The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Sabbath Desecration and David's Unlawful Act

Theology General Theology
#108

Lefein,
Yes, those I’ve met who embrace that the Sabbath is to be taken literally (kicking back) seem to allow for liberal interpretation to dismiss the punishments for breaking these same laws. Though there is no NT passage which states the penalties are no longer for our time, they seem to find a way to dismiss it. Fortunately for me, those I’ve met have been courteous for the most part. I think we all can sound offensive because the nature of faith is precious to us, so we’re sensitive. I must admit that I do interpret Kelly’s words as confusing when she writes“…kicking around something so holy like it’s a football”. To me it implies that those who don’t agree with her are being unholy (sinful) by debating whether it should be taken literally or not – basically we should not debate it and just accept her views – that just aint gonna happen – we’re commanded to test everything.

ISIA,
I’m terribly sorry to have included you in that last post. The error was mine and I own that. I do get confused with the different positions because there are so many differences, an array that makes it hard to pin the discussion. I will try to continue to remember that you’re not endorsing a literal keeping of the law for the church.

As I understand you Steve and Kelly, you argue the Pharisees were not literalists themselves since they accepted that pulling a sheep out of a pit was a permissible. So the Pharisees agree with Jesus that good work can be done on the Sabbath, but they blamed him instead. So Jesus is calling them out on hypocrisy.

The problem then lies in what they determine to be good work. Is picking your dinner on the Sabbath good work? On one hand, you guys appeal to his priesthood in order to make it legal for Jesus to work (God’s work – the priestly duties) on the Sabbath. On the other hand he didn’t appeal to his priesthood but (as far as I can see) instead appealed that it’s ok for ANYONE TO DO GOOD WORK on the Sabbath (not just priests). Why does he need to be a priest in order for him to be exempt from the law of working on the Sabbath? Can’t anyone do healing for another if it’s alright to get a sheep out of a pit? So it has nothing to do with being a priest. Instead it has everything to do with good work being permissible on the Sabbath and bad work not being permissible – and that is my confusion with your interpretations and reasons.

Can you sympathize with the Pharisees that saving a life (a sheep or human) and picking your dinner (something that should have been taken care of the day before or waited until the day after) are not equals? Had you been pre-New Testament, do you really think you would have agreed with a non-levetical preist that he could pick his dinner on the Sabbath, in light of the Sabbath instructions including that gathering manna on the Sabbath was blatanly dishonoring God’s command to rest on the Sabbath?

#109

No problem Augg, It does get hard to keep everyone’s views in order. No offense taken!

I think your term “Literalist” might be causing confusion. Clearly the Pharisees emphasized the literal vs the spiritual, to their own fault. Because they interpreted the law literally to include exceptions to pull sheep out of a pit, does not mean they are not interpreting the law literally. They are in my opinion, creating interpretations based on careful weighing of several “Literal” scriptures. They just are not following *your *literal reading that sees no exceptions.

If you doubt this point, we can pull up the writings from their oral tradition and I think you would be convinced that they interpreted the law “literally” in a much different way then you are describing when you suggest they made no exceptions to such things as “no work” on the sabbath.

But yes, the Pharisees Oral Law is recorded to agreed with Jesus that good work can be done on the sabbath. And his calling out their hypocrisy to blame him in light of their own law is exactly what I see Jesus doing. He was constantly calling them hypocrytes. Their fasting, praying, tithing, etc etc.

The Pharisees law justified both cases. David’s bread eating(Priestly exception) and saving life/helping one in need (common person exception). Both of these were justified by the Pharisees law for the exception reasons just noted. They knew this, they taught this, but when Jesus utilized the known exceptions they turned into hypocrytes and tried to accuse him as if these exceptions didn’t exist in their law. He is simply just pointing out that the exceptions do exist.

So regarding the picking grain case, Jesus says even your law justified David and his men.

Then he says “Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple. But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:6–8)

The “one greater then the temple” is a curious reference to me. The Temple is where the Priests sacrificed the spotless lamb, and jesus says one greater than that is here now. To me direct reference to his Priestly office. Also notice he says I desire Mercy not sacrifice (or having Mercy by his sacrifice which reaches down to man vs their sacrifice that tries to reach up to God via works). The Sabbath is to celebrate the freedom seen in Jesus setting the captives free through his Priestly work. So he says I am Lord of the sabbath!

