Kelly to you too even though I realize you probably see Thanksgiving as a one way ticket to hell - kidding 
Even if you don’t celbrate, God’s peace to you.
Aug
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!
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to what I meant in saying such changes make it fitting to say that simply taking the law’s rules at face value is now ‘outdated,’ or in Hebrews’ language, “obsolete.”
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
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.
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 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.
Well there’s Jason Pratt for one… 
Hi Everyone! Hope you all enjoyed Thanksgiving! We did! 
Sorry this is long! 
Hope you have a very joyful day!
Doing the two greatest commandments is more than all the whole burnt offerings and the sacrifices, though the priesthood and sacrificial system has changed because Yeshua has fulfilled them. Notice in the Scripture below how Yeshua precedes the two greatest commandments with the shema? Notice also how the scribe (a Jew) understood and agreed with Yeshua’s statement? The two commandments are not a “gentile” thing. The two are a summation of Torah, just as the ten are. There clearly hasn’t been a dismissal of responsibility to YEHOVAH in doing what HE deems is love and truth.
“ . . . and Jesus answered him–The first of all the commands is , Hear, O Israel, YEHOVAH is our God, YEHOVAH is one; and thou shalt love YEHOVAH thy God out of all thy heart, and out of thy soul, and out of all thine understanding, and out of all thy strength--this is the first command; and the second is like it , this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; --greater than these there is no other command.' And the scribe said to him,Well, Teacher, in truth thou hast spoken that there is one God, and there is none other but He; and to love Him out of all the heart, and out of all the understanding, and out of all the soul, and out of all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as one’s self, is more than all the whole burnt-offerings and the sacrifices.” (Mar 12:29-33)
Below is a prophetic Psalm of David. Notice how Yeshua says YEHOVAH did not desire the sacrifices? They were a placeholder until Messiah came to fulfill them. Yet Yeshua still kept the rest of Torah.
“Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy TORAH is within my heart. I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O LORD, thou knowest. I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation.” (Psa 40:6-10)
Yeshua clearly teaches that, until heaven and earth pass away, nothing of Torah will pass away. We know the priesthood and sacrifices has changed (fulfilled) but, a priesthood and offering still remain, nothing has “passed away”. And, Yeshua clearly teaches that we are to teach others the commandments.
Do not suppose that I came to throw down the TORAH 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 TORAH, 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. (Mat 5:17-19)
“And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” -Yeshua (Luk 16:17)
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Gal 5:14)
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: (Jas 2:8)
The Sabbath . . .
We are to remember and sanctify the Sabbath because YEHOVAH remembers us and sanctifies us.
This passage ends with YEHOVAH taking the validity of the Sabbath day back to the beginning of creation.
`Remember the Sabbath-day to sanctify it; six days thou dost labour, and hast done all thy work, and the seventh day is a Sabbath to YEHOVAH thy God; thou dost not do any work, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, thy man-servant, and thy handmaid, and thy cattle, and thy sojourner who is within thy gates, – for six days hath YEHOVAH made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and resteth in the seventh day; therefore hath YEHOVAH blessed the Sabbath-day, and doth sanctify it. (Exo 20:8-11)
YEHOVAH’S Sabbath’s are for all people. And, they are for a purpose.
O the happiness of a man who doth this, And of a son of man who keepeth hold on it, Keeping the sabbath from polluting it, And keeping his hand from doing any evil.
Nor speak let a son of the stranger, Who is joined unto YEHOVAH, saying: YEHOVAH doth certainly separate me from His people.' Nor say let the eunuch,Lo, I am a tree dried up,’ For thus said YEHOVAH of the eunuchs, Who do keep My sabbaths, And have fixed on that which I desired, And are keeping hold on My covenant: I have given to them in My house, And within My walls a station and a name, Better than sons and than daughters, A name age-during I give to him That is not cut off. And sons of the stranger, who are joined to YEHOVAH, To serve Him, and to love the name of YEHOVAH, To be to Him for servants, Every keeper of the sabbath from polluting it, And those keeping hold on My covenant. I have brought them unto My holy mountain, And caused them to rejoice in My house of prayer, Their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices Are for a pleasing thing on Mine altar, For My house, `A house of prayer,’ Is called for all the peoples.
