I-man,

I've done so several times, and I didn't further concern myself with your comedies. Perhaps later when I'm less busy, I'll pop over and we can have some more fun, eh?

Just jeje crawl away from this thread and let me see what your brother get to yan. Can you do that for me? Thank you.

@Pilgrim.1,

There is absolutely no shame in realising and admitting your error. Please take it to the nth degree, I'm here.

Please demonstrate the decency and integrity whose absence you so decry in others and respond to my my post - #26 - of today.

Trying to ignore it, pretend to read contradiction in my statement and insinuate that I'm looking for a way out has become tediously characteristic of you.

You called me out, initiated the thread, set the tone and posed the questions. Went puce when at first I thought better of it and now that I've taken out the time and effort to clearly ouline my position - based on scripture & with the utmost decorum- and contrast it against your own, you immediately revert to type and try and make it a gutterfight.

You appoint yourself judge and jury and you still seek recourse to improvised technicalities. All your promises to "walk us through", "enlighten" and "educate". So tan? Is that it? A quick road block and excuses of being busy ?

So, post #26 please, if you are willing and able that is.

Thanks & God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:

I-man,
I've done so several times,

No you haven't and you are being dishonest.Where did you back up those claims you made?Did Seun delete them?

Perhaps later when I'm less busy

You are now like the Muslim posters who tell you "later" when caught in difficulties.You suddenly became too "busy" despite being on NL since 8:14 am.

Can you do that for me?

It took you 3 days to admit "I don't know" to my original question on that thread.How long are you going to drag on this one?

TV01:

@Pilgrim.1,

There is absolutely no shame in realising and admitting your error. Please take it to the nth degree, I'm here.

Please demonstrate the decency and integrity whose absence you so decry in others and respond to my my post - #26 - of today.

Trying to ignore it, pretend to read contradiction in my statement and insinuate that I'm looking for a way out has become tediously characteristic of you.

You called me out, initiated the thread, set the tone and posed the questions. Went puce when at first I thought better of it and now that I've taken out the time and effort to clearly ouline my position - based on scripture & with the utmost decorum- and contrast it against your own, you immediately revert to type and try and make it a gutterfight.

You appoint yourself judge and jury and you still seek recourse to improvised technicalities. All your promises to "walk us through", "enlighten" and "educate". So tan? Is that it? A quick road block and excuses of being busy ?

So, post #26 please, if you are willing and able that is.

Thanks & God bless
TV

I thought it was only me that noticed!

TV01,

TV01:

There is absolutely no shame in realising and admitting your error. Please take it to the nth degree, I'm here.

What error have I committed, if I simply asked that you reconcile you inconsistencies? You are stating two opposite things, unable to reconcile them, yet unable to defend either, posting more inconsistencies, and now alleging that your problems have become my error?

Please don't humour me - I'm used to your voodoo, and that's why I brought you here.

TV01:

Please demonstrate the decency and integrity whose absence you so decry in others and respond to my my post - #26 - of today.

All you need to do is ask - that was all I wanted. You really can't resist the temptation to mock your incompetence and say nothing. I'll address your worries soon.

TV01:

Trying to ignore it, pretend to read contradiction in my statement and insinuate that I'm looking for a way out has become tediously characteristic of you.

Don't sob so badly. My consistent position has been simply that the Lord did NOT break the Law. Yours was that He never did and at the same time He did! How could you be speaking from both sides of your mouth and hope to dribble around with such noise?

TV01:

You called me out, initiated the thread, set the tone and posed the questions. Went puce when at first I thought better of it and now that I've taken out the time and effort to clearly ouline my position - based on scripture & with the utmost decorum- and contrast it against your own, you immediately revert to type and try and make it a gutterfight.

TV01, please state clearly and simply which of the TWO OPPOSITE sides you stand. That was all; and yet you have to drag on and pretend English language fails you this afternoon?

TV01:

You appoint yourself judge and jury and you still seek recourse to improvised technicalities. All your promises to "walk us through", "enlighten" and "educate". So tan? Is that it? A quick road block and excuses of being busy ?

I'm not making any excuses; but I don't entertain dishonest assertions and the duplicity that has become second nature to you. When you let me know what exactly you're defending from the TWO OPPOSITE things you're simultaneously asserting, we'll move on. Can you do that simply? Or do I have to keep my fingers cross for you et again?

TV01:

So, post #26 please, if you are willing and able that is.

I will keep my word - I've always done. Let me know WHICH of your inconsistencies you're defending!

Did the Lord BREAK the Law or He did NOT?

Cheers.

I-man,

Please be civil. If you miss me so badly, I'll meet you at the other thread. For now, just simply behave and don't distract this thread.

Many thanks.

pilgrim.1:

I-man,

Please be civil.

Civil is not inventing claims that I was supposed to have made and claiming you backed them up,when you never did. Be civil and back up your claims instead of suddenly claiming to be "busy". Too busy to say the truth.

I-man:

Civil is not inventing claims that I was supposed to have made and claiming you backed them up,when you never did. Be civil and back up your claims instead of suddenly claiming to be "busy". Too busy to say the truth.

I'm busy where I work, and have never pressured anyone to answer my questions at short notices. If you want me to pop over to your thread, I've said I will do so. If that is not enough and you must insist on being uncivil about this matter, you can please do as you so please.

However, I offered answers to what you enquired about - if you don't like them, no worries.

Now, could I ask you once again to be civil and let me meet you in the other thread whenever I choose? Thank you.

If you rather would not be civil, you're welcome to do just the opposite thing as well.

However, I offered answers to what you enquired about - if you don't like them, no worries.

You offered answers to my enquiries?   Where did you respond,when?Did Seun delete your response.

Am I supposed to let you run away from dishonest claims you said I made?    Not only did you say I made dishonest claims,you are now claiming you have already responded   

You said you are too busy,if that is the case,when did your busy self "offer answers" to those questions? If you have already offered answers,why are you claiming to be busy,after all there is nothing else to answer. You want to "offer more answers" to something you have already answered?

Abeg,be truthful and and respond like the "good Christian" you imply you are.

It's not as if I'm "too busy" to deal with issues. But all this while I've been waiting for TV01 to clear up his inconsistencies. If he doesn't have the moral spine to answer a simple question to progress this dscussion, I-man you simply tell me who's too busy to be honest and consistent?

How could he be claiming two opposite things and pretending his position is "consistent"? Now that he's logged off to take time off and busy himself with his contradictions, I'd like to get on with a few things and then come back and meet you where you've so missed my posts.

I do kindly ask that TV01 honourable let us know WHICH of his TWO OPPOSITE assertions he wants to defend - and then defend that proposition simply and clearly as honesty allows him to. If he does not, and is unable to, and yet not willing to do so, I'd appreciate that he as well would be civil enough to acknowledge his errors and inconsistencies - so I know exactly how to deal with his worries.

There. Cheers.

Right. I just knew you're here to distract this thread. I'll meet you in the other thread and deal with your worries. For now and for the umpteenth time, I-man be civil enough to not litter this thread with your distractions. Thank you.

pilgrim.1:

Right. I just knew you're here to distract this thread. I'll meet you in the other thread and deal with your worries. For now and for the umpteenth time, I-man be civil enough to not litter this thread with your distractions. Thank you.