The Disciples and thousands of followers did. In Fact, the Entire Roman World that became followers of Jesus were pretty aware of what Jesus did on the Sabbath were they not? Many were Gentiles but many were also Jews. It seems to me Jesus interpretation of why it was justified made sense to these disciples and followers, did it not? It’s not like these people did not have access to the scriptures. They learn then from a young age. We see one disciple sitting under a tree reading the scriptures, and when Jesus is walking with them after the ressurrection we read that he opens their minds to “understand the scriptures”. Not to mention they heard the scriptures read every Sabbath.

God Bless Auggy!!!

#110

Kelly back to my question on the other thread that spawned this thread (I’m also kind of lost at this point). What does that make of the laws previous to the mosaic laws? Why does everything revert to mosaic instead of say Noahide, or Adamic? His law definitely changed from Adam to Noah, and from Noah to Abraham, and from Abraham to Moses.

You say that God doesn’t negate something only fulfills. How is going from only eating plants to then eating all animals then limiting the animals to clean and unclean fulfilling?

I’d argue that God does change His laws, as we see, and can at any time. That doesn’t mean His character changes, just His laws for that time. Here’s something that is a real head scratcher:

The first commandment of the 10 is you shall have no other gods before Him, the second is to not make any graven images of ANYTHING in the heavens, on the earth or in the water.

Just a little while later He tells them to fashion the cherubim on the ark. To make a graven image. But He just said not to make any graven image. What the???

btw I just wanted to let you know I don’t begrudge you for wanting to keep the law. You feel that is where God has you and I believe that to be true. We are each exactly where He wants us. Ernest Martin said that he feels that God will institute the mosaic law after the antichrists reign, and after Christ returns because people will have lost their compass so much. That the law is the beginning steps toward godly living. (I don’t agree with his eschatology but I think his reasoning of the purpose of the law is valid). He speaks of progressive revelation, with the revelation of mystery being the highest or final point of revelation (beyond the NC even). The mosaic law is useful for people coming out of paganism, which you are, which is why I believe you are exactly where you should be. But I don’t believe thats the final step, as seen in the NC, and in the revelation of mystery, many of the points I and Auggy and Bob have already laid out. The law is a schoolmaster, but when we mature (not saying I’m fully mature btw, far from it) its no longer needed.

I hope you don’t take this in a condescending way, its not meant to be that at all. Just wanted to share some thoughts on this.

#111

Redhot, I agree with a whole lot of what you just posted.

But If the law is no longer needed then why does the Apostle of the NC and mystery of the Gospel continue to give gentiles under the new covenant specific commands that come directly from the Mosaic Covenant? Or is he writing to people of all maturity levels? I suppose that is a thought to consider. :sunglasses:

#112

I don’t believe that the 10 belong to the mosaic covenant. They came before the levite priesthood was instituted, therefore they came under the melchizedek priesthood. The levites were consecrated after Moses came down and found the golden calf, the levites then killed all the bad guys, and thats how they became the priests.

Also the revelation of mystery wasn’t given to Paul (likely)until late in Paul’s ministry. And yes he was writing to all maturity levels, he speaks of milk for the babes, and the mystery for the mature, so that pesky rightly dividing comes into play again.

#113

ISIA,
Thanks for that last response. You missed an important question Steve, I’ll restate: Can you sympathize with the Pharisees that saving a life (a sheep or human) and picking your dinner (something that should have been taken care of the day before or waited until the day after) are not equals?

I say that because it seems that in the examples given, pulling a sheep from a pit, David’s men eating, are emergencies. I have no doubt the Pharisees had understood exceptions. My point is that when they find Jesus picking grains and called him and his disciples on it, they did it for a reason. Thier hypocrisy is agreed by all. It’s understanding the complexity of why they found picking grains for dinner on the sabbath to not follow under “emergencies” or exemptions. It’s as if you think it’s obvious he’s a preist (yea well you have the book of Hebrews but they didn’t). So I’m asking you, if you were alive in his day, what text would have convinced you he’s not breaking the law.

Of course many followed him, but the question is…who are the liberals? I showed how God says the pig is unclean for you, the pork will make you unclean, it will defile you…but Jesus says anything that goes into your mouth CANNOT defile you. Sure they followed him but not without him calling them DENSE. Over and over he has to correct their thinking about yeast, foods, and work.

I would ask you, why do you suppose the pharisees saw picking your dinner on the sabbath as breaking the law if in fact they themselves had exemptions? Again, do you think there’s a difference between something that can wait (like picking your dinner) and pulling your sheep or feeding starving men?