(Isa 56:2-7)
Numbers 52 shows a man gathering firewood being stoned. Preceding this statement is the account of sin done in ignorance and YEHOVAH forgiving the sin. The man had willfully disobeyed YEHOVAH.
This proved that the man was not in covenant with YEHOVAH but, obeyed the dictates of his own heart or some other god.
It was Paul’s habit to be in the scriptures and teach on the sabbath.
“And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, . . . “ (Act 17:2)
Yeshua has fulfilled the Sabbath. He has also fulfilled the priesthood and sacrifices. Do we now ignore the duties of the Melchizedek Priesthood or our High Priest? Do we now ignore and forget the price Yeshua paid as the final sacrifice? Of course not. We are commanded to “remember”. Do we forget the fulfilling of the Sabbath? Of course not. What better time to “do this in remembrance” of Him than the day He fulfilled it?
The word purpose in the following scripture means to be πρόθεσις =prothesis
- a setting forth of a thing, placing of it in view, the shewbread
1a) twelve loaves of wheaten bread, corresponding to the number of the tribes of Israel, which loaves were offered to God every Sabbath, and separated into two rows, lay for seven days upon a table placed in the sanctuary or front portion of the tabernacle, and afterwards of the temple
a setting forth, that is, (figuratively) proposal (intention); specifically the show bread (in the Temple) as exposed before God: - purpose, shew -bread].
We are set forth as the show bread, exposed before God. Our High Priest kneads and bakes us (signifying His hand in our sanctification) and sets us before YEHOVAH from Sabbath to Sabbath (Sabbath signifying the covenant (Yeshua as the complete sacrifice) between us and God, that YEHOVAH is our God, that we are His people and that He sanctifies us.) They all run together.
But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. Yea, and all that will live godly in Messiah Yeshua shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Messiah Yeshua. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2Ti 3:10-17)
And other of their brethren, of the sons of the Kohathites, were over the shewbread, to prepare it every sabbath. (1Ch 9:32)
Please notice above, that Paul exhorts Timothy “to continue in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them”
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Messiah Yeshua.
The “holy scriptures” Paul speaks to Timothy about is the Tanakh (your OT). This “OT” was given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness. These are still important. Are we called to anything less than aiming for perfection and “being throughly furnished unto all good works”? Just saying I’m a believer and trying to continually conjure up feelings of love through tolerance of those things which YEHOVAH calls sin, is a sad substitute for real love and truth, imo. How can we even claim to love a person who we steer away from truth? It is truth that sets us free not sinful behavior whether done in ignorance or willfully.
The Sabbath is a sign (as shown above). It is the sign that we not only have believed Yeshua is the final and perfect sacrifice for our sin but, that He is our High Priest and our King.
Even to obey all 613 commandments of God is a whole lot easier than following all the US laws. One count I read recently said the US has approximatively 1, 298,000 laws. At that rate, how many do each of us break every day? Why aren’t we crying “we’re free from the law” on that? I’ll tell you why, because they come and haul you away if they decide to judge you guilty. YEHOVAH is not “harsh” in His judgments, He is fair and disciplines us for our good not wanting any to perish. Why do we hear the bemoaning of obeying His laws and not these others? How hard can even a full 613 laws be compared to all these others? To now answer your question directly Auggy. The “law” of God is for all people. I think it would be a great civil law to follow as Israel did, it is defiantly less oppressive as you can see by the sheer numbers above. Even in America, there is life for life. If you murder, you may be put to death, or spend the rest of your life in prison. What’s the big difference? Except there are a whole lot less of God’s laws. If you don’t pay your taxes you could be “put to death” by the swat team who comes to pick you up at your house. Why is it so much harder to just take the rest God gives you? At the “judgment”, what law do you think God will use? If He doesn’t judge then there is no need for a judgment (which He obviously does judge) but, since there is a coming judgment, He will use His own standard (or law).
