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**?**