#114

Hmm interesting. I’m going to pull my berean card out and check if these things are so. Then Report my findings :slight_smile: Don’t make me get all Berean on you :smiling_imp: :slight_smile:

Have you read JulieF’s interpretation on the difference between the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants in RH? If, so what’s you take on that? I see some possibilities that her take may be true on some levels. Seems to match up with How Paul compares Abrahams faith in relation to salvation…seperate from the Mosaic law and how it relates to rewards in the kingdom/inheriting the kingdom e.g. he who lives for the flesh will not inherit the kingdom of God. Her take has everyone being saved by faith (Abes unilateral unconditional Cov) but only the faithful (Moses bilateral conditional Cov) entering the 1000 year reign with Christ and reaping the rewards. I find this to be curious because it was only Caleb (which means faithful) and Joshua (Symbolic of Jesus) that enter the promised land. So only Faithful and Jesus in promised land. :astonished:

#115

I haven’t read RH so I can’t comment on her thoughts on it. I see the law as making provision for the flesh/natural. Paul says make no provisions for the flesh. The law was about natural things. If you do____ then you will get____ reward. But those rewards were physical/natural rewards. The promised land, good crops, long life. One of the UR arguments is that there was not much talk in the OT about what happens after death because thats not what it was about. Thats how I see things. The natural points to the spiritual.

The disciples were waiting for Jesus to literally have a physical kingdom, but what does He say? My kingdom is not of this world. The law was written for the physical time, to govern those before Christ came, and the HS was given. Once the veil was torn, which represents the flesh/physical/OC, we are called to enter into the Holy of Holies. That is the 1000 year reign, the kingdom of heaven is at hand, it is within. The Holy of Holies measured 10x10x10 cubits= 1000. The HOH is the throne room, the term kingdom of heaven is more accurately reign of heaven and the reign comes from the place of the king, which is the HOH, which is inside you.

In the movie the matrix, Neo takes the pill and it brings him into the other reality. Thats kind of what I see the old covenant laws. They bring you or better point you inward to the spiritual realm. I don’t believe there are any rewards for following the letter, by actually following the laws, abstaining from pork. But that tells me I shouldn’t be allowing garbage into my mind cus pigs eat garbage.

I believe we are called to overcome. Which is to overcome the flesh, and if we keep focusing on laws that are meant to govern the flesh realm, it puts our focus outward toward the flesh, and we continue to live in the flesh realm. But if we go where the Spirit blows us, like clouds carried along, clouds aren’t rigid, they don’t have a specific form, we are brought to the place God wants us.

Maybe another way to look at it is the difference between positive reinforcement-NC, vs. negative reinforcement-OC. If we are focusing on love there is no use for negative reinforcement. There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

#116

For those of you who keep the holiday of Thanksgiving - Happy Thanksgiving! I know some think of everyday as the same and tomorrow is nothing special but, for those who do observe it, hope it is special for you and your family.

#117

Just a quick note. I tithe and give offerings. I know it’s the law and we don’t have to keep the law but, I haven’t figured out a way to feed people who are hungry without buying food or give coats to kids that don’t have one so they stay warm without offering the money to purchase them. I know I’m legalistic. Maybe I should reconsider on keeping the law, it sure would give my family some great vacations and we can teach our kids how free we are!
Just a little ribbing from the peanut gallery. :wink: Something to think about!

#118

Auggy, sorry I try my best to answer the questions, but sometimes there are many and I try to get to the most relevant ones.

I will try my best to answer what I think you are asking. If I don’t address the question correctly please let me know, we seem to be coming from different angles and emphasis.

In regard to the grain, If (as a bystander) I heard Jesus Arguement to the pharisees, then I would hopefully make the connection to David and his men that Jesus was making and see the parallel there, which in my mind right now makes complete sense. If I was a Pharisee back then, my own law would have already considered the David Case and justified such exceptions, so I would think I would consider that. But If my authority and Pride was being challenged by this guy claiming to be the Son of God, then maybe I would question how his “Sabbath breaking” was justified.

The Particular text would be:

  1. The David Text- But I would have to be pretty Spiritually mature to see this Foreshadowing just as I would need to be spiritually mature to see the prophetic Psalms texts that speak of the Messiah such as “MY Lord said to my lord, sit at my right hand”. But apparently this was possible in that day to see these deeper meanings and “types” because by the time Jesus came the Pharisees had noticed and talked about the David situation and many Jews had developed theorys about the Messaih as seen in the deeper Messianic passages.