We are saved where we are by grace through faith. We don’t have to do anything to receive forgiveness. However, we are called to good works and are judged according to them. “I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and scrolls were opened, and another scroll was opened, which is that of the life, and the dead were judged out of the things written in the scrolls–according to their works; and the sea did give up those dead in it, and the death and the hades did give up the dead in them, and they were judged, each one according to their works; and the death and the hades were cast to the lake of the fire–this is the second death; and if any one was not found written in the scroll of the life, he was cast to the lake of the fire.”(Rev 20:12-15)
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. (Joh 14:12)
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:10)
Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
(Tit 2:14)
Yeshua is our “Sabbath Rest” and we are entering in yet, we are still suppose to be “working”. He has provided rest for us by grace through faith as a sign that we are His covenant people (just like the 7th day Sabbath has always pointed to) and yet, Paul says . . . “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” (Php 2:12-13)
There are also obviously physical needs that we must attend to. Working for money to buy food, shelter and clothing, as well as, taking care of and preparing these (ie: laundry, meals, etc.) So, where’s the continual “rest”?
I see that we are responsible to be obedient to God,as well as, care for ourselves and others, even though we are being saved by His grace through faith in Messiah. We will be accountable for the work we do even though salvation is not by works.
Therefore,
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
(Mat 5:17-19)
And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (1Jn 3:3-4)
Here is endurance of the saints: here are those keeping the commands of God, and the faith of Jesus.’ (Rev 14:12)
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. (Rom 3:31)
But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. (Jas 1:25)
Hi Steve!
Yeah, I love being “spiritual”. I’m a dreamer, I have visions, I hear from Yehovah, I love to read and study the Bible. It’s awesome being the spiritual body of Messiah. That’s nourishment to my soul and I praise God for it! But, how do I reach out to help with the physical needs of others without literally, physically doing something in the physical realm? How do others see my covenant with God and my love for Him if I don’t display it through my flesh? Aren’t we called to be/do both?
Yeah, RHM has some awesome thoughts!
Maybe sharing thoughts about the covenants and principals would be helpful.
Yep!
Yeah, the “law” can mean statutes, commandments, judgments, precepts, etc. Much seems to me (like your example) to be undeniable within the context of the passage and the whole of scripture. It isn’t confusing when set into the overall context and flow of scripture.
Hi Bob,
Yes, perhaps we are close on this. It could be stated that I consider the Aaronic priesthood and animal sacrifice as “obsolete”. I think of it more as “changed” since we still have a priesthood and a sacrifice in place which, Yehovah always planned to replace them with.
However, I would also say that it is not “obsolete” if it is ready to become “obsolete”. He has made the first covenant “old” and it is getting ready to vanish away.
**In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
(Heb 8:13)
**
You are right. It is hard to work with words especially for me since I’m not real familiar with established, traditional theological words. Thanks so much for your patience with me! Have a blessed day!
Not at all! Thanksgiving was Sukkot morphed for the gentile world. Better to do what God wants in ignorance than what He doesn’t want in knowledge, imo.
I did celebrate and gave thanks!
Blessings and peace, Auggy!
Kelly,
Glad you also had a good thanksgiving! Thanks, and yes, agreeing that the rules for “priesthood and sacrifice” (which I agree remain realities in a re-interpreted manner) have “changed,” puts us closer with some common ground. Perhaps then we’re not debating whether the Mosaic code has experienced any change (versus being our calling in toto). We’re only quibbling as to what extent we are no longer expected to just follow its’ original meaning.
Much love to you and your family,
Bob
Hi Mag!
I’m sorry, I’m not a theologian or even really good at getting my point across.
I’m not sure about the Adamic area (if you will). I would assume Adam and Eve didn’t eat meat. Although, they did sacrifice, presumably on my part, for the covering for the sin of partaking of the forbidden fruit and we see that Abel offered from the “firstlings of the flock”. Because of this, I would assume Yehovah told them what was “clean” to sacrifice. There was a distinction between the clean and unclean animals on the ark. Abraham sacrificed the ram (at least that we know of) which is a clean animal. And, we have everything written down plainly as clean and unclean at the time of Moses. I think clean and unclean animals were the same from the time of Adam. That being said, I also think Yehovah considers certain matters of His law “weightier” as spoken by Yeshua, " the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith:" (Mat 23:23)
I believe Yehovah had mercy on Noah. His was a special calling. The earth didn’t produce during this time and Yehovah allowed Noah to eat the “unclean” animals to preserve a people on the earth. This is why there was a deviation or exception for Noah. I think of it not so much as a change but, an allowance.
