere says the week resets at the new moon. Genesis 1 calls the first evening-and-morning cycle “the first day.” That “day 0” idea is being added to the text, not drawn from it.

[POSTMIL Russ @PostmilRuss]

No. The NT does not say “the new moon is a Sabbath.” Colossians 2:16 explicitly distinguishes them: “a festival, or a new moon, or Sabbaths.” Those are separate categories, reflecting the OT pattern of annual, monthly, and weekly observances. Calling the new moon a Sabbath simply because it could involve religious observance is an equivocation.

And “work six days, rest the seventh” naturally gives you a continuous seven-day cycle. Your lunar reset only works if you add an extra rule: new-moon days do not count toward the week. Neither Moses, Philo, nor the NT says that. Acts 17:2 says Paul reasoned in the synagogue on three Sabbaths. It does not say “at the end of the month,” nor does it identify those Sabbaths with new moons. You are still assuming the very thing you need to prove.

[POSTMIL Russ @PostmilRuss]

That isn’t what happened. Jesus Authenticated the OT canon, and Authorized the writers of the NT canon. That includes Paul. Through God’s sovereign will that canon has survived from the first century to now. It’s that simple. God is more than able to make sure His Word is preserved and He has. It’s the 66 books we know as Old and New Testament.