Was Jesus a sinner like everyone else?

[Gary]

The Sabbath Does Not Restrict Service to God

Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath, and are innocent? But I say to you, that something greater than the temple is here. (Matthew 12:5–6)

Jesus did not have to explain what He meant by saying that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath. The Pharisees had often read in the Law that priests not only were allowed but required to do many things on the Sabbath that otherwise would have violated God’s Law of rest, not to mention rabbinic tradition.

In the performance of their duties in the Tabernacle and then the temple, the ministering priests had to light the altar fires, kill the sacrificial animals, and then lift up the carcasses and place them on the altar. Sacrifices on the Sabbath were, in fact, double sacrifices, requiring twice the work of the normal daily sacrifice (Numbers 28:9-10; cf. Leviticus 24:8-9).

The most legalistic Pharisee considered the priests who ministered in the temple as innocent of breaking the Sabbath, despite the fact that they worked twice as hard as they did on other days. Similarly, even the most legalistic Christian does not consider preaching, teaching Sunday school, leading a youth group, or any other such work as profaning the Lord’s Day, despite the fact that those activities require a great deal of effort.

Jesus embarrassed and angered the Pharisees by pointing out the inconsistency of their legalistic thinking. But their anger turned to rage when Jesus then said, But I say to you, that something greater than the temple is here. Even if the Pharisees did not immediately understand that Jesus was referring to Himself, they were horrified-because nothing, other than God Himself, was greater than the temple. In our day it is difficult even for Jews, much less Gentiles, to grasp how highly the Jews of Jesus’ day revered the Temple.

Because of His previous claims to deity (see, e.g., Matthew 9:2-6; Matthew 11:3-5, Matthew 11:25-27), the Pharisees probably realized Jesus was referring to Himself as being greater than the temple and therefore claiming to be God. A few moments later He removed all doubt in their minds about what He meant (Matthew 12:8).

The Lord’s immediate purpose, however, was not to prove His deity but to point out that, in light of that deity, He had the right to abrogate Sabbath regulations as He saw fit-immeasurably more than David had the right to violate the Tabernacle laws or the priests had to violate the Sabbath laws in serving in the Temple.

Source: MacArthur, John F., Matthew: The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, (Chicago: Moody Press) 1989.

 

[Gary]

The Sabbath Does Not Restrict Acts of Mercy

But if you had known what this means, “I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,†you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. (Matthew 12:7–8)

Jesus’ third point regarding the Sabbath was that its observance was never meant to restrict acts of mercy, as the Pharisees would have known had they understood and honored Scripture as they claimed.

If they had known what the Lord meant when He said, I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice, they would not have condemned the innocent for supposed Sabbath breaking. That one truth alone-a quotation of but one half of one verse from the book of Hosea (Hosea 6:6a)-would have been sufficient to teach the Pharisees, and any sincere Jew, what God’s primary desire was for His people.

Sacrifice here represents the entire Mosaic system of ritual and ceremony, which was always of secondary and temporary importance in God’s plan. Sacrifice was never more than symbolic, a means pointing to God’s gracious and future provision of what no man, and certainly no animal, could provide.

Observing the Sabbath was a kind of sacrifice, a symbolic service to the Lord in obedience to His command. It was a reminder of God’s completion of creation and a shadow of the perfect rest His redeemed people look forward to in salvation and in heaven.

Even under the Old Covenant that required it, Sabbath observance was not a substitute for the heart righteousness and compassion that characterize God’s faithful children. God is merciful, and He commands His people to be merciful.

God sometimes sets aside His laws for the sake of mercy. If He did not, none of us would be saved-or even born-because Adam and Eve would have been destroyed the moment they sinned. Not only that, but God has always shown mercy in enforcing the temporal penalties for breaking His laws.