We seem to be having the same thing going on with the Sabbath issue. God allows certain things which to us seem contrary to other commandments. I trust that Yehovah understands these things and that they look very different to Him.
Thank you, Mag. I appreciate you not begrudging me. Thanks for saying so. I am not familiar with Ernest Martin but, what you say makes sense. I have actually been a believer for about 25 years so, I’m not really coming out of paganism. I keep the commandments for a couple of reasons. If the commandments are a schoolmaster to point us to Messiah then, they also seem to me to make one keeping them “pointed to Messiah” themselves and a witness, or a pointer of Messiah, to the world. Also, a pointer to believers who have largely seemed to have lost their way. Another thing is, as written in Psalms and other places, they are a joy to me. They remind me of who my God is and how He is. Also, they are a common sense way to know what action take to minister to my family, friends and people that don’t know me. The Torah is a good standard of what we ought to look like in the flesh if we truly walk in the Spirit of the Law Giver, full of mercy, love and truth. I think that when we lay aside this flesh (are resurrected) there will be no more need for upholding the law because we will be perfect and unable to sin. We are already entering in, as we are being sanctified even now, covered by Yeshua’s blood for salvation and that the “old schoolmaster” not only tells us how to love but, points us to Yeshua, who teaches us how to love.
You don’t sound condescending. Thank you for your sincerity. Perhaps it is that I am still very immature. I don’t deny that I have much to learn and am in need of much changing and sanctification. I just can’t honestly convince myself that under the covering of Messiah, there is no validity in upholding God’s commands. The NT repeats the necessity for them. For example, in Eph. 9 out of the 10 are repeated as how we should conduct our way. If the NT is our big source for faith in Messiah then . . . Yeshua was the rod that came forth out of the stem of Jesse, (and a Branch shall grow out of his roots). If anything, we are grafted into that “tree”. The tree that came forth from an earthly Israelite bloodline. Yehovah could have chosen to graft Israel into the gentile, pagan nations but, He didn’t. He grafted us, a wild olive branch into Israel. The roots of Messiah go deep into the earth, even as they go deep into heaven. But, it is the law and the prophets of Israel that point to the Messiah that we follow. They are the image of Yehovah, He is the image of Yehovah. How can we even know Him without His people or His Torah? I know christians like Martin Luther hated them, persecuted them and spread the hate to others, like Hitler . . . like christianity. But, their God is our God. They have been entrusted with the oracles of God. If our Messiah is a different God, we are lost beyond hope for there is no other way to be saved or any other salvation promised that is worth having. So, as the first Jewish believers in Messiah Yeshua did, I also want to do. To be covered by Yeshua’s blood for salvation and keep the commandments of Yehovah with a good will.
Thank you Mag, for trying to sort out my thoughts and I am sorry they are not as clear as I would like. 
May Yehovah bless you!
Steve,
You emphasize that Pharisees thought Jesus broke command 4 because "their" law was “contradictory.” I don’t see how you are reasoning? Wouldn’t your assumption that they believed that some Sabbath work was allowed actually lead them in the opposite direction: toward questions as to whether Jesus’ actions truly broke the law, or was one of the exceptions? Why would their recognition of such complications confirm their perception that he broke the law?
You express amazement that I don’t see that Jesus used a Scriptural “exception” to justify what he did. But Jesus’ use of Scripture to argue for exceptions was at the heart of my contention and exposition of what he did!! Perhaps the difference is that you deduce that this shows that Leviticus means the Sabbath command was not “no work.” But where does it even define what the priests did as “work”? More important, wouldn’t whether the Pharisees had reason to think that the command was in fact “no work” most pivot on the specific texts that spell out that command**?** On that score, could any language be more definitive than “you shall not do any work” ? It seems to me that they didn’t even need all the arguments of tradition that you speculate about, to fear that ‘work’ was a precarious Sabbath venture. Scripture itself spells it out! Perhaps the debate was more focused on what qualified as ‘work,’ rather than the confidence you posit that some ‘work’ is fine.
You repeat your argument that the N.T. teaches that being a priest is the basis of our not needing to obey laws that others must. I see how you could speculate that this is implied between the lines, but I don’t see that conclusion expounded or embraced, and again wonder if any other scholars see it there as you do. Most central, I have repeated the Biblical texts that encourage me to reject your view that the Pharisees should have felt the distinctions between ‘good’ work, and illicit work were plain, and I can’t see that you’ve answered concerning this critique of your repeated arguments.
