I have a serious question, believers

[DivineNames]

What's "major" doesn't constitute truth.

True, but they very possibly believed they were drinking real blood. That is the traditional view of the Church. (I assume it can't be proved either way from scripture, but tradition is on the side that its real blood.)

 

[DivineNames]

That is not a violation of the sabbath. That comes from a misunderstanding, as far as I know, of Deuteronomy 23:25. You have to understand that there were many interpretations of the Torah by the Jewish leaders...

He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated breadâ€â€which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. (Matthew 12:3-4 NIV)

Jesus is making an analogy with a supposedly unlawful act, presumably the argument is that there were mitigating circumstances when the law was broken. Why make a analogy with an unlawful act, if Jesus didn't accept that his disciples had broken the law?

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. (Matthew 12:5-6 NIV)

Jesus is arguing for a special exemption for his disciples, on the grounds that he, Jesus, is a super special person. Tell me, why do you need a special exemption for a law that doesn't exist in the first place?

 

[wavy]

He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated breadâ€â€which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. (Matthew 12:3-4)

Jesus is making an analogy with a supposedly unlawful act, presumably the argument is that there were mitigating circumstances when the law was broken. Why make a analogy with an unlawful act, if Jesus didn't accept that his disciples had broken the law?

"Unlawful" technically, but not truly. David was hungry and would have died. It's always lawful to do good on the sabbath (as he explains in this very same chapter).

[quote:e5486]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. (Matthew 12:5-6 NIV)

Jesus is arguing for a special exemption for his disciples, on the grounds that he, Jesus, is a super special person. Tell me, why do you need a special exemption for a law that doesn't exist in the first place?[/quote:e5486]

He is not asking for special exemption. He is saying he knows, being the Master, what constitutes a violation and what does not. Getting some corn so you can EAT is not a violation of the sabbath.

This is simple kal va'chomer. Since the sabbath was made for us, what good is it if we're spending the day weak and hungry or dead? What's the greater issue here?

This is why he quotes Hosea 6:6 in Matthew 12:7. Do you really know Yahweh like you think you do?

 

[DivineNames]

Jesus could not sin nor would he if he could.

Excellent. Then there is nothing impressive about him living a life without sin.

:D

 

[DivineNames]

"Unlawful" technically, but not truly. David was hungry and would have died.

didn't you understand?

presumably the argument is that there were mitigating circumstances when the law was broken.

But it was assumed to be contrary to the law, and Jesus was making an analogy with it.

 

[DivineNames]

He is not asking for special exemption. He is saying he knows, being the Master, what constitutes a violation and what does not.

It doesn't say anything like that as far as I can see, can you support that claim?

 

[wavy]

But it was assumed to be contrary to the law, and Jesus was making an analogy with it.

"Assumed" yes. So this is no proof that he was actually breaking it or advocating breaking it or saying it was ok to break it.

 

[Drew]

I have some sympathy to DN's arguments here. In the Matt 12 text, Jesus certainly seems to be saying that the letter of the OT law can indeed be broken without "sinning". As background, consider Exodus 31:14-15:

"Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death."

Maybe Jesus was not breaking the Law in respect to the matter of picking grains, but He presents the hypothetical about pulling a sheep out of a pit - that certainly seems like work. The whole flavour of the Matt 12 passage (the first 14 verses) suggests to me that Jesus would say it would be OK for doctors to do emergency surgery on the Sabbath (were that possible in those days) without being guilty of sin. Yet this would clearly be work by any reasonable interpretation.

It seems to me that any efforts to reconcile Matt 12 with a claim that Jesus never allowed breaking of the Exodus 31:14 mandate requires such a dramatic reworking (no pun intended) of the term "work" as to render it meaningless.

What are your thoughts, Wavy?

 

[DivineNames]

"Assumed" yes. So this is no proof that he was actually breaking it or advocating breaking it or saying it was ok to break it.

He was making an analogy with an act assumed to be "technically" (as you said) unlawful. This is evidence that Jesus accepted that the act of picking grain on the Sabbath was (technically!) unlawful. Or why make the analogy?

 

[wavy]

It doesn't say anything like that as far as I can see, can you support that claim?

But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. (12:6).

But if ye had known what this meaneth, "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice", ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. (12:7-8)

"You've read of the priests in the Torah who understand what they do is permissable because of their service in the temple, and you've read that they understood that it was okay to give David some of the lechem ha panayim (bread of the face, or "showbread"), but I am greater than the temple the priest serve in and I own the sabbath.

How much more do I know what I'm doing?"

This is what he was saying, and again, he quoted Hosea 6:6, telling them that if they had known what that scripture meant, they would not have thought the disciples were wrong.

 

[wavy]

He was making an analogy with an act assumed to be "technically" (as you said) unlawful. This is evidence that Jesus accepted that the act of picking grain on the Sabbath was (technically!) unlawful. Or why make the analogy?