  2. Leviticus - The Priests were clearly commanded to do specific, involved, ceremonial rituals on the Sabbath. I think all Jews would have not only read about this but have observed this in practice so been familiar with the role of the Priests on the Sabbath which sharply contrasted what the common folks were expected to be doing on the Sabbath.

RIght. They were Dense. He was introducing the new Covenant and it was to be expected to take a while to sink in I would think. Hundreds of years of tradition was being fulfilled, it was a huge paradigm shift for everyone. They didn’t even understand why he had to die as Messiah. I guess I am not getting your point here.

My personal take on why the Pharisees saw picking dinner on the sabbath as breaking the law (though they themselves had exceptions) is because in their mind Jesus had no Authority. They did not recognize him as Messiah. They were Hypocrytes and carnal. They were not spiritual and mindful of the things of God. They were like some people raised in Church that do Church… but don’t really have the things of God on their mind or hearts. They were prideful, ungodly and carnal. They did not have the Love of God in them nor were they truly humbly ready for the Messiah.

They saw Jesus as breaking the Sabbath because they saw him as a common folk. "Is this not the carpenter, Mary’s son, brother to James, Joses, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” and also “By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?”

So because they didn’t recognize Jesus as Messiah, he had no Authority to utilize the Sabbath exceptions in their eyes and was therefore “Breaking the Sabbath” in their eyes.

Do you know the last time Jesus and his disciples ate before then? I don’t. It’s possible they were in Great need of food and were hungry from fulltime ministry with Jesus with little rest or food. Even if they were not, I can see Jesus doing this to make the point of who he was. In a very parabolic way in true Jesus fashion, it was making a point to those that had eyes to see and ears to hear, that he must be in the service of God to be utilizing the Sabbath exceptions that were normally only reserved and utilized by those in the service of God.

#119

Hahaha. Good one Kelly.

You are recognizing the same thing that TV recognized. That at some point the Universal Literal Must be followed or we are in direct contradiction of where the Spirit is leading us. Some guy may say the Spirit told me to Commit Adultery because I loved that woman. I would say, The Spirit does not contradict the principles of love that God has made clear in the “Schoolmaster” that is the law.

I love what Redhot is saying and agree with 90 percent of it. But I think the error is coming in when we don’t seperate those things in the Mosaic laws that were fulfilled or for Israel only vs those Universal principles in the Word of God that trancend all Covenants and are always applicable for all People.

Saying “the law kills and the Spirit gives life” is true only for the part of the law Paul was speaking of when under the Spirit he Uttered those words. To say that *all *of God’s Law kills is a simplistic and just downright incorrect. The Universal parts of the Law give life and according to Paul and Jesus define how to walk in the Spirit.

I believe all this confusion come from misunderstandings of what a writer was referring to when he said “Law”. Law is a general term and has to be understood in context.

Would Paul say “Do not Covet” and then turn around and say the Law kills, meaning all laws including the one he just gave regarding Coveting? Why did he say “Do not Covet” in the first place if that law will kill me? :laughing:

#120

Thanks Kelly!

The Same to you and Your Family. And Aug, Bob, Red, and all of us Whack-o EUers.

My wife and I are cooking up a Turkey and I’ve read that cooking it breast down is the key to making a Juicy Turkey so we are excited to Potentially have a Juicy Turkey for the first time ever on a Thanksgiving! :smiley:

I am going to follow this:

simplyrecipes.com/recipes/moms_roast_turkey/

At the Bottom in the Comments section everyone is raving about how juicy their Turkey was when they followed this Recipe/way of cooking!!

#121

Kelly to you too even though I realize you probably see Thanksgiving as a one way ticket to hell - kidding :slight_smile:

Even if you don’t celbrate, God’s peace to you.

Aug

#122

Steve,
Once again, you’re crystal.

I’m not convinced at all, or shall I say far from it, that you would have seen the gathering of mannah on the sabbath, not baking goods, not doing your own work, did not make Jesus guilty since you think he had to keep the external measures of the law - which is of no value.

But once again, I feel the pendulum swing. Jesus did not appeal to his being a priest and being within the exception. He appeals that IT"S OK TO DO GOOD WORK. You argue that the Phar. had exceptions and thus were wrong for accusing him of gathering his manna on the sabbath. But he doesn’t argue as you say…“I’m a priest and there were exception which you yourselves grant.” What he says is problematic for them “ITS OK TO DO GOOD WORK.” And this very point is something they did not agree with.