Blessings to you,
Bob
I thought Jason was in Tennesse?! Otherwise I would urge him to start the first EU Church of Texas!! And I would be the first Member!
Hey Bob,
God’s RIchest Blessings on you Brother! Just noticed your comment about being retired. I’m envious as you might just reach the Lord before me!!! Unless you believe in Soul Sleep! 
This discussion is turning into a marathon is it not? I guess i’ll give it another whirl here for what it’s worth. Eventually I would like to move on to what we believe carries over to the new covenant from the OT. I think that would really be an insightful discussion. I think we have all agreed some things carry over while others do not.
I think I have already made this point, but I will make it again. You are coming from the Premise that the Pharisees were good hearted men of God seeking the Truth and attempting to uphold Righteousness. Therefore in your view the Pharisees were taking a sincere honest approach to question Jesus Sabbath actions. I think this view is incorrect. Jesus spends a whole lot of time exposing the false motives of the Pharisees. He points out that they do everything to be seen by men rather than God. So by Jesus own words, these were men with false motives. They were not seeking to uphold the law or the true intention behind the law, they were seeking to use the law for their own selfish purposes. They were in Bed with Rome and Lording it over the people, Oppressing the poor and flaunting their riches. The last thing on their mind was upholding the true teaching of the law. So first of all let’s realize the Pharisees were concerned about their appearance and status and NOT the things of God. When they are accusing Jesus they are doing so apart from what their law said. They don’t see Jesus as Messiah or anyone special so they think they can condem him on a simplistic general statement about breaking the Sabbath. Jesus then points them back to their law and how even their law justifies his actions.
Did the Pharisees know their Law Justified what he was doing? I believe they knew the exceptions, but again, their law had justified exceptions (sheep in pit, Davids actions) on one hand, but their law also had 23 other chapters that seemed to contradict those exceptions. So what one could and couldnt do on the Sabbath was very Muddy waters. It was unclear and frankly I believe the Pharisees thought they could use their authority to interpret it any way they felt at the moment, especially to silence this radical teacher Jesus that was opposing them and their esablished authority.
I guess the best way to put it is, in my opinion, the Pharisees knew the exceptions, but due to the contradictory statements in their law they were themselves confused as to what was OK, and when the opportunity came to silence the one opposing them, they thought they could easily convict him with a blanket statement regarding breaking the Sabbath. But to their surprise he was fully aware of their law and the exceptions within their law, which he used to justify his actions. I don’t like to argue from silence, but we don’t see any arguement from the Pharisees after he quotes their own law to them. The reason in my view, is because they knew all along the exceptions were there, they just didn’t think Jesus would be astute enough to cite the exact place where their law justifed such actions.
Coming from the Premise that the Pharisees were concerned about upholding the true pure reading of the law (with it’s exceptions) is not a good place to start from, in my opinion. The Pharisees were concerned about holding onto their established power, not keeping people in line with the true interpretation of the law.
Again, see my above notes about your premise regarding the Pharisees. You see them as some sort of innocent Bible Believers that are just trying to uphold what God said. Jesus presents them as false teachers with evil motives unconcerned about the things of God and more concerned about their status and power. So why would you gather the Pharisees onto your side to make your arguement, as if their statement that Jesus was breaking the Sabbath is coming from some Righteous men with a clear reading of the law. It wasn’t. The accusation had nothing to do with the clear reading of the law and everything to do with fear and intimidation and false statements to protect their power, as Jesus exposes.
So if you want to make the arguement that Jesus was breaking the literal reading of Gods commands regarding the Sabbath, it seems that looking at the OT texts apart from the Pharisees statements is the best way to make a judgement as to what the Literal teaching is. What comes out of the Pharisees mouths is often false based on other motives.
And it seems we have argued the OT passages apart from the Pharisees already. I pointed out that the “no work” passages are always in context of the already established “your work”. You keep going back to the following arguement, “look! it says literally NO WORK! over here in Exodus and Leviticus”. But I have pointed out that in those same passages if we scroll up a little we see that the “no work” had already been defined as “your work” or as the hebrew literally says “work-of-yours”. I see alot of Jews to interpret “your work” to mean a persons typical 9-5 “non-God” work.