Oya,I dey wait for you on the other thread.I'm not leaving untill you explain the dishonest claims you attribute to me.You can't attribute lies to me and tell me to go away.

I-man, you can remain - and please do. If I've asked you simply to be civil, and you take that as "lies", no worries. I'll get to the other thread when I do.

pilgrim.1:

I-man, you can remain - and please do. If I've asked you simply to be civil, and you take that as "lies", no worries. I'll get to the other thread when I do.

The "lies" were the misleading claims you attributed to me which I never made.You can't attribute lies to me and tell me to be civil about it. That is totally uncivil of you.By attributing such claims to me,you are effectively questioning my honesty.

I will be back in a few hours,by then I hope you have clarified the dishonest claims you attributed to me.

I-man:

The "lies" were the misleading claims you attributed to me which I never made.You can't attribute lies to me and tell me to be civil about it. That is totally uncivil of you.By attributing such claims to me,you are effectively questioning my honesty.

No worries - if I openly asserted that you posted "lies" and asked that you be "civil" about it, I think you can go over there now and see what that you're making claims that did not come across as you assert.

I-man:

I will be back in a few hours,by then I hope you have clarified the dishonest claims you attributed to me.

I want you to be clear about something, I-man. If I meant to point out that someone was "lying", I say so as simply as everyone can read the same. No kidding - I've said it directly to TV01, demonstrated it clearly, repeated it where he tried to deny it - and he could not show otherwise. Likewise, he had freely said the same thing about me and issues I discussed, but I've calmly debated the issue and shown how wrong he was.

Presenting issues to clarify something is one thing; being civil about it is quite another issue altogether. If my repeated requests that you tried the latter does not appeal to you, I've simply asked that you please yourself. At the end of the day, we go still continue the debate on this topic.

@pilgrim.1 & TV01,

I will like to interject at this juncture and make a contribution or two if this will be okay.

I believe that the main difference between both presuppositions is in semantics.  Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to do away with or undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them."  Amplified.

The key word here is to complete and fulfill in other words to give the proper interpretation of the Law and the Prophets.  Jesus being the Yahweh of the old testament knew the original intent of the moral law and He came to give the proper interpretation of it when He ministered His earthly ministry. 

In an democratic government the legislators make the laws while the judiciary interpretes it appropriately and the executive carries it out effectively .  The Son of God legislated for His people and He became the Son of Man so as[b] to properly interprete [/b] and accomplish the moral Law.  This He did when He gave the original intent in marriage and divorce, the law of retaliation, on swearing which was permitted in the old testament but was not the perfect will of God.  He interpreted the Law on adultery, murder as being committed in the heart.

The Pharisees accused the disciples of Jesus because they wrongly interpreted the plucking of corn as harvesting; the rubbing in their hands as threshing; and blowing off the chaff as winnowing!

Jesus defended His disciples like an advocate would take over the case of his client.  He is our Advocate, always defending us against Satan's accusation.  Jesus made reference to instances in the old testament where the ceremonial law was broken for the sake of expediency and yet without the culprit being regarded as guilty Ex 25:30,:23-33; Lev 8:12; 24:5-9; 1Sam 21:3-6.  By this token, Jesus established a principle:  that it is lawful to carry out acts of mercy and goodness - acts that will save lives - and prompt response to emergencies on the Sabbath day.  Luke 6:1-11  Matt. 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; 3:1-6; Heb 4:9

The Pharisees did not know the Spirit and design of the divine Law and were often superstitious to inhumanity, and indulgent to impiety.  They were intolerant and censorious in spirit.  They were in error as they did not know the commandment of God and made it of no effect with the teaching of the commandment of men.  Matt. 15:1-9.  The Jews would do certain things on the sabbath such as circumcise a child, get an ox or an ass out of a ditch Matt 12:5,11; but when it came to preserving human life that was forbidden Lk 6:6-11; 13:10-17.

Therefore, Jesus might have broken the commandment of men and their traditions but He properly interpreted the moral law of God and kept them.  He made us to realise that the ceremonial law has been done away with and that Man is not for Sabbath but the Sabbath for man for Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath.

I hope that I have not gone off on a tangent here?  and I hope this might throw more light on the fact that Jesus has come to give us the proper interpretation of the moral law and give us grace to keep abiding in His Word.

@OLAADEGBU,

I quite appreciate your contribution to this subject; and I'm thankful for the substance in yours.

However, while it may be partly true that we've argued back and forth on semantics, I think the issues here are actually more than that. I do not mean in so saying to impose my persuasions on anyone; but the import for me is huge!

HOW is that so? Well, I think it is only fair to say that if someone would allege that the Lord had clearly BROKEN the Law, we would have to ask what that implies. That allegation leads simply to one thing: the claim would be alleging a sinful Saviour rather than a Redeemer who is without sin.

That is the issue at stake here - and that is what I've been appealing should be clarified before I proceed with whatever else I intend to share. Two very opposite claims in this regard is not going to help us at all, no matter how anyone would try to make them the same.

Thanks again, and many blessings.

TV01,

Before I offer the case on John 5, let me quickly respond to the gist of your previous post, as requested.

TV01:

Please TV01, I just want to learn this of you: is there a difference between mere "work" and "SERVILE work"?

I asked you this very question in a previous post, as you used it without defining it.

I'm sorry if I missed it; but I don't remember where you did ask that very question.

TV01:

No problems, I will show from your posts and from scripture that a definition serves no purpose, unless one insissts on reading something into it that is not there and serves only to muddle things. And I'm sure that's not your intention.

Indeed, that has never been my intention. However, I don't think it is correct to assume that "a definition serves no purpose" - because that idea is the very thing that muddles discussions and feeds eisegesis (forcefully reading non-issues into the text). It is for this very reason that I consistently ask that people defend their ideas by clearly demonstrating same from Scripture.

Now, instead of making statements with catchy phrases which could not be defended or demonstrated from Scripture, here's what I do: I present my case, compare texts that relate to the subject and show clearly that the elements being treated are precisely what the texts say, and not what I interject into them.

So it is in your case to the contrary. Instead of assuming that the Pharisees were "correct", I'd only appreciate that you carefully demonstrate your convictions that the Lord had "clearly BROKEN the Law", by going to the Law itself and showing HOW He might have done so! You cannot manitain that He NEVER broke the Law and then come back adjudge that the Pharisees were "correct" that He broke the Law in order that they might accuse Him as a "sinner"! I'll yet come back to this point in the next few lines.

TV01:

The Lord acted as follows;

1. Healed a man on the sabbath
2. Told a man to carry his bed - bear a burden - on the sabbath day
3.Declared His healing as "work"
4. Made Himself equal with God

I'm sure point 4 is a moot point for us, and for this discussion, as we both acknowledge His Deity. But on points 1 and 2, the law was clearly broken. And on point 2, broken as you yourself have clearly stated.

For those who understand the difference between the "letter" and the "righteous requirement", there is no issue or contradiction here.

Rather than try to force-read your eisegesis into John 5, please respect the same thing you asserted if it serves any use. You made the assertion earlier that "a definition serves no purpose" - which simply throws out your argument here. In as much as you don't find the Lord trying to teach anyone in John 5 your own "dichotomy" of 'letter' and 'intent' in order to allege that He broke the Law, you'd still have to come back and address the issue of what exactly you're defending.

If for you, John 5 represents that the Lord "clearly broke the Law (as you have asserted above), you cannot come back and at the same time dribble round the idea that He NEVER broke the Law! To scurry round the interpolation that He broke the "letter" and not the Law itself renders your argument untennable in as much as you openly acknowledged that the Lord "never broke the Law".

TV01:

You have insisted that there is no such dichotomy, so whtever appraoch you take - and as long as it's honest - you cannot fail to see that the "Pharisees" rightly declared the law to have been broken.

The reason why I've waited until now to reply this particular post is that you needed to clarify for all to see whether or not you had a consistent position. You cannot be claiming that the Lord BROKE the Law, and then assert that the Pharisees were "correct" to have accused the Lord as they did! I knew you'd make the mistake of proclaming the Pharisees were "correct" - whereas I said so earlier, that you had interpreted that passage in the same way that the Pharisees did! Although you did not like my referring to you as a true son of the Pharisees (and I apologised thereto), I still asked you questions relating to this issue - which you ignored, and only now are making so much noise about me answering your questions! Which I now do.

What you have failed to understand is that, if you assume that the Pharisees were "correct", then certainly you would be saying that Jesus Christ BROKE the Law, and that the same Pharisees were "correct" in having accused Him to have been a sinner! This is their accusation later on when He also healed a blind man:

John 9:16 & 24
'Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day.
Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. . .
Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that
this man is a sinner.'

Since you had claimed that the Pharisees were "correct", how do you explain the case of a sinless Saviour (Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22; and 1 John 3:5) against the claim of the Pharisees who accusatively and perjoratively presented Him as a sinner? Did you not argue that the Phraisees were "correct", TV01? I'd like you to simply and honestly address the "correctness" you see in the Pharisees' interpretation against your contradictory claim that the Lord NEVER broke the Law! You cannot be claiming that He "never" broke the Law and at the same time be claiming that the Pahrisees were "correct"!

Which one of your two very opposite propositions are you trying to defend, TV01? Please kindly let me know where you stand as regards these two convoluted claims you've been making:

* the Lord NEVER broke the Law

* the Lord BROKE the Law (because the Pharisees were "correct". . .

OR

* the Lord BOTH "never" broke the Law and He also broke the Law (according to the Pharisees).

Please just simply let me know which part of your contradictions you'd like to defend so we can progress this topic.

TV01,

TV01:

Your insistance that to keep one means having to keep the other and to void one means to void the other, leaves you with the conundrum of having to accept that the The Lord broke the law, whilst at once claimin that He was a sinless saviour. Or deny what scripture clearly states and introduce yet another dance to the mix. I hear no music.

I pointed out simply that the Lord said to keep BOTH issues that He mentioned in Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42 - that is what He meant by "these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." This is why I asked you what you understood by that statement - which up until now you have artfully ducked and did not answer! Yet you have the temerity to scream that I answer your questions! Do you care to be honest at all, TV01?

TV01:

I would rather leave it there, but one more point before I conclude

Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)

1. How can those without law - who do not know it or have never had it delivered to them - be righteously judged and condenmed by it?

Your question is addressed in verse 15 of the passage you offered: "their conscience". I've also made reference to this very same point in another thread; but even so, there are other texts that lend weight to verse 15 on the basis of the consciences:

Romans 1:19
"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them."

Scripture bears constant testimony that God has seth eternity in man's heart (Eccl. 3:11) so that they are without excuse as to claim they had no clue whatsoever of anything about God. On this basis, God would judge them according to how they responded to what He had revealed to their consciences.

TV01:

2. Likewise, How do those whithout the law - who do not know it or have never had it delivered to them - do the things in the law and righteously fulfil it?

Same as above - on the basis of what God had revealed to their consciences.

I understand that, perhaps, the one thing you're so concerned about is the clause "the law written in their hearts". Let me remind you that the text you quoted says "the work of the law written in their hearts", which I'd have expected you to address. In previous entries you had equated "works" to "letter", on which basis you expressed a disavowal thereto. One might as well argue to query how the "work/letter" of the Law could be written in men's heart in that regard, and then again come to wonder how you're arguing against that same "work/letter"!

I'll simply quote the verse as you gave it and then request that you explicate the issues that as to what "works" were written on men's hearts that has proved somewhat enigmatic in your discourses:

15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them).

There. As soon as you can clear up the inconsistencies in yours, I'll then be able to understand your position more simply and we could then move on from there.

Cheers.

I would like to address the issue of the Law of God which cannot be broken.  The 10 commandments that God legislated for His people consisted of 9 moral laws and the 4th a ceremonial law. 

The decalogue was a contract between God and the Israelites and below are 10 reasons the 4th commandment was left out in the new covenant[list]


1. Neither the Father nor the Son made it a part of the new covenant.  If they had it  would be somewhere in new testament as the other 9 are.

2. Of all the words of Jesus on earth only 4 references are made of the sabbath Matt 12:8; 24:20; Mark 2:27-28; Lk.6:5.  Jesus Christ merely taught that it was lawful to do good  on this day and that no day is lord of man.  He did not once command any particular observance of any definite day.  The disciples chose the 1st day of the week because that was the day that Jesus resurrected, manifested himself to them and  the out pouring of the Holy Spirit upon them consecutively.

3. The old Jewish sabbath was part of the contract between God and Israel and a token and sign of that covenant Ex.20:8-11; 31:13-18; Ezek.20:12-20.  The contract was not made with men before Moses Deut.5:2-3 , or with Gentiles and the church Rom.2:14; Deut.4:7-10.  The sabbath was not for them.

4. The 4th commandment was the only one of the ten that was a ceremonial, not a moral law.  It's sole purpose was to commemorate the deliverance from Egyptian bondage when Israel had no rest Deut.5:15.  It was only a type of future and eternal rest Col.2:14-17; Heb.4:1-11; 10:1.  It was natural for it to be left out of the new contract when the reality of rest came of which it was a shadow Matt.11:28-29; Col.2:14-17.  The physical and spiritual benefits of a rest day can be realised on any other day as well as on Saturday but Sunday had been chosen by the apostles for the reasons I mentioned above.

5. The 4th commandment was the only one that could degenerate into a mere form without affecting the morals of men.  All others concern the moral obligations of men.  It is the only one of the ten that can be done away with and still leave a moral law for men.

6. God foretold and  promised that he would do away with the old Jewish sabbath Hos. 2:11; Isa.1:10-15.

7. The prophets predicted that God would abolish the old and make new covenant Isa.42:6; 49:8; 59:21; Jer.31:31-40; 32:37-44; Ezek.36:24-38.  That this referred to the new testament is clear in Rom.11:25-29; Heb.8:8-12; 10:16-18; Matt.26:28.

8. In no passege is it stated that men should keep the Jewish sabbath to commemorate the old creation rest.  It was to commemorate deliverance from Egypt Deut.5:15.  This was what they were to "remember" Ex.20:8.

9. It is the only commandment that could be and has been broken without breaking a moral law.  Israel marched on that day[b] Num.33:3; Lev.23:5-11; Josh.6:12-16;[/b]  they set up the tabernacle Ex.40:1,17 with Lev.23:5-11; They searched Canaan Num.13:25; and made war 1Kings.20:29; 2Kings 3:9; Josh.6:12-16 .  David and others broke it and were blameless Matt.12:2-5.

10. The new testament permits Christians to keep any day as the sabbath, it being one of the doubtful things not covered by the commandment in the new covenant Rom.14:1-13; Gal.4:9-11; Col.2:14-17;  The day early Christians observed, not by commandment but by choice, was the first day, Sunday Jn.20:1,19; 20:7; 1Cor.16:2; Acts 20:7. as stated above.   Dakes' commentary.

@OLAADEGBU,

Thank you for weighing in on this discussion and the very enlightening points you made. Infact, you've both added to my knowledge and understanding, as well stated some of the things I was hoping to share sometime in the future.

However, let me share some highlights in yours that we might have occasion to reconsider:

OLAADEGBU:

8. In no passege is it stated that men should keep the Jewish sabbath to commemorate the old creation rest.  It was to commemorate deliverance from Egypt Deut.5:15.  This was what they were to "remember" Ex.20:8.

Well, I would think that God gave them these TWO reasons (instead of one) you've mentioned for keeping the sabbath. In as much as He gave them the sabbath to commemorate their deliverance from Egypt (Deut. 5:15), so He at first gave them a reason for it in Exo. 20:8 & 11 -

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. . . For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the
sabbath day, and hallowed it."

He gave them the sabbath day as a commemoration both of the creation and their deliverance from Egypt.

Now, this is something that has been of deep interest to me in our present discussion:

OLAADEGBU:

[list]9. It is the only commandment that could be and has been broken without breaking a moral law.  Israel marched on that day Num.33:3; Lev.23:5-11; Josh.6:12-16;  they set up the tabernacle Ex.40:1,17 with Lev.23:5-11; They searched Canaan Num.13:25; and made war 1Kings.20:29; 2Kings 3:9; Josh.6:12-16 .  David and others broke it and were blameless Matt.12:2-5.[/list]

There are three questions I'd like to ask here:

(a) did the LORD give any of the Ten Commandments to be broken at any time?

(b) did the Lord Jesus break the sabbath commandment or encourage anyone to do so?

(c) does Matthew 12:2-5 indicate that David broke the sabbath?

The reasons why I ask these questions is because they have only one implication: if the Lord broke the sabbath, then He would have contradicted Matt. 5:17.

Great sharing up there, and I look forward to more!

Many blessings.

pilgrim.1:


There are three questions I'd like to ask here:

(a) did the LORD give any of the Ten Commandments to be broken at any time?

(b) did the Lord Jesus break the sabbath commandment or encourage anyone to do so?

(c) does Matthew 12:2-5 indicate that David broke the sabbath?

The truth is that it was only the ceremonial laws, associated with rituals and sacrifices that were nullified by the vicarious death of Christ on the cross; the moral laws remain binding.  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself was not antagonistic to the moral laws.  In His ministry He upheld, taught, established and showed the true meaning of the commandments.  He restored the proper meaning and significance of the laws, and revealed the appropriate way in which they should be obeyed.  The Jewish sabbath law was a ceremonial not a moral law but it was a shadow or type of the real thing to come.
Rom.3:31; 2:28,29; Matt.5:17; Gal.3:22-24; Rom.10:4; Heb.10:16

The moral law is unalterable; it remains in force and Jesus did not break it.  Though the ceremonial laws are abrogated or done away with, the moral law delivered by God's own mouth is of perpetual use in the church today.

Jesus made reference to instances in the Old Testament where the ceremonial law was broken for the sake of expediency and yet without the culprit being regarded as guilty.  See point #9 for other instances where the sabbath was broken and the perpetrators remained blameless.  This is not to say that Jesus broke the sabbath laws but He gave a proper interpretation of it that acts of mercy and goodness, that would save life and prompt response to emergencies should be done on the sabbath day.

The sabbath law was part of the contract that God had with the Jews which was to be a temporary ordinance Hos.2:11.  Jesus said that the sabbath is made for man and not the other way round.

I concur that the Old testament Sabbath law as given in the Decalogue, was God's provision to help man rest from his labours after working for six days in the week.  You were right as God had intended it as a day of rest and refreshment for the body and soul.  But the Pharisees perverted this law by their traditions and they developed out of it a series of rules and regulations that made the Sabbath a heavy burden rather than a delight.  They were bitterly opposed to Jesus Christ because He did not conform to their traditions on Sabbath regulations.  The Pharisees emphasised the letter of the law, thereby, making man subservient to the Sabbath, Jesus taught by the Spirit that inspired the law, that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.

@OLAADEGBU,

Many thanks again for your replies. However, I'm not disputing the issues between 'ceremonial' and 'moral' commandments/laws - I've seen and appreciate your points on that in your previous posts, which again you patiently explained as below:

OLAADEGBU:

The Jewish sabbath law was a ceremonial not a moral law but it was a shadow or type of the real thing to come.
Rom.3:31; 2:28,29; Matt.5:17; Gal.3:22-24; Rom.10:4; Heb.10:16

Infact, there were more ceremonial and moral laws in the Pentateuch/Torah than we find in the Decalogue; which might be more than the scope of our present discussion.

However, my concerns are about the following:

OLAADEGBU:

Jesus made reference to instances in the Old Testament where the ceremonial law was broken for the sake of expediency and yet without the culprit being regarded as guilty.

. . .  They were bitterly opposed to Jesus Christ because He did not conform to their traditions on Sabbath regulations.  The Pharisees emphasised the letter of the law, thereby, making man subservient to the Sabbath, Jesus taught by the Spirit that inspired the law, that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.

I sincerely appreciate your perspectives on the subject; but even so, my persuasions are quite in contrast to the points you made. Don't get me wrong, because there are quite a number of points you raised which are sound (at least, to me). Yet, here are a few points as to why my persuasions are quite in contrast:

[list]
>> The ceremonial law was never broken without dire consequences. If it was for the sake of expediencies, the man caught picking sticks on the sabbath day would not have been regarded as 'guilty' and subsequently stoned for breaking that law (see Num. 15:32-36)[/list]

[list]
>> When we read the passage in Matthew 12:1-4 carefully, we see that the Lord Jesus was not referring to David's example as a matter of having broken the sabbath day. Indeed, the incident is connected to the sabbath; but the Lord referred more to David's eating the shewbread than to the sabbath day directly. When we study the circumstances in relation to that incident, we find indeed that the Lord Jesus did not see David's actions as having violated the sabbath. (This may sound strange to many people, but I'll come back and share in detail about it).
[/list]

[list]
>> Rather than see the Pharisees as emphasizing the "letter" of the Law, we should understand that it was rather their hypocrisy that the Lord was particularly against. There's nothing wrong with the letter of the Law, for that is exactly the same thing affecting the 9 moral laws/commandments. This is why James says:

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." (James 2:10-11)[/list]

[list]
>> If Matt. 12:1-4 was about justifying David's breaking the sabbath for expediency, what do you think the implications would be for both the Pharisees, the Lord Jesus and His disciples? Was the Lord Jesus justifying an "unlawful" action by His disciples in terms of referring to another "unlawful" action by David in the OT? NO, that is not the way the Lord of righteousness defends His people. One cannot use "unrighteousness" to defend what is "unlawful" and yet cliam to be blameless.[/list]

In simple terms, there was not one time when the sabbath Law was broken for expediency - not one time! Anyone who did so was put to death - according to the Law. If Jesus Christ the Lord had sought to justify the "lawlessness" of anyone (even of His disciples) for expediency or by David's supposed "unlawful" actions, would He still afterwards have been spoken of as "without sin" (Heb. 4:15)??