If you say they agreed with his premise that it’s ok to do good work, then why in the world would they have been upset with him over authority - he did nothing wrong - he doesn’t need authority to collect manna on the sabbath and thus they would not be upset with him.

But telling someone to pick up their mat and go home with it, was that in their “exceptions” (John 5). Not only this but John gives the BLARINGLY statement “the jews wanted to kill him, for NOT ONLY WAS HE BREAKING THE SABBTH, but he also was calling himself God’s son making himself equal with God.”

Now don’t misunderstand, John’s words dont necessarily mean that Jesus was breaking God’s law. I believe John means the pharisees BELIEVED he was breaking God’s law and you seem to be saying they didn’t.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and I wish we all lived closer so we could Sunday School and worship together!!! Kelly Included! Lots of love to all of you!

#123

Kelly, thanks! It’s hard to clarify semantics and real differences. But when you agree that the law being "fulfilled" brings “changes in the law,” it sounds similar to what I meant in saying such changes make it fitting to say that simply taking the law’s rules at face value is now ‘outdated,’ or in Hebrews’ language, “obsolete.”

#124

Steve,

I’m retired and I too can’t keep up! I’ve addressed your emphasis on Mt. 5:18-20 in the thread previously, arguing that insisting on “fullfilling” the law(‘s intent) is consistent with no longer requiring that the original meaning of all the laws be obligatory. Then Jesus and the apostles’ understanding that Gentiles should not follow it can be one in the same.

I think this excerpt from my Nov. 17 note highlights our variation on the original core question, and your answers would clarify how much common ground we share:

(On the specifics: you say “travelling to worship” was fine. Where is that? The folk I watched all of March in Jerusalem’s Mea Shearim didn’t read it that way.

You suggest “gathering food” just to eat was fine, for only grabbing a lot “to get ahead of others” was punished. What text says that? Exodus 16:29 appears to simply say, “Stay in your place, and do not pick up any food.” You agree, “Jesus argues that it’s never wrong to do good on the Sabbath,” But I think the Pharisees had strong precedent to fear that that could lead to humanistic rationalization of specific prohibitions on quite otherwise ‘good’ things.

You ask where “carrying” stuff is sanctioned. I discussed three passages above on Nov. 7, 5:43pm, where even execution is mentioned. But you suggest that picking grain is not as arduous as picking up manna, and that carrying one’s mat is “nothing like” carrying things in the texts presented. How is that so clear to you? I suspect that it is because you start from the premise that a sinless Jesus clearly did those things; thus they can’t be similar. But it seems to me that someone with no vested interest in reconciling Jesus with the Mosaic code would quite understandably say that it’s hard to be sure which actions were more ‘work.’ A Pharisee would reason, With the fearful precedents, why risk God’s severe wrath? More of a humanist might say, Way to get your priorities right, Jesus!)

I’m not seeing why valid priestly Sabbath duties helps reassure us about what is o.k. on the Sabbath. I see no N.T. indications that priesthood is what exempts us from other peoples’ Sabbath guidelines. Frankly, I’ve never heard that argument before. Are you aware of a writer who holds it?

Blessings to you,
Bob

#125

ISIA,
Talking to Bob this morning, he helped me get some thoughts in order. I understand you believe the pharisees thought was Jesus was doing was breaking the sabbath. So I’m back to the central question. What text do you suppose the Pharisees should have seen that gathering manna on the sabbath was ok? I understand you appeal to Jesus and the disciples being very hungry but that doesn’t fly for me. It’s an argument based on silence. We also know that David and him men were on the run (if I’m correct). A sheep in the pit is in danger. But Jesus was not on the run and it sure looks like he could have had his meal ready the day before. So again that question is central, I believe.

#126

Auggy,

I echo your thoughts on how great it would be to live closer! Though we are currently on different sides of this particular debate, we are such a small minority of likeminded people as Evangelical Universalists. I’m sure all of us on this discussion would have some great times of fellowship together. I literally know not one soul in the state of Texas that would agree that God can and will reconcile all people.