By very Nature of what the Sabbath was to be and the different roles that the leaders/priests were to have vs the common people, it seems pretty obvious that “no work” on the sabbath needed to have exceptions, or at a minimun be viewed as “your work” or unneccesary labor that took the focus off worshipping God or the work of God. Even in the NT we see the disciples commited to “the work of preaching the Word of God” on the day they gathered for worship. We see Paul tell the corinthians to commit themselves to the Work of God. Is this not what the Preachers did? The Work of God? What about those teaching from the Torah and explaining it? And the Priests with the Meticulous rituals and sacrafices. Who would not consider this the “Work of God”? It seems to me this is why Jesus could say “My father works and so do I”? I am not sure God’s Spirit would have been involved in carrying firewood on the Sabbath, but I am pretty sure we can agree that his Spirit is highly involved in ministering to his people in many ways every Sabbath or day of Worship.
I am not sure I said the NT teaches that we dont need to obey laws because we are Priests. I think Redhot said we are all Priests and Kings and therefore are doing the work of God everyday and above the Literal law keeping. So, not sure if you have me confused with him on this point. Do you have a statement of mine in mind?
Maybe you have said it and I just missed it, but what did Jesus mean when he said that David desecrated the Sabbath and yet was Innocent? How in Jesus view could David have been Innocent? I see Jesus upholding the Literal law. He tells the woman in Sin to Go and Sin no more. He repeats the 10 commandments infering that not keeping them is sin and grounds to miss entering the Kingdom. So why would Jesus call David Innocent when he breaks one of the 10 commands (in your “no work” sabbath view) and then turn around and tell others to keep the commands or they are sinning and in danger of missing the Kingdom? Your view presents a confused Jesus does it not? Or maybe I am just confused
My dear brother Steve,
Yep, when I think a view is right, I’m afraid I can stubbornly “marathon,” lest anyone think that I no longer perceive an adequate response 
But No, No! I don’t see Pharisees as “good-hearted,” only as actually convinced that they upheld Biblical Law. You insist their impure heart would rule out them thinking that. WHY? Isn’t an evil heart precisely what blinds us to moral goodness? You speculate that they felt “confused” about the rules. But scholars of 2nd temple Judaism find the evidence we’ve discussed contrary: they felt great clarity! That seems to explain butting heads with Jesus’ own clarity, better than thinking that they admitted their laws were contradictory and left ample room for “work.”
But I totally agree that whether Jesus challenged an understandable reading, depends on the O.T. texts! We see it says, don’t do on Sat. any work you would do that could be done on Friday (I don’t see how modifying it as work you would do contradicts or restricts the word “any” in the command). You say, “I see a lot of Jews” who say it is limited to “non-God work.” Where do you find this? It sounds anyway like human tradition and thus irrelevant to our question. You assert it’s “obvious” that some “work” was o.k. Of course, some deeds were allowed, but where do they define them as “work”? Doesn’t it stand that serious O.T. Jews are often convinced that the command consistently intends to prohibit any unessential effort (things we’d think of as work) that could be done on another day? I cited specific support in O.T. punishments for carrying things or gathering food.
If you didn’t argue that Jesus’ priesthood created an exception for work, I misunderstood 
You ask why the N.T. calls us to fulfill the law, if it’s o.k. to ‘break’ it. Again, it’s the distinction of letter & spirit. Christians don’t uphold the Law by obeying its’ letter, but by fulfilling its’ loving purpose as Jesus defined it. But you say e.g. that you can’t believe God would allow “carrying firewood,” for it would not be “doing the work of God.” Should we then truly fear condemnation (or execution) if we forgot to stock our wood-heater before Sunday?
You say Jesus “upheld the literal letter” in John 8. But it expressly required expediting the woman’s execution! So didn’t Jesus in fact contravene the law?
You ask how Jesus called David “innocent” when he “desecrated” the Sabbath. I answer (like you?), because Jesus argued that Sabbath work was not a sin. So the question remains for You: WHY DID JESUS CALL WHAT PRIESTS DID A “DESECRATION”? The O.T. seems clear, we must NOT “desecrate the Sabbath” (Neh. 13:17f). And it emphasizes that “work” is what “desecrates” it. Jesus, like the Pharisees, knew the command literally prohibited “work.” So he points out that what priests did must be acknowledged as “desecrating” (literally violating) the Sabbath. His kicker is pronouncing them innocent. Similarly, Jesus explicityly acknowledges that on the Sabbath David was "unlawful" (= broke the Law)! So doesn’t he expressly argue precisely that Scripture itself shows that it’s o.k. to ‘break’ the law (and thus also to “desecrate” the Sabbath)?
Steve, on "What carries over to the new covenant from the O.T. I see countless theological realties (hopefully detailed in my page’: “The Bible’s Story - O.T.”). But on prescriptive ‘rules’ for our lives, I’ve been arguing that the confirmation of O.T. guidelines in the N.T. seems important for the assurance of what has abiding application.
I don’t insist the Pharisees heart would rule out them trying to uphold the law. My point is… you making an assumtion that the Pharisees were trying to uphold the Law is a shaky premise to start with. I would personally not want to stake any argument on a starting point that assumes the Pharisees words reflected what they knew. much of how they presented themselves was false, and not consistent to what was actually inside them according to Jesus.
I see the fear of the Lord (and keeping his moral law) as the beginning of wisdom. Without Faith and a right heart, It is insufficient and lacking but i would not call it a reflection of an evil heart in all cases.
What evidence would you point to to prove that 2nd temple Judaism had great Clarity on the rules regarding the Sabbath. On the Contrary, I see that the Oral Tradition of Judaism during this time had 24 chapters devoted to defining Sabbath Do’s and Don’ts. And many contradictions within those 24 chapters. Even to this day Judaism is split in a multitude of directions regarding how to correctly keep the Sabbath. As stated before, some see turning on a light switch as breaking the Sabbath. Other Jews disagree with that implementation.
If you want to hold to a Literal “any work” Then why on earth would they circumcize or Slaughter the sacrifices on Saturday instead of Friday? Is this not “any” work by your defintion and work that could be done on Friday? Was ye old shop of circumcision only open on Saturday? Was the Levite house of Bulls only open on Saturday?
Their own law. Maybe I should just paste up samples from their law. Their law justified things such as David and his men eating when in need and pulling a sheep out of a pit, but normal everyday work is constantly forbidden. With alot of grey areas of course. The overall impression I get when I read it is that the general rule is to not do any work unless there is a neccessary justified reason.
What one calls work another calls effort, so I guess it depends on what you are referring specifically and who’s doing it. I would consider what the Priests were commanded to do on the Sabbath as some serious work, would you not?
Actually I did argue that Jesus Priesthood Created an exception for work!
Here is your original statement and my reply:
Your original statment: “You repeat your argument that the N.T. teaches that being a priest is the basis of our not needing to obey laws that others must”
My reply to that statement: “I am not sure I said the NT teaches that we dont need to obey laws because we are Priests”.
It was Redhot that argued we are above the Literal law since we are all Kings and Priests. I see the Literal (universal Laws) as very important. Murder, stealing and coveting are not good. I also believe understanding the purpose of a law and the Spirit of the law as critical to understand the Literal.
Perhaps obeying the letter (stealing, murdering, Sabbath) is very important, but only when the purpose and Spirit is understood clearly (like what God really meant by "No Work…Or what he meant by bearing false witness, which in my opinion I believe he meant in most cases but not in others such as Rahab and the spies when life was threatened).
I see the penalty of death for the firewood incident to be something God enforced between Israel and himself under the Mosaic Covenant. We are not only not Jews but no longer under that Covenant, so have no reason to fear that penalty. God was establishing a Theocracy in which certain laws had to be strictly enforced with a lawless stiffnecked people. It was very important at that time with those people under that Covenant, but Jesus introduced the new Covenant in fulfillment of the scripture.
While Jesus was sinlessly fulfilling the Law in accord with Prophecy, He was also introducing a New Covenant in fulfillment of Prophecy. So as strange as it seems, I see him Simultaneously keeping the Literal law himself (as correctly understood) while introducing the New Covenant which was prophecied in that same Literal law. The Mosaic law was passing away, what he was doing with the Woman was insightful regarding the Coming New Covenant, it was profound. Pointing out that All are Sinners and that she is NOT condemned (before God).
It was the same thing repeated in Romans 8…
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.
In what way could Jesus encounter with the Woman render his actions as failing to keep the law. He was not required to stone her, they were just asking him if she should be stoned in accord with law, and he just used the opportunity to open their minds to God’s view of Sin and forgiveness, which was an important principle for everyone to understand at that point.
I see this as Jesus stating that the Sabbath was desecrated according to the Pharisees perspective. Notice he says…Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent. He’s refering to their law, their perspective, their law that called it unlawful but also a justified exception to the general law.
Don’t get me Wrong Bob, I am considering your perspective on this as Valid and possibly correct. I am just arguing from my current understanding in hopes of framing the different Perspectives, so that I can see the arguements on each side, and where the strengths/weaknesses of each lies. I am still considering that Jesus “perfect following of the law” might be perfect in a way seperate from the Mosiac law. Like Perfect according to the “Spirit of the Law” or Perfect by “God’s Higher law” which is of a different order, such as Melchizedek. I see pro’s and Con’s to both our views right now.
Steve, you’re right that where a circle ends depends on where it starts. You repeatedly stake your case on assuming that the Pharisees are only pretending to believe in the Law as our texts have them interpreting it. Then since they really know what you perceive is true, of course, they couldn’t have truly seen what I too perceive as undertandable about the O.T.
But I see no assurance for your premise! Do any respected New Testament, or Jewish, scholars agree with you? I perceive that it’s universally recognized that their confidence and devotion was enormous! And that Jesus appears to paint them even more critically as arrogantly ego-tistic in their over-confidence. (I know you objected to my correlation between state of heart and evil blindness, but don’t numerous texts teach that**?** And it’s irrelevant to AD 30, but it’s also not true that non-secular Jewish Sabbath keepers today are even in the disarray you assert. As I reported, Spring in Israel reminded me of how lock-step they are-down to light switches and all.) So it’s your premise that assumes they really were convinced of things that the text leaves unspoken which seems “shaky” and a challenge to the consensus.
On priesthood, I now take it, unlike Redhot, you think Jesus could “work” on Sabbath in ways that we can’t, as we’re not priests. You repeat, Jesus kept the “literal” law in Jn. 8, yet it required execution. I’m totally confused by what you mean then by “literal.” You keep insisting the “literal” & the “letter” are essential. Could you then list literal examples of what things you might then recognize as sinful, or as o.k., on your Saturdays? That might be less abstract for me.
You keep saying Sabbath temple sacrifices show that Jews agreed that Sabbath “work” that could wait was fine. I don’t follow! Didn’t they believe God called them to offer sacrifices on the Sabbath? And similarly, that circumcision was commanded on the 8th day, which necessitated some Sabbaths? Why then would they assume that these were defined as “work” or that which was forbidden, or something that could wait?? Sure, you insist that offering a sacrifice would be intense “work” for you (and that I should feel that way too). But that’s not the question. It’s whether Jews thought it was listed as “work” such as what was illicit.
You interpret Jesus saying “in the Law” the sabbath is 'desecrated" was a reference to “their” man-made traditional law, and thus simply decribing “their” false interpretation. But I think there is wide consensus that when Jesus or the apostles say, “in THE Torah,” they always mean God’s Mosaic Word in the Scripture. Is there any place where this phrase is used which clearly refers to some kind of “Law” that Jesus opposes? I’m afraid your position leads to a terrible strain on a most pivotal Sabbath text. There is strong consensus that Jesus is again actually making a strong***Scriptural*** argument against the Pharisees, by accepting the term “descretation” for what He affirms as legitamate.
It could seem our common ground is thinning, but you do say that you think the Pharisees’ “general rule” (and I take it you think they reflected the Bible here) recognized that ‘work’ with a “necessary justified reason” was o.k. Here, I think all disputants might actually sympathize (only quibbling over the semantic use of “work”). But isn’t the catch that words like “necessary” & “justified” are rather subjective and thus subject to great dispute**?** Could I argue that the Pharisees simply were convinced that what Jesus approved was not clearly validated as necessary or justified, and thus Scripture gave sober reasons to err on the side of being conservative? Whereas Jesus, in my words, was a more progressive exegete, who pushed in the direction of not focusing on the letter, so much as grasping what a heart of love would do**?**