The Lord’s desire is not to condemn men for sin but to save them from it. He only condemns those who will not have His mercy (cf. 2 Peter 3:9). And if righteous, holy God is supremely characterized by love and mercy-even to the extent of graciously setting aside the penalty for breaking some of His own laws for man’s benefit-how much more are His still-sinful children obligated to reflect His compassion?

Because the Sabbath was the Lord’s special day under the Old Covenant, a faithful Jew should have been especially concerned to follow his Lord’s example of compassion on that day. But because the Pharisees and most other Jews were far from God, they were also far from understanding His nature and His will. Jesus’ instruction about God’s purpose for the Sabbath further indicted the Pharisees’ unbelief and hardness of heart. They were the true violators of the Sabbath, because they “invalidated the word of God for the sake of [their] tradition†(Matthew 15:6). Those who condemned the innocent stood condemned themselves. They did not refuse to do acts of mercy because of devotion to God’s law but because of lack of compassion.

To substantiate His authority for saying what He had just said, Jesus added, For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. That statement must have rendered the Pharisees speechless. What He had implied by “something greater than the temple†(Matthew 12:6), He now made unambiguous. Jesus stood before them and claimed He was greater than God’s Temple and greater than God’s Sabbath. He was God, the Son of Man, the divine Messiah whom the Temple honored and the Sabbath served.

Because the Lord of the Sabbath had come, the shadow of His Sabbath rest was no longer needed or valid. The New Testament does not require Sabbath observance, but rather allows freedom as to whether or not any day is honored above others. The only requirement is that, whatever position is taken, it is taken for the purpose of glorifying the Lord (Romans 14:5-6); and no believer has the right to impose his views in this regard on anyone else (Galatians 4:9-10; Colossians 2:16).

From the days of the early church (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2), Christians have set aside Sunday, the first day of the week, as a special day of worship, fellowship, and giving offerings, because that is the day our Lord was raised from the dead. But the Lord’s Day is not the “Christian Sabbath,À as it was considered to be for many centuries and still is in some groups today.

Source: MacArthur, John F., Matthew: The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, (Chicago: Moody Press) 1989.

 

[DivineNames]

Have you not read what David did …? was deep-cutting sarcasm, because the account of David to which Jesus referred was, of course, from Scripture, about which the Pharisees considered themselves the supreme experts and custodians. They must have winced in anger as Jesus said to them, in effect, “Don’t you teachers of Scripture know what it says?â€Â
In responding to the Pharisees’ false charge, Jesus instructed them about God’s purposes for the Sabbath, particularly about three things it was not designed to do.

But Jesus didn't know what it said. He got the name of the high priest wrong! I'm sure the Pharisees would have been very impressed with that...

The bread of the Presence was baked weekly, and each Sabbath twelve fresh loaves (representing the twelve tribes) replaced the previous ones, which could be eaten only by the priests.

OK, what Biblical basis do you have for that claim? (Old Testament please)

 

[DivineNames]

Gary, if this were only Pharasiac tradition, why does Jesus argue for a special exemption for his disciples? Why argue for an exemption if there is no law broken in the first place? please explain.

 

[Gary]

Did Jesus name wrong man? When he said Abiathar, didn't he mean Ahimelech?

Bible verses in question:
Mark 2:23-26

The question:
Jesus names the wrong man?
Mark 2:23-26 Jesus says Abiathar was the high priest and David was NOT alone.
1 Samuel 21:1-6 states that David met Ahimelech and David was ALONE.

Our response:
Actually both men were alive at that time. Abiathar was Ahimelech's son. Abiathar became the high priest after his father. Mark 2:23-26 is saying that this event in which David entered the House of God happened during the time of Abiathar, and that is correct. It did happen during the time of Abiathar. However, Abiathar was not yet the high priest. But the passage isn't necessarily claiming that he was the high priest at that point. Instead, the verse is identifying Abiathar as high priest, which is true, and it is saying that the event took place during Abiathar's time, which is also true. Imagine if someone said, "I knew President Bush when he was a student at Yale..." That person of course would not be claiming that Bush was actually president while still a student at Yale. No, he would only be identifying Bush as president and as a student at Yale. Nothing more, nothing less.