Regarding the latest questions and Comments by Bob and yourself…

You ask how I can use the David example to Justify Jesus picking of grain as if this is far fetched. Do you see the Irony in asking me this? I am not the one that came up with the David example. *Jesus *is the one that used the David example to Justify his picking of grain :slight_smile: It’s as if you and Bob can’t understand why Jesus would use that example, so I am just trying to explain why Jesus would refer to that. When they ask about why he is breaking the Sabbath, Jesus doesn’t say “Because I came to abolish the law” or “because the law kills but the Spirit gives life”. Jesus says in Luke 6:3 "***Have you not even read ***what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him.

So Jesus is using a Sabbath rule exception *found in scripure *for justification of what he did. Don’t you find that curious. I certainly do. So I naturally want to see if there are other exceptions found in scripture for the Sabbath since clearly “No Work whatsoever” is not what God appears to have commanded per Jesus words in Luke 6. And what I find in Leviticus is that the “No work whatsoever” Principle is NOT the whole story. The Priests were commanded differently and therefore were exempt from the “Thou shall not do any work on the sabbath”.

In my view, and I may be wrong, the reason Bob and you are unable to see Jesus point is because you have a false premise that No Work on the Sabbath was ever allowed. You cite OT scripture and also the current view of the Jews regarding the Sabbath. Both of which are different then how you are decribing.

Regarding Jewish views of the Sabbath- I would like to note that Jewish views on the Sabbath are not as cut and dry or simplistic as you both are describing it. I have read in many places that Orthodox and Conservative Jews have all kinds of views regarding the Sabbath that are all over the board. Some say you Cannot turn a light on or off while others don’t follow that. Some prohibit driving, others do not. Some prohibit using electronic devices, others do not. There are hundreds upon hundreds of Do’s and Don’t surrounding the Sabbath found in the Jewish law. Some Jews accept some of them and others reject those same Do’s and Don’ts. I have already pointed out that the Jewish Oral Tradition which existed at the time of Jesus contained 24 chapters (Mishnah) worth of Sabbath Do’s and Don’ts , and there are many things allowed on the Sabbath that some would consider work and others wouldn’t. It’s quite Laughable and silly to me actually. Even within the Mishnah itself you will find contradictions.

While Jewish law (halakha) prohibits doing any form of melakhah on Sabbath, One definition of Melakhah is “deliberate activity” or “skill and craftmanship”. So the lines are very Blurry even by Jewish Oral Law, and thus 24 Chapters devoted to trying to define what is “Work” or Melakhah. But even these laws regarding work are defined as laws for the common people and not for the Priests. The Sabbath was an entire day of activity for the Priests so naturally they were exempt, thus Jesus words:

Matt 12
Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent?

So it seems I am repeating these same things over and over.

Auggy you ask…

My Answer is The Law was defined for the common folk, but for those Priests and Kings we see exceptions in Scripture. We see the Sabbath to be a day full of activities surrounding God and the Work of God, and the common people being told to abstain from their work, but a different calling for those doing the Work of God as Kings as Priests. And this is Jesus arguement. Have you not read in the law…the Priests on the Sabbath break the Sabbath law (common people law) and yet are innocent.

I DO believe the Pharisees thought Jesus was breaking the law, I really do believe that. I think they thought that for two reasons:

1 Their law was unclear and contradictory. It allowed for some things that seemed to contradict other things it disallowed. So, the things Jesus was doing, in some parts of their law seemed unlawful, though other parts of their law (animal in pit, and Davids innocence) justified what Jesus was doing.

2 They did not recognize Jesus Authority. If they did not recognize that Jesus was more than a common folk than they would naturally assume all the common folk laws would apply to him, and therefore him being a law breaker.

Auggy,

You argue…

I disagree. Look closely at Jesus words to the Pharisees regarding his work as an exception:

Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here.

Jesus justification for what he did was to paraphrase"The law says the Priests in the Temple are innocent (exempt) but I am greater than those Priests in the Temple.

The NT repeats this at length and unmistakably, telling us Jesus is the “Great High Priest”. In fact, the work of the Priests on Sabbath were just foreshadows of what Jesus came to do. And David himself was a Type of the Messiah King Christ.

Jewish tradition refers to two redeemers: Messiah ben David and Messiah ben Joseph. One a King messiah and One a Suffering Messiah. We find in the NT that in Jesus these two Messiah’s were actually the same person. So even if the Jewish Tradition didn’t recognize the Suffering High Priest and the King as one in the same, in reality they were, and so through scripture we see that Jesus falls into that exempt category regarding the Sabbath. Just as the Priests and King David did according to OT scripture.

#127

Well there’s Jason Pratt for one… :wink: