Sabbath Desecration and David's Unlawful Act

[Kelly_S]

Kelly, I too find it hard to clarify or keep up with these discussions of Mosaic Law!

Sorry for the confusion, Bob. I was speaking specifically of the number of posts and the large amount of content. I enjoy reading them and thinking about what is being said but, I have a hard time “keeping up” at that pace and I want to take the time to take them in. Also, out of respect for others, I want to think about what they are saying and try to understand where they are coming from. That is my context surrounding my words “keep up”.

You say: I don’t want to argue specifics “about the Law.”

Please see my thoughts on my last post for a good context of what I am saying on this issue. I would be happy to try to explain where I am coming from but, I have been doing the best I can and am not sure if more words on my part will help. Sorry.

But that: (A.) "Nothing in it is “outdated!”

Yes, this is how I see it.

Yet: (B.) You cite several “changes with the Law.”

The changes fulfilled as I tried to get across on my last post. It didn’t change the need for a priesthood or sacrifice.

But it’s precisely such specific N.T. changes that lead us to think ‘outdated’ is a proper Biblical description!

Again, the change did not negate all that Yehovah has said. Yehovah does not change. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. We may change but, He does not. I don’t see the NT saying that the God that knows all negates something He has done or plans to do. He does however, fulfill. In the fulfilling, there was a change in the priesthood and the sacrifices. A priesthood and sacrifice still remain. This is my view. Hope that helps to bring your ideas of what I am saying closer to what I actually am saying. I know I am not able to use the labels and theological concepts to describe my thoughts or beliefs and I’m sorry I can’t meet you on those grounds to bring clarity on my view. Thank you for your thoughts and words, Bob and everyone. I appreciate their thoughtfulness and beauty.

[I_sit_in_Awe]

Hey guys,

I’m not ignoring anyone. Just got a little Busy again.

I have some catching up to do, reading through the posts and answering some direct questions to me regarding my view. I hope to do that in the next few days but would like to make the following points/observations:

I think the Sermon on the Mount statements Jesus makes needs to be seen through the lens of Jesus very own words regarding the law in the same Sermon on the Mount context.

Please note the following verse in Matt 5 spoken during the Sermon of the Mount. It is in the Context of Jesus correcting the Oral Tradition that added onto what the Law and Prophets said. Notice Jesus direct reference to the Pharisees! This is in the context of the “you have heard…but I tell you” statements.

Matt 5:18-20 (Youngs Literal)
Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets – I did not come to throw down, but to fulfill; for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass. ***Whoever therefore may loose one of these commands ***-- the least – and may teach men so, least he shall be called in the reign of the heavens, but whoever may do and may teach [them], he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens. For I say to you, that if your righteousness may not abound above that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye may not enter to the reign of the heavens.

This hearkens back to Kellys first arguement Which I find to be the correct interpretation of Jesus words. Jesus is not correcting or changing the law of God. He is correcting the Pharisees false additions to God’s law. I think its unmistakable that Jesus is saying “your man made laws have taught X but I tell you Y” Jesus is not saying “You have read that God said X but I say Y”. We know this because Jesus matt 5:18-20 statements above Validates the entire OT as correct and in contrast to the Pharisees and scribes (the Keepers of the Oral Tradition) whose Righteousness we must surpass.

So the King/Messiah sitting on the Mount was destroying Not God’s Law… but the Oral Law …which wrongly interpreted God’s Perfect Law.

Now, do not be mistaken. I see there is clearly a New Covenant that has come. Many things in the law were to be “fulfilled” just as Jesus said and therefore the shadows are becoming obsolete (just as the Epistles tell us)

I think our question is coming down to …“what things have become obsolete”. as the Writer put it.

Or …What things did Jesus Fulfill because according to him the law and prophets are not passing away. He is just fulfilling what he said is coming. And that fulfillment appears in my mind to clearly be the New Covenant in his blood as spoken of in many places but maybe most vividly detailed in Jeremiah.

I am not sure when the New Covenant came(it may be at his birth, at the start of his ministry, at his death, at the coming of the H.S. at Pentecost), but every single last one of us on this thread agrees it has come, and so certain things have been fulfilled.

I think an important distinction to make is that The Temple may not have been destroyed yet when the Epistles were written, but clearly per the Timeline in the book of Acts The Holy Spirit came Before Paul had even made his trips to establish all these Churches that He later Writes to in all the Epistles (Thessalonia, Corinth, Rome, Phillipi Etc Etc). So when Paul is writing all these letters, it is After the Pouring out of the Holy Spirit. So unless one views the temple destruction as the start of the New Covenant, then what Paul instructs in the Epistles under the Holy Spirit is very applicable to Gentiles under the New Covenant.

So I would like to ask a Basic question…

Should we view Pauls instructions in the Epistles to Gentiles as instructions that New Covenant Believers should Follow?

I am not addressing the Sabbath issue(Keeping it or not) right now. Though I know some are discussing that. I am doing a Follow up to some of Redhotmagma’s points.

I am asking a fundamental question about How we view Pauls Literal Commands in the Epistles to New Covenant Gentiles. Should we literally follow them or not?

I would propose that Most if not nealy all of these Literal commands were first taught by Jesus and are applicable for New Covenant Gentiles.

When we make general statements like “the law (literal commands kill) but the spirit gives life” are we then saying that when Paul says to submit to your authorities, that we should disregard that command because its literal and only reflects a spiritual principle. Or When Paul says “Husbands love your wives” we should disregard because clearly its talking about Jesus Loving the Church.

Or is it possible Paul was repeating the same things Jesus was saying and the Literal just as much as the spiritual should be followed, unless or course:

A) It was a command given to foreshadow something coming, and therefore obsolete because it was fulfilled.
B) It was specifically a non Universal command given to Israel under the Old Mosaic Covenant between God and Israel.

Regarding keeping the Sabbath itself. Though I am neutral on that, it appears the Sabbath was a principle that trancends the Mosaic Covenant since the day of Rest principle God established prior to the Mosaic Covenant. He established it at the creation of the heavens and earth.

Regarding Jesus breaking the Sabbath. Bob, I see either you or Auggy made a point that Under the old Covenant Manna was stricly forbidden to be collected on the Sabbath. But I am not sure how this point stands up to the fact that God specifically in the same Sabbath Command context Clearly established the exception to Sabbath work with the priesthood. Those set apart for God’s work were specifically commanded to do certain work on the Sabbath. In Fact for them, since they were the mediators between the people and God, their most involved day of work Was the Sabbath. So they were clearly exempt from the Command God gave to the common folk.

So was Jesus a common folk or in the category of Priest that would be doing God’s work on the Sabbath? And his disciples who were hand selected to leave common work and follow Jesus and be Fishers of Men, were they also common folk when they picked the grain? Or were they now set apart for ministry Of Jesus the Great High Priest? What one thinks about Penal Substitution seems to be totally irrelevant to the fact that Jesus was a High Priest as the NT indicates. Seems more of a straw man type of way to disregard that Jesus and his disciples were unmistakably set apart to do the Work of God and meeting the exceptions that God establish with the Priests when he gave the Sabbath instructions in the first place. And is this not Jesus exact arguement when the Pharisees accused him of the exact charge you guys appear to be bringing? I know we are all trying to figure this out and understand each others position so please excuse the comparison I am making with you guys and the Pharisees. I see Bob and Auggy as exceeding the Pharisees It just seems to me that the very reason the Pharisees could not see Jesus as meeting the exceptions of the priesthood, is because the Pharisees did not realize that he was indeed the Great High Priest. And if they did, they would justify what he did. For even David and his men were justified per oral law for the same exact actions. WHy? because they were not common folk. They were employed by God in his service. So The Pharisees Did See exceptions, they just didn’t see that Jesus was employed by God.

[redhotmagma]

ISIA, I see us all as kings and priests. There is no distinction between laity and clergy. So then all christians can do godly work. I also see the sabbath being every day. So the distinction is no longer there.

[auggybendoggy]

Redhot, my sentiments exactly. I’ve argued that the law forbids doing bad work on the sabbath. But then if that’s true and good work is permissible then it’s not exactly about kicking back on your sofa at home is it? It’s about shalom, isn’t it. And that is not a matter of picking up logs or lighting fires, it’s about being reconciled. We who have come into Christ have entered that sabbath.

If we’re in that sabbath EVERY DAY and simultaneously we’re working (for the kingdom of God) then we’re exactly like Jesus - working (as God works on the sabbath) and in perfect rest (peace with God).

2ndly, The death penalty for sabbath breakers - did it change or not?
the death penalty for obstinate children?
The death penalty for homosexuals?
The death penalty for adulteres?
The death penalty for false prophets?

Why do these vanish away if in fact God’s laws (which the death penalty is a part of) is obsolete.

The only sense I can make is that ISIA and Kelly are employing liberal interpretations (keeping parts they want to keep) because those parts ring true to them. But now they’re in our camp aren’t they? Perhaps I’m mistake about that but it seems unavoidable to me.

[I_sit_in_Awe]

ISIA, I see us all as kings and priests. There is no distinction between laity and clergy. So then all christians can do godly work. I also see the sabbath being every day. So the distinction is no longer there.

Redhot, I am Neutral on whether Christians should keep the Sabbath as was commanded under the Mosaic Covenant or the the way you are describing. I am only arguing that Jesus Kept the Sabbath, as the perfect spotless lamb.

[I_sit_in_Awe]

Redhot, my sentiments exactly. I’ve argued that the law forbids doing bad work on the sabbath. But then if that’s true and good work is permissible then it’s not exactly about kicking back on your sofa at home is it? It’s about shalom, isn’t it. And that is not a matter of picking up logs or lighting fires, it’s about being reconciled. We who have come into Christ have entered that sabbath.

If we’re in that sabbath EVERY DAY and simultaneously we’re working (for the kingdom of God) then we’re exactly like Jesus - working (as God works on the sabbath) and in perfect rest (peace with God).

2ndly, The death penalty for sabbath breakers - did it change or not?
the death penalty for obstinate children?
The death penalty for homosexuals?
The death penalty for adulteres?
The death penalty for false prophets?

Why do these vanish away if in fact God’s laws (which the death penalty is a part of) is obsolete.

The only sense I can make is that ISIA and Kelly are employing liberal interpretations (keeping parts they want to keep) because those parts ring true to them. But now they’re in our camp aren’t they? Perhaps I’m mistake about that but it seems unavoidable to me.

Hey Auggy,

I have said probably over 10 times on this thread that I believe the old covenant between God and Israel is done away and that we are under a new covenant …in fulfilling what scripture foretold regarding the new covenant.

The question is …what commands (universal) now carry over to the new covenant. We see Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles writing to these new covenant gentiles and instructing 9 of the 10 commandments and also many other universal commands that trancend the old covenant and are still clearly taught under the new covenant.

[Lefein]

Why do these vanish away if in fact God’s laws (which the death penalty is a part of) is obsolete.

Some I’ve had the unfortunate displeasure to come across in my days in other places on the internet, would say that Grace is almost purely given for the sake of The Law and keeping it, in the sense that the Death Penalty is removed, but if we don’t continue to keep the Mosaic laws we are in league with the lawless one (the Anti-Christ) and we somehow hate God and Jesus because we “refuse to follow his commandments” (which is always implied when someone throws up that Bible verse in order to backhand us into doing it their way as God’s way, because somehow they love Jesus more, or “actually” love Jesus and “we don’t” because they follow The Law). Of course this same sort of group also believes that Christ’s salvation for the Gentiles wasn’t salvation of the Gentiles themselves, but was purely and little more than a means to “grafting the Gentiles onto the Jewish tree, so they can be children of God by becoming Jews, being grafted onto Israel”. Of course, it is also contingent that one most likely abandon their Gentile heritage and culture…under this paradigm.

I despise the very idea that “God loves the Irishman, but only if he speaks Hebrew instead of Gaelic.” I love the Jews, and their culture is rich and full of beauty - but I despise the idea that God really only loves a man, or can only save him, if God makes the man Jewish.

Perhaps I ought to make a thread about it, but perhaps not, I do tend to get just a little bit of that old Lefeinian Polemic about such things. Perhaps I ought not make it for the thin line that seems to be there, and I don’t like sounding anti-Semitic.

[auggybendoggy]

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?

[I_sit_in_Awe]

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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!

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?

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!!!

[redhotmagma]

Again, the change did not negate all that Yehovah has said. Yehovah does not change. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. We may change but, He does not. I don’t see the NT saying that the God that knows all negates something He has done or plans to do. He does however, fulfill. In the fulfilling, there was a change in the priesthood and the sacrifices. A priesthood and sacrifice still remain.

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.

[I_sit_in_Awe]

The law is a schoolmaster, but when we mature its no longer needed

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.

[redhotmagma]

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.

[auggybendoggy]

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?

[I_sit_in_Awe]

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.

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

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.

[redhotmagma]

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.

[Kelly_S]

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.

[Kelly_S]

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. Something to think about!

[I_sit_in_Awe]

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?

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.

So I’m asking you, if you were alive in his day, what text would have convinced you he’s not breaking the law.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

[I_sit_in_Awe]

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. Something to think about!

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?

[I_sit_in_Awe]

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.

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!

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!!