So why would Mark 2:23-26 speak of Abiathar instead of Ahimelech? Perhaps because Abiathar was better known. Abiathar shared a lot of adventures with David. The two are linked together in several Biblical accounts. And it is quite possible that many of the Rabbis during the time of Jesus held the memory of Abiathar in high regard, and Jesus would have known that.

As for the issue of whether David was alone - Mark 2:23-26 does NOT say that David's men entered the House of God with David. It only says that David himself entered. And it explains why he entered - because he and his men were hungry. But it never says anything about his men entering the House of God. It only says that David entered the House of God and got the bread, which he presumably later gave to his men. There is no conflict there.

Copyright ©2001-2005 George Konig and AboutBibleProphecy.com. All rights reserved.

http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/q41.htm

:bday:

 

[Gary]

The rest, DivineNames, is for Christians on this board.

 

[DivineNames]

Actually both men were alive at that time. Abiathar was Ahimelech's son. Abiathar became the high priest after his father. Mark 2:23-26 is saying that this event in which David entered the House of God happened during the time of Abiathar, and that is correct. It did happen during the time of Abiathar. However, Abiathar was not yet the high priest. But the passage isn't necessarily claiming that he was the high priest at that point. Instead, the verse is identifying Abiathar as high priest, which is true, and it is saying that the event took place during Abiathar's time, which is also true.

OK, please quote the Old Testament where Abiathar is said to be high priest.

 

[DivineNames]

Gary, you would seem to be contradicting Jesus for reasons I have previously given, are you going to explain that?

:D

 

[bibleberean]

The law can be over ridden under certain circumstances.

1 Samuel 21:4-6 And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women. And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel. So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.

The priest would not have called the shewbread hallowed which means set aside and sanctified if it could be eaten under any circumstances by anyone at anytime.

Hallowed

a sacred place or thing; rarely abstract, sanctity:--consecrated (thing), dedicated (thing), hallowed (thing), holiness, (X most) holy (X day, portion, thing), saint, sanctuary.

The shewbread and care of the sanctuary was generally restricted to lawful priests the sons of Aaron or the Levites.

When false priests and infidels defiled the laws God was angry with Israel.

2 Chronicles 13:8 And now ye think to withstand the kingdom of the LORD in the hand of the sons of David; and ye be a great multitude, and there are with you golden calves, which Jeroboam made you for gods.

2 Chronicles 13:10 But as for us, the LORD is our God, and we have not forsaken him; and the priests, which minister unto the LORD, are the sons of Aaron, and the Levites wait upon their business:

2 Chronicles 13:11 And they burn unto the LORD every morning and every evening burnt sacrifices and sweet incense: the shewbread also set they in order upon the pure table; and the candlestick of gold with the lamps thereof, to burn every evening: for we keep the charge of the LORD our God; but ye have forsaken him.

Thus the qualifications the priest gave David and his men special permission because they were famished.

This isn't rocket science.

We are not restricted to the Old Testament alone. The New Testament is the completion of the bible and points to all fulfillment of the law and the prophets, past, present and future.

Often times those who wish to restrict believers to the "Old Testament" only do not believe in either the OT or the NT.

 

[bibleberean]

There certainly is a lot of jumping around by those trying to discredit Jesus as the sinless Son of God.

Eastons Bible Dictionary

Abiathar

father of abundance, or my father excels, the son of Ahimelech the high priest. He was the tenth high priest, and the fourth in descent from Eli. When his father was slain with the priests of Nob, he escaped, and bearing with him the ephod, he joined David, who was then in the cave of Adullam (1Sa 22:20-23; 23:6). He remained with David, and became priest of the party of which he was the leader (1Sa 30:7). When David ascended the throne of Judah, Abiathar was appointed high priest (1Ch 15:11; 1Ki 2:26) and the "king's companion" (1Ch 27:34). Meanwhile Zadok, of the house of Eleazar, had been made high priest. These appointments continued in force till the end of David's reign (1Ki 4:4). Abiathar was deposed (the sole historical instance of the deposition of a high priest) and banished to his home at Anathoth by Solomon, because he took part in the attempt to raise Adonijah to the throne. The priesthood thus passed from the house of Ithamar (1Sa 2:30-36; 1Ki 1:19; 2:26-27). Zadok now became sole high priest.

In Mr 2:26, reference is made to an occurrence in "the days of Abiathar the high priest." But from 1Sa 22:1-23, we learn explicitly that this event took place when Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar, was high priest. The apparent discrepancy is satisfactorily explained by interpreting the words in Mark as referring to the life-time of Abiathar, and not to the term of his holding the office of high priest. It is not implied in Mark that he was actual high priest at the time referred to.

Others, however, think that the loaves belonged to Abiathar, who was at that time (Le 24:9) a priest, and that he either himself gave them to David, or persuaded his father to give them.

There is no amount of explanation or scripture that is going to convince a person who has contempt for Christ and Christians that Jesus was the sinless Son of God.

I take great comfort in these scriptures.

2 Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

2 Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

2 Thessalonians 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

2 Thessalonians 1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

God will vindicate Himself and us on that day.

1 Corinthians 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

 

[bibleberean]

Jesus submitted to the law...and He never broke it.

Galatians 4:4-5 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.


Galatians 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

The law can be over ruled by higher laws under some circumstances.

For instance:

Luke 13:14 And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day.

Luke 13:15 The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?

Luke 13:16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?

Luke 13:17 And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.

It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day. :D

 

[Gary]

Thanks BB...

As you said: "There certainly is a lot of jumping around by those trying to discredit Jesus as the sinless Son of God."

I pity them. They have nothing better to do. They think that they will, somehow, dishearten true Christians. Their feeble efforts only validate what we already know. They are lost.

If they spent as much time seeking our Lord as they do trying to discredit Him, they would be rewarded.

 

[Drew]

If God makes allowances for His own law to be broken under certain circumstances for the welfare of His people, Jesus said, He surely permits purposeless and foolish man-made traditions to be broken for that purpose.

Source: MacArthur, John F., Matthew: The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, (Chicago: Moody Press) 1989.

I certainly agree with this quote (I have added bolding) but I wonder about whether some Christians do not want to have it both ways. Here is what I mean:

I suspect that many will agree with the above quote - it is sometimes not sin to break God's own Law under certain cirmcumstances. I would be willing to bet that a goodly fraction of these same people would say that it is always sin for people to divorce just because they are unhappy (let's say there are no kids). And yet this is clearly inconsistent. If one says that there are "unstated exceptions to the Sabbath law" then there can be unstated exceptions to the "no divorce except for adultery and abandonment by an unbelieving spouse" rule.

 

[bibleberean]

Thanks BB...

As you said: "There certainly is a lot of jumping around by those trying to discredit Jesus as the sinless Son of God."

I pity them. They have nothing better to do. They think that they will, somehow, dishearten true Christians. Their feeble efforts only validate what we already know. They are lost.

If they spent as much time seeking our Lord as they do trying to discredit Him, they would be rewarded.

Thanks Gary,

You are correct...

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

 

[DivineNames]

The law can be over ridden under certain circumstances.

1 Samuel 21:4-6 And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women. And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel. So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.

The priest would not have called the shewbread hallowed which means set aside and sanctified if it could be eaten under any circumstances by anyone at anytime.

The verses do indeed suggest that it couldn't be eaten by, "anyone at anytime", but this is not the same as a "justified" breaking of the law, where circumstances mean that the person is without blame for having done it.

The verses you quote simply don't support your argument. They actually suggest that David wasn't doing anything unlawful as Jesus claimed. So perhaps Jesus has made another mistake on that point. Can anyone provide verses from the Old Testament to support the claim that David was doing anything unlawful to eat the shewbread?

But the priest answered David, "I don't have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread hereâ€â€provided the men have kept themselves from women." (1 Samuel 21:4 NIV)

The verse suggests that the priest would not have given them the bread in a circumstance where it would be unlawful.

 

[DivineNames]

There is no amount of explanation or scripture that is going to convince a person who has contempt for Christ and Christians that Jesus was the sinless Son of God.

Its not true that "no amount of explanation" will convince me on a point. If someone has a valid argument then I am willing to listen. I don't want to give a false argument against the Bible-

(a) What is the point?
(b) It will be refuted.

In Mr 2:26, reference is made to an occurrence in "the days of Abiathar the high priest." But from 1Sa 22:1-23, we learn explicitly that this event took place when Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar, was high priest. The apparent discrepancy is satisfactorily explained by interpreting the words in Mark as referring to the life-time of Abiathar, and not to the term of his holding the office of high priest. It is not implied in Mark that he was actual high priest at the time referred to.

Gary and bibleberean have both given this argument.

As I understand, the text doesn't have the words, "in the days of", the word is "epi" and the literal meaning is "upon".

As I understand, it has a couple of possible meanings in the particular circumstance-

(1) to go and appear before someone
(2) "in the time of, under (used of kings and rulers), or during the rule or administration of"

So the text would be saying either-

(a) David visited Abithar, the high priest.
(b) At the time of Abithar's administration as high priest

If I am right, the Greek text IS saying that Abithar was high priest at the time. On the first interpretation, you could always try and argue that David visited Abithar, when it doesn't say anything about Abithar, but I think that would be a very weak argument.

 

[DivineNames]

Gary posted-

http://www.tektonics.org/af/donkeythief.html


I like the "back up" argument at the end-

We may add, finally, that since God owns everything, how can the Son of God taking anything be stealing?

If you are willing to use that kind of argument, you can make it impossible for Jesus to have sinned. You can assume (a) Jesus is God, and (b) God can do anything he wants without committing sin. The result is a necessarily sinless Jesus.

However, there is no reason you couldn't use a similar argument to defend the (merely human) Muhammad-

"Muhammad was a prophet of God, the people he had killed were enemies of Islam, this was all in accordance with the will of God".

Gary, do you think this would be a legitimate argument to defend Muhammad?

 

[DivineNames]

My answers are in the thread. If you don't agree with them and my conclusions that is fine with me. :D

Beginning on page 3, I have been making the point-

what you are saying contradicts Jesus, because if he is arguing for an exemption, then that assumes that the act is generally forbidden.

I have looked back over your posts in this thread. You do not even seem to have acknowledged the point in question, let alone provided a response.

 

[DivineNames]

I pity them. They have nothing better to do. They think that they will, somehow, dishearten true Christians.

You may have wanted to "dishearten Christians" when you were a skeptic, but this is not something that I care about.

I have an interest in religion, and the philosophy of religion, that is why I use these forums. I like to take part in that kind of discussion.

Is it a waste of my time, a waste of my life, to be using the internet for this purpose? Well, I would guess that I have learned a little on the religion forums that I have used... but perhaps it is. I can't see why the Christians around here wouldn't be just as guilty as me for "wasting time" here.

 

[Gary]

As you do not believe in God, then your time here is wasted. You think we are foolish. However, you are prepared to spend time with people who you think are foolish. :-?

As an atheist, why waste time?

You claim:

I have an interest in religion, and the philosophy of religion, that is why I use these forums. I like to take part in that kind of discussion.

Is it a waste of my time, a waste of my life, to be using the internet for this purpose? Well, I would guess that I have learned a little on the religion forums that I have used... but perhaps it is. I can't see why the Christians around here wouldn't be just as guilty as me for "wasting time" here.

An atheist has an interest in religion and philosophy of religion??

What a contradiction.

As for Christians on a Christian forum..... hardly classified as wasting time!