Then by analogy, if the examples he gave are "assumed" to be unlawful, then what happened there that day was "assumed" to be unlawful and not really unlawful.

 

[wavy]

I have some sympathy to DN's arguments here. In the Matt 12 text, Jesus certainly seems to be saying that the letter of the OT law can indeed be broken without "sinning". As background, consider Exodus 31:14-15:

"Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death."

Maybe Jesus was not breaking the Law in respect to the matter of picking grains, but He presents the hypothetical about pulling a sheep out of a pit - that certainly seems like work. The whole flavour of the Matt 12 passage (the first 14 verses) suggests to me that Jesus would say it would be OK for doctors to do emergency surgery on the Sabbath (were that possible in those days) without being guilty of sin. Yet this would clearly be work by any reasonable interpretation.

It seems to me that any efforts to reconcile Matt 12 with a claim that Jesus never allowed breaking of the Exodus 31:14 mandate requires such a dramatic reworking (no pun intended) of the term "work" as to render it meaningless.

What are your thoughts, Wavy?

Right, sorta. But he was not advocating it was okay to break it sometimes. He was advocating that when the command of Exodus 31:14 was given, it wasn't given with the intent some of the first century Jewish leaders supposed it was. He is restoring the original intent. Not saying it okay to break it. Because if you understand the intent (Hosea 6:6), you are not truly breaking it with something like a helping a donkey out of a pit.

 

[DivineNames]

Then by analogy, if the examples he gave are "assumed" to be unlawful, then what happened there that day was "assumed" to be unlawful and not really unlawful.

Yes, but I notice you have changed your position. You previously claimed you didn't think it was unlawful. Now it seems you accept it was (technically!) unlawful.

What you previously said-

That is not a violation of the sabbath. That comes from a misunderstanding, as far as I know, of Deuteronomy 23:25. You have to understand that there were many interpretations of the Torah by the Jewish leaders...

So the act of picking grain on the Sabbath is unlawful. Did Jesus have a good reason why his disciples didn't have to follow that law? Were there mitigating circumstances? With regard to the analogy with David, I can't see that they did. David was in fear of his life, the disciples of Jesus merely wanted a light snack!

Jesus may have assumed that his disciples had a legit reason not to follow the law, but that assumption looks false.

 

[DivineNames]

wavy, you think the law should still be followed?

Do you think we should ideally have a theocracy, and implement the O.T. punishments? Should we be stoning people to death?

 

[DivineNames]

Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: Because of your false words and lying visions, I am against you, declares the Sovereign LORD. My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will not belong to the council of my people or be listed in the records of the house of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the Sovereign LORD. (Ezekiel 13:8-9 NIV)

False prophecy is against God's law, and it seems that Jesus is guilty of that one.

 

[DivineNames]

"You've read of the priests in the Torah who understand what they do is permissable because of their service in the temple, and you've read that they understood that it was okay to give David some of the lechem ha panayim (bread of the face, or "showbread"), but I am greater than the temple the priest serve in and I own the sabbath.

How much more do I know what I'm doing?"

This is what he was saying, and again, he quoted Hosea 6:6, telling them that if they had known what that scripture meant, they would not have thought the disciples were wrong.

It doesn't talk about priests, "who understand what they do is permissible...", you are reading that into what the Bible 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? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. (Matthew 12:5-6 NIV)

 

[DivineNames]

He didn't have children, he didn't keep that part.

Doesn't apply to him. That was for a specific purpose. One of the 613 commandments, but that is only according to traditional Rabbis (assuming you are referring to "be fruitful and multiply").

Zecharyah and Elizabeth didn't have any children until the angel came and said they would, yet before he did, Luke says they were walking "blameless".

With regard to the argument about Zechariah and Elizabeth, a Jew obviously wouldn't accept it, and I am guessing that orthodox Christians wouldn't accept it either? (As they don't believe that anyone could be truly "blameless" except for Jesus.)

 

[wavy]

Yes, but I notice you have changed your position. You previously claimed you didn't think it was unlawful. Now it seems you accept it was (technically!) unlawful.

Actually, I said "technically" first, but that was meant only to mean according to the letter without true knowledge. I always stood by it being "assumed" to be unlawful.

So the act of picking grain on the Sabbath is unlawful.

I don't get how you ascertain this from anything I said. You are actually ignoring the true gist of what I am saying and trying to pick grains that are not there...

 

[wavy]

wavy, you think the law should still be followed?

Do you think we should ideally have a theocracy, and implement the O.T. punishments? Should we be stoning people to death?

this was answered on one of the previous pages.

 

[wavy]

It doesn't talk about priests, "who understand what they do is permissible...", you are reading that into what the Bible says

Take it out then. The point still stands. You are not actually sticking to the point. You are, again, trying to pick apart things that have little (nothing) to do with the overall point...

You seemed to pass over everything else I said...