Anastasia HegmanThis was a hard one! I think both David and Daniel were operating within the technicalities of permissibility. David, because the showbread was for the priest, but technically not ONLY for the priests. One word matters. This is why instructions not to add or subtract from torah was so vital. Jesus came down on the side of approving Ahimelech’s choice to sustain life by accepting David’s request. Daniel and his comrades also made a request, for an exemption from eating specific items from the kings table (contrast to David who requested to eat, and ended up eating from the Eternal King’s table). Eating together is communion, fellowship, covenantal. By going with veggies and water, Daniel denied fellowship with tyranny, and most importantly, communion with idols. Daniel might have not eaten altogether, been a jerk about it and died. But he preserved life, a consecrated life, according to torah and what would be in the best interest of his captain. David could have made unreasonable demands for specific food be made, but he made a request for whatever was on hand. He was preserving his own life, but also didn’t have to take someone else’s as a follow up to their rejecting his demands. That’s what wicked men do, as we see in the aftermath of David’s escape. Poor Ahimelech.
How this relates to the hebraic map? Daniel and Ahimelech knew their history, personality of God as a king with whom we may commune if approached properly,responsibility in that Daniel and David took the paths that would best accommodate those to whom they were making requests, plurality is evident in Daniel’s story, but search me if I could point it out in David’s. Deity – communing with God or idols is central to both stories.