Lol, I don't mean to be tedious to anyone. But if this is proving a tough one for readers, I'll take my time as we go along to share my persuasions on HOW the Lord never referred to anyone having broken the sabbath. My proposition has always been that the Lord NEVER broke the Law, never broke the sabbath, and never encouraged anyone to do so, nor even defended anyone breaking the sabbath on any examples of the OT. He is absolutely righteous and "without sin".

Regards.

pilgrim.1:



[list]
>> The ceremonial law was never broken without dire consequences. If it was for the sake of expediencies, the man caught picking sticks on the sabbath day would not have been regarded as 'guilty' and subsequently stoned for breaking that law (see Num. 15:32-36)[/list]

I will like to refer you to the reference you quoted above to see that the consequences of "breaking the law" was not always dire. 

28And the priest shall make atonement before the Lord for the person who commits an error when he sins unknowingly or unintentionally, to make atonement for him; and he shall be forgiven.

    29You shall have one law for him who sins unknowingly or unintentionally, whether he is native born among the Israelites or a stranger who is sojourning among them.

    30But the person who does anything [wrong] willfully and openly, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one reproaches, reviles, and blasphemes the Lord, and that person shall be cut off from among his people [that the atonement made for them may not include him].

    31Because he has despised and rejected the word of the Lord, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.

    32While the Israelites were in the wilderness, they found a man who was gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.

    33Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation.

    34They put him in custody, because it was not certain or clear what should be done to him.

    35And the Lord said to Moses, The man shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

    36And all the congregation brought him without the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses.

As you can see that the man gathering sticks did it in defiance to the Lord and the consequence was death, there was no atonement for such a person.

pilgrim.1:

[list]
>> When we read the passage in Matthew 12:1-4 carefully, we see that the Lord Jesus was not referring to David's example as a matter of having broken the sabbath day. Indeed, the incident is connected to the sabbath; but the Lord referred more to David's eating the shewbread than to the sabbath day directly. When we study the circumstances in relation to that incident, we find indeed that the Lord Jesus did not see David's actions as having violated the sabbath. (This may sound strange to many people, but I'll come back and share in detail about it).
[/list]

If the Pharisees were consistent with their accusations they would have seen this as breaking the law.  Lk.6:4; Lev.24:9   The Pharisees had the wrong interpretation of the Mosaic covenant as their observance had become superficial and external and this was why they condemned Jesus' disciples.  Jesus on the other hand knew the intention of the Sabbath laws when He applied the principle of Hos.6:6  "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings".  and not for adding extra burdens to the lives of the people.  Jesus' yoke was easy compared to that of the Pharisees Matt.11:29  Eating grain while passing through the fields was permitted by the Mosaic law Deut.23:25  The Sabbath was a day to reflect on God's work of creation and delight in the Lord Isaiah 58:13-14

Jesus cited two instances 1Sam.21:1-6 and Lev.24:8 which occured on the Sabbath day as having greater priorities and taking precedence over the levitical law.  The point our Lord and Saviour was making here was that we should recognise that meeting a person's need was more important than following every ritual element of Sabbath observance.  He then practically demonstrated the importance of doing acts of mercy before practising religious rituals by healing a man with a lame hand on the Sabbath day.  Matt.12:9-14

pilgrim.1:

[list]
>> Rather than see the Pharisees as emphasizing the "letter" of the Law, we should understand that it was rather their hypocrisy that the Lord was particularly against. There's nothing wrong with the letter of the Law, for that is exactly the same thing affecting the 9 moral laws/commandments. This is why James says:

Paul describes the letter of the law in 2Cor.3:6 "[It is He] Who has qualified us [making us to be fit and worthy and sufficient] as ministers and dispensers of a new covenant [of salvation through Christ], not [ministers] of the letter (of legally written code) but of the Spirit; for the code [of the Law] kills, but the [Holy] Spirit makes alive.

In the old testament the Law was written on the table of stones but God's plan was to write them by the Holy Spirit in our hearts.  A bible commentator once wrote:  "Those who know not the Spirit and design of the divine law are often superstitious to inhumanity, and indulgent to impiety.  An intolerant and censorious spirit in religion is one of the greatest curses a man can well fall under".  This is the danger of legalism and religious bigotry that the Pharisees well portrayed in their attitude.  The Pharisees were so callous and insensitive of the burden they placed on people because they were much obsessed by their incongruous traditions which was due to the wrong interpretation of the written Law.

The other extreme are some "Christians" who misinterprete the scriptures.  They think that by virtue of the vicarious death of Christ on the cross and the salvation it brings into the believer through faith, the moral law is no more binding on the believer.  By holding such erroneous view, they "make void the law" Rom.3:31.  To think that once we are born-again, we can live anyhow we like, drink what we like, do what we like is to make nonsense of God's grace.  These are what I will call carnal Christians these are equally dangerous.

pilgrim.1:

[list]
>> If Matt. 12:1-4 was about justifying David's breaking the sabbath for expediency, what do you think the implications would be for both the Pharisees, the Lord Jesus and His disciples? Was the Lord Jesus justifying an "unlawful" action by His disciples in terms of referring to another "unlawful" action by David in the OT? NO, that is not the way the Lord of righteousness defends His people. One cannot use "unrighteousness" to defend what is "unlawful" and yet cliam to be blameless.[/list]

There were two instances that Jesus cited in the Old Testament;

1Sam.21:1-6


1THEN DAVID went to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest; and Ahimelech was afraid at meeting David, and said to him, Why are you alone and no man with you?
    2David said to Ahimelech the priest, The king has charged me with a matter and has told me, Let no man know anything of the mission on which I send you and with what I have charged you. I have appointed the young men to a certain place.

    3Now what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you may have.

    4And the priest answered David, There is no common bread on hand, but there is hallowed bread--if the young men have kept themselves at least from women.

    5And David told the priest, Truly women have been kept from us in these three days since I came out, and the food bags and utensils of the young men are clean, and although the bread will be used in a secular way, it will be set apart in the clean bags.

    6So the priest gave him holy bread, for there was no bread there but the showbread which was taken from before the Lord to put hot bread in its place the day when it was taken away.

And also cited Lev.24:8

"Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant."


These are the instances that Jesus cited, where greater priorities took precedence over the levitical law and neither the Pharisees nor our Lord Jesus Christ regard them as guilty .  Since they both agreed on this Jesus seized this opportunity to establish a principle: that it is lawful to carry out acts of mercy and goodness which are acts that will save lives and also prompt response to emergencies on the Sabbath day.

This is Jesus' proper interpretation of the Sabbath law that the Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath, for the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath.  Luke 6:5

@OLAADEGBU,

I enjoyed your reposte - good work put into that study. As yet, I'd have to deal in detail in my rejoinder, dividing them up in small stages for easier reading.

OLAADEGBU:

I will like to refer you to the reference you quoted above to see that the consequences of "breaking the law" was not always dire.
- - -
As you can see that the man gathering sticks did it in defiance to the Lord and the consequence was death, there was no atonement for such a person.

Lol, you've only come round to confirm the very point in my previous post, viz: indeed, the consequences of breaking the law was always dire - for that man paid dearly (by death) for having broken the law.

OLAADEGBU:

If the Pharisees were consistent with their accusations they would have seen this as breaking the law.

Did you mean to say "they would NOT have seen this as breaking the law"?

OLAADEGBU:

The Pharisees had the wrong interpretation of the Mosaic covenant as their observance had become superficial and external and this was why they condemned Jesus' disciples. Jesus on the other hand knew the intention of the Sabbath laws when He applied the principle of Hos.6:6 "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings". and not for adding extra burdens to the lives of the people. Jesus' yoke was easy compared to that of the Pharisees Matt.11:29 Eating grain while passing through the fields was permitted by the Mosaic law Deut.23:25 The Sabbath was a day to reflect on God's work of creation and delight in the Lord Isaiah 58:13-14

Again, you've only confirmed my very point made earlier. When I quoted Deuteronomy 23:25, TV01's reaction was:

[list]"I am somewhat mystified why you would quote Deuteronomy 23:25, as that is in no way - specifically, generally or in context - impinging on the law relating to the sabbath".[/list]

Now, I'm glad you quoted the very same Deut. 23:25 to make the same point as in my early reposte (see post #18) - and I hope he would come back and see that.

OLAADEGBU:

Jesus cited two instances 1Sam.21:1-6 and Lev.24:8 which occured on the Sabbath day as having greater priorities and taking precedence over the levitical law. The point our Lord and Saviour was making here was that we should recognise that meeting a person's need was more important than following every ritual element of Sabbath observance. He then practically demonstrated the importance of doing acts of mercy before practising religious rituals by healing a man with a lame hand on the Sabbath day. Matt.12:9-14

I appreciate the references you quoted in connection with Matt. 12 - and I was going to come to that at some point. However, in contrast to your inference that the two instances had greater priorities over the levitical law, my persuasion is rather that no commandment took precedence over another, even in matters of meeting the needs of others. There were specific commandments that tended to the needs of people and animals even on the sabbath (as the examples of Deut. 23:25 and 22:4); but none of the commandments took precedence over others even for the sake of exigency.

The Law clearly states that they were to be circumspect in ALL things that were commanded (Exo. 23:13). The idea of seeing some commands as of greater precedence over others would seem as if any part of the commandments were to be suspended so that some others could be kept as of greater priority. Specifically, they were not to treat any commandment as having less value than others - all the commandments had equal value and precedence:

[list]Deut. 4:2 -- "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Deut. 12:32 -- "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."

Deut. 28:14 -- "And thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them."[/list]

The tendency to regard any commandment as of greater precedence or priority over others is what led to the attitude of their being partial at the Law - and God did not ignore it:

Malachi 2:9 -- "Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law."

All the Law and commandments had equal value - and there was not one that had to take precedence over others.

@OLAADEGBU,

OLAADEGBU:

Paul describes the letter of the law in 2Cor.3:6 "[It is He] Who has qualified us [making us to be fit and worthy and sufficient] as ministers and dispensers of a new covenant [of salvation through Christ], not [ministers] of the letter (of legally written code) but of the Spirit; for the code [of the Law] kills, but the [Holy] Spirit makes alive.

I'd seen that verse and studied it much earlier. But we should understand that the Amplified Version is not a translation, but a flavoured paraphrase - although I sometimes consult it for personal use. The point is that anyone reading that verse on its own in the Amplified would run the risk of a polemical debate on what is meant by the "the code" - and we've seen that repeatedly in previous discourses. The tendency is that many people so using that phrase "the code" (or, "the written code" are unable to define what they actually mean!

For instance, I requested TV01 to clarify his use of this term much earlier:

[list]"I did not introduce your confusion about a "written code" - you did. Do you care to please explain that to your reader?"[/list]

And this was his brotherly response:

[list]
Again you play to decieve. You have clearly distinguished "divine principles" inherent within the law. If the law is the law, is the law, with no distinguishing between letter and intent, why do you make this distinction. Or is it just another instance on your anal taxonomy ?[/list]

It is true that I had distinguished between "the letter" and "divine principles" of the Law - and I did so far earlier than that in showing how the term "the Law" is used in the NT in various contexts:

[list]
(b) Its application in the NT furnishes us with the following:
* specific commandments
* prophecies
* exhortations
* divine principles[/list]

. . . and also elsewhere:

[list]
"I also made reference to the fact that we are not asked to look for LITERAL applications of every single verse; but rather seek to understand the PRINCIPLES stated, explained and applied in the NT."[/list]

His problem, as so many people usually have, is making the mistake of appealing to equivocations in meaning when reading such texts as 2 Cor. 3:6 from the Amplified Version! Presumably, that was how he came about the mistaken idea of making healing a matter of the "written code" - ("The written code - healing on the sabbath - was clearly broken", said TV01). Now, what really did he mean by "the written code"? He did not explain - and predictably so, because he was confusing "the letter" for "the written code"!

There's a huge difference between "the letter" and "the code". The former is referring to outward, literal interpretation (as in 'to adhere to the letter of the law'); and the latter simply means "the Law itself" (understood as 'set of rules or principles or laws' - WordWeb Online)! The Amplified unfortunately muddles up the simplicity of that verse by its meaningless tautology. For in saying 'the code [of the Law] kills', it is simply saying the same thing as 'the law [of the Law] kills' in so far as "code" is simply the same thing as "law"! I can't emphasize enough that "the Law" as used in the NT for Christians is a matter of dealing with divine principles and not literal interpretation and applications!

OLAADEGBU:

In the old testament the Law was written on the table of stones but God's plan was to write them by the Holy Spirit in our hearts.

If people are confusing "the letter" for "the code", my question is: does it make any sense to argue that "God's plan was to write them by the Holy Spirit in our hearts"? What is it really that God planned to write in our hearts - was it "the Law" or "the code" (Heb. 10:16)? To argue that it was "the Law" and not "the code" would be meaningless indeed, because both are simply the same thing - as we've seen earlier (code = 'set of rules or principles or laws' - e.g., WordWeb Online). God has clearly said in the verse cited: "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them". However, both are distinguished from "the letter" (i.e., a literal interpretation of the Law). Let me explain:

[list]* the Law IS spiritual >> "For we know that the law is spiritual" (Rom. 7:14a)

* the problem is with the nature of man >> "but I am carnal, sold under sin" (Rom. 7:14b)

* the 'letter' (not "code" of the Law is distinct in its spiritual meaning >> "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Rom. 2:29).[/list]

It is the spiritual value (divine principles) in application that God sought as fruit from those to whom He committed the Law (see Isaiah 5:1-7 and Matt. 21:43). However, with time in the history of the Jews, they had departed from the real value of the Law and sought extreme applications that were merely outward, rigid, literal and deeply lacking in its purpose. We certainly would not suppose that God annulled the divine Law when He was to write them in our hearts and minds, and you effectively made that point yet again (and I'll come back to that).

@OLAADEGBU,

OLAADEGBU:

A bible commentator once wrote:  "Those who know not the Spirit and design of the divine law are often superstitious to inhumanity, and indulgent to impiety.  An intolerant and censorious spirit in religion is one of the greatest curses a man can well fall under".  This is the danger of legalism and religious bigotry that the Pharisees well portrayed in their attitude.  The Pharisees were so callous and insensitive of the burden they placed on people because they were much obsessed by their incongruous traditions which was due to the wrong interpretation of the written Law.

Basically we're on the same page - the Pharisees' wrong interpretation of the the Law. The problem is that many people often take that to mean that the Pharisees were therefore "correct" to have accused the Lord of having broken the Law, without looking into Scripture to ascertain how He might have done so at all. That is why I stated that the implication if huge for me; because if the Pharisees were "correct" and at, they would be presenting a "sinful" Saviour to Christians who applaud the same Pharisees as being "correct". Make we be careful!

Meanwhile, the Bible commentator (Adam Clarke on Matthew 12:2) whom you'd quoted sometimes amuses me - he is so high-sounding that he falls into the same mistake he tries to point out in the Pharisees! For example, only God knows what he meant by "often superstitious to inhumanity"! Lol, all is well

OLAADEGBU:

The other extreme are some "Christians" who misinterprete the scriptures.  They think that by virtue of the vicarious death of Christ on the cross and the salvation it brings into the believer through faith, the moral law is no more binding on the believer.  By holding such erroneous view, they "make void the law" Rom.3:31.  To think that once we are born-again, we can live anyhow we like, drink what we like, do what we like is to make nonsense of God's grace.  These are what I will call carnal Christians these are equally dangerous.

Sweet! Thank you for making sense o jare!   Only God knows how many times I'd quoted Romans 3:31 to show that not even Paul "made void the law"! Indeed, "Christians" who don't take time to see the big picture have supposed that "the Law" is done away with, and I was waiting to have a big laugh as to what they thought God had written in our hearts and minds (Heb. 10:16)!


Let me reiterate and expound on the point you've already made between the ceremonial and moral laws/commandments. When the apostle Paul taught that "the law of commandments contained in ordinances" had been abolished in Christ's flesh (Eph. 2:15 and Col. 2:14, 20), he was simply referring to ceremonial rites and such matters as he discussed elsewhere, as in the epistle to the Hebrews --

[list]
"For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins" (Heb. 5:1)

"Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation" (Heb. 9:9-10)

"For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God" (Heb. 7:18-19)[/list]

It is these ceremonial rites referred to as "the law of commandments contained in ordinances" (Eph. 2:15) that he elsewhere called "carnal ordinances" (Heb. 9:10). It is clear that these "carnal ordinances" were disannulled (Heb. 7:18) when Christ went to the Cross. However, the apostle does not imply at all that the moral law was "abolished"; and that is why rather he said "yea, we establish the law" (Rom. 3:31). To have confused the whole point on arguments between "letter" and "intent" was simply meaningless; because that argument does not tell us anything about what laws (ceremonial or moral) the "letter" or "intent" applied to.

Even Paul yet elsewhere had the following to say on the application of the (moral) Law in the NT. It is well for us to note that in context he spoke everywhere in positive terms about "the Law" rather than in negative terms disavowing it. The simple indicator to what he argued is that the ceremonial laws which were contrary to us have been taken out of the way (Col. 2:14); but he never hinted that the moral law was contrary to us or that God had taken it out of the way! Here are a few of his positive statements of the (moral) Law:

[list]"To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law." (1 Cor. 9:21)

"For I delight in the law of God after the inward man. . . I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." (Rom. 7:22 & 25)

"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not b[bear false witness[/b], Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." (Romans 13:8-10)[/list]

How could anyone "fulfill"  the law if it was already "abolished"? When people look into this matter, they should be careful as to what exactly is meant by the term "the Law" in the NT; so that they don't run the risk of throwing it all behind them as if God had "abolished" all so we can behave as a "lawless" people.

@OLAADEGBU,

OLAADEGBU:

There were two instances that Jesus cited in the Old Testament;

1Sam.21:1-6
- - -
And also cited Lev.24:8

These are the instances that Jesus cited, where greater priorities took precedence over the levitical law and neither the Pharisees nor our Lord Jesus Christ regard them as guilty because they were not.

I've made reference to those two texts of Scripture; but then it does not appear that the Pharisees did not regard them as guilty. Infact, Matthew 12:2, they had already charged: "thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day." It was on occasion of their hypocritical accusation that the Lord made reference to those texts - not as of greater priorities to take precedence over any part of the Law; but as showing that even within the Law itself, there were certain actions which were not considered as violations of the sabbath itself.

OLAADEGBU:

Since they both agreed on this Jesus seized this opportunity to establish a principle: that it is lawful to carry out acts of mercy and goodness which are acts that will save lives and also prompt response to emergencies on the Sabbath day.

Not so, for Jesus did not use the opportunity to establish anything new - it had always been in the Law itself, but the Pharisees pretended not to have noticed.

In His healing of the man with a withered hand, they had asked Him: "Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse Him" (Matt. 12:10). In the parallel narrative, Jesus said unto them: "I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it?" (Luke 6:9). What was their response? This: "they held their peace" (Mark 3:4). Obviously, they knew the answer as contained within the Law itself; otherwise they would not have been asking if healing was LAWFUL. However, they refused to oblige anything in response to the Lord's simple question. That's why He was angry with them for their hypocrisy, "being grieved for the hardness of their hearts" (Mark 3:5).

He went on in Matt. 12:11 to cite the very same examples within the Law that clearly demonstrates how lawful it was to do good on the sabbath days without violating the Law: "And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?" This He said, pointing them back to such text as Deut. 22:4 - "Thou shalt not see thy brother's ass or his ox fall down by the way, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again.." Then He finally affirmed in positive terms the very same thing that the Law stated: "How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days" Matt. 12:12.

These matters had always been in the Law; but the Pharisees were pretending not to have noted them - so they might accuse Him against the Law. This is why I often state that one cannot use "unrighteousness" to defend what is "unlawful" and yet claim to be blameless. The Lord never once made reference to any example of someone acting "unlawfully" to defend a reason for relaxing the Law of the sabbath. I'll have occasion to come back to David's case as we go on. But suffice to say that the Lord did not deem to relax the sabbath Law in His day by appealing to cases of expediencies. He never once deviated from what the Law actually taught, so the Pharisees might see their own hypocrisy.

OLAADEGBU:

This is Jesus' proper interpretation of the Sabbath law that the Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath for the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath. Luke 6:5

I appreciate your interpretation - and I'll have occasion to share on what He meant in referring to Himself as Lord of the sabbath.

Regards.

Now, I'll leave you the above to please take all the time you need to go through them; and point out anything you might feel I might've been greatly mistaken in them.

For now, I'll also take time to deal with other issues - especially seeking to address the concerns in TV01's posts. The basic issue that I'd requested to be clarified is whether or not the Lord BROKE the Law at any point. If the Pharisees were "correct" at any point in their allegation that He did so, the implication would be enormous indeed. So, while dealing with the concerns, I'd like to also look at the implications of the Pharisees' allegation.

Warm regards.

A

Now I come to the very important matter raised on John 5 earlier by TV01. I shall yet come back to Matthew 12 as it is not far different in principle from matters to be examined in John 5. The basic question is whether or not those passages affirm that the Lord might have broken the Law. However, in keeping with my position, let me share why I believe that He did NOT break the Law. Please pardon the treatment of this matter in DETAIL, as it is necessary to not only state the facts, but also demonstrate satisfactorily that the facts are revealed in the WORD.

John 5 - Did the Lord BREAK The LAW?

My proposition is that the Lord never broke the Law - else, if He actually did at any point, then it certainly would have meant four very incontestable things:

[list]
it would have meant that He contradicted His mission, as He Himself stated in Matt. 5:17 that He had not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but rather to fulfill them;

breaking the Law would have constituted Him a sinner - which was the allegation of the Pharisees in John 9:16 & 24 - "This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. . . we know that this man is a sinner";

if the Pharisees were 'correct' that He had broken the Law and thus was a "sinner", then we never could have been speaking of Jesus as the perfect sacrifice for our redemption (1 Pet. 1:19). Even the Law clearly demonstrates that only a perfect and sinless sacrifice would be accepted before the LORD (Lev. 1:3-4 & 22:20 - "it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein"; how much more would God's holiness absolutely require a sinless Saviour who willingly offered Himself in perfection ('without sin' - Heb. 4:15; and 'without spot' - Heb. 9:14).

indeed, the Law stipulated that an offering of anything with blemish is an abomination (Deut. 17:1); whereas we are made accepted in the Beloved (Eph. 1:6) - because He was and is 'without blemish and without spot' (1 Pet. 1:19). A "sinner" (as the Pharisees accused Him) could certainly not be able to save others, nor satisfy the righteousness of God on our behalf, nor even be able to bring in "everlasting righteosuness" (Psa. 119:142 and Dan. 9:24) - and yet, it is written of the Messiah that He would bear the name: "The LORD Our Righteousness" (Jer. 23:6).[/list]

Christ indeed was not a "sinner" as the Pharisees wrongfully charged Him (John 9:24) - for He did not break the sabbath nor offend at all in any point of the Law. Neither did He encourage others to do so (expediency or not), nor did He refer to any example of those who broke the Law in order to justify others (including His disciples) who were alleged to have done so.

Now some folks usually assumed that the Pharisees were "correct" in their allegation against the Lord Jesus and His disciples. The question then would necessarily follow as to whether the Pharisees were "correct" to have presented a sinful Saviour, contrary to the abundant testimony of Scripture that Christ was without sin and knew no sin (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22; and 1 John 3:5).

On the contrary, I'm going to take time to defend my proposition from Scripture as to the FACT that Christ never broke the Law - never broke the sabbath - never encouraged anyone to do so in His day - and never referred to an unlawful example to justify anyone's wrong doing.

B

When people argue that "the Law was clearly broken", my question is "clearly broken by who?" Let me quote TV01 here (not castigating him, but simply showing from his quote why I repeatedly requested him to be clear on what he was defending):

You have insisted that there is no such dichotomy, so whtever appraoch you take - and as long as it's honest - you cannot fail to see that the "Pharisees" rightly declared the law to have been broken.

Your insistance that to keep one means having to keep the other and to void one means to void the other, leaves you with the conundrum of having to accept that the The Lord broke the law, whilst at once claimin that He was a sinless saviour. Or deny what scripture clearly states and introduce yet another dance to the mix. I hear no music.

In the first place, let's understand the implications of that argument. If "the law was clearly broken", it would simply mean that such people are alleging that the Lord Himself 'broke' the Law (as highlighted in the quote above) - and consequently He would have been as guilty as the Pharisees had accused Him of being a sinner (John 9:16 & 24). This is the implication that would ultimately be favoured in that argument, and which was the one thing I'd requested that TV01 clarified as to what exactly he was trying to defend. Contrary to his his earlier argument that I should have to accept that "The Lord broke the law", I firmly maintain the direct opposite to that. I have no reason to accept that the Lord broke the Law, because He clearly did NOT do so. And the question still remains: Did the Lord BREAK the Law, or He did NOT; or He BOTH 'broke' and 'never broke' the Law?

In any case, let's examine the persuasions in such passages as John 5 and Matthew 12 which so many people take as affirming that the Lord broke the Law.

[list] Was Healing on the Sabbath a sin?

On the contrary, healing on the sabbath was NOT a sin - and even within the Law, it could not be considered breaking the sabbath if one was made whole on that day. First, the Lord made this absolutely clear to them when He asked: '. . . are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?' (John 7:23). Why was it that they did not consider circumcizing a man on the sabbath day as 'breaking the sabbath' (vs. 22)?[/list]

The argument of the Lord Jesus in John 7 demonstrates that in order to keep the Law of Moses concerning circumcision, it had to be done exactly on the eigth day of the birth of a child (Lev. 12:3) - even if that day fell exactly on the sabbath day! That being so, "work" must be done by the very priests who circumcized the child. For all of that, the Pharisees yet pretended they could not notice that! Here in John 7 as in chapter 5, the Lord presented that very same issue to them and asked them why they should be angry at Him because He healed the whole man instead of just a small part of the man on the sabbath day. Both chapters 5 and 7 demonstrate the same argument - for in ch. 5:6 the simple issue was, "wilt thou be made whole?"; as well as in ch. 7:23 it was "I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day".


[list] Was carrying his bed (bear his 'burden') a breach of the sabbath day?

Some may assume that the Lord was encouraging the healed man in John 5 to break the sabbath in having asked him to 'take up thy bed and walk' (John 5:8). Within the context of His healing the man, it could not be considered a breach of the sabbath - especially because the event occured in the precincts of the Temple where indeed some manner of 'work' was permitted in so far as 'burdens' were concerned. That this is incontestably within the precincts of the Temple could be understood by comparing John 5:2 with such passages as Neh. 3:1, 32; and John 5:14 when Jesus found the same man in the Temple itself. *( - it should be stated here that it was not a sheep "market" as in the KJV; but rather a "sheep gate" as ASV et al render it).

Secondly, the Pharisees had missed the point that Bethesda was 'a place of mercy' (lit. place of overflow). It was at the center of a place supposed to be reminiscent of mercy (the Temple area especially) that their own priests actually carried out work even on the sabbath days on behalf of others! How is then to be argued at all that the Pharisees were "correct" in their hypocrisy in accusing the Lord of breaking the sabbath, yet they themselves could allow for the same "work" within the precincts of the Temple among their own priests on sabbath days?!?

Interestingly enough, TV01 asked a good question much earlier in this connection as to whether or not there were any type of work permitted on the sabbath. And I'm glad that you OLAADEGBU have taken the time to carefully walk us through Scripture to demonstrate that there certainly were works permitted on the sabbath day according to the Law. Yes indeed, there were several types of work so permitted - and I'll come back to that very point to clarify this problem that so many people miss. At this point, suffice to say that the Lord's instruction to the healed man in John 5:8 is not to be misconstrued as breaking the sabbath, in as much as their own Law permitted certain types of work to be done on that very day - including bearing burdens!

If you read this before I settle down for the sequel, abeg help me point out where I might be mistaken. Your sister pilgrim.1 na radical pikin, and she often gets into trouble with her deep thirst for Biblical truth.

God bless you again.

C

I come now to the the third point, which is that so many people observe the Lord in John 5 as having "declared His healing as work", which indeed He did in vs. 17 - 'My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.'

Before we proceed, I'd like us to bear a basic question in mind: was the Father also breaking the sabbath by implication of the Lord's response in that verse ('My Father worketh hitherto')? We all know the answer to that is a resounding NO! But here is the interesting thing - that those who accuse the Lord of having broken the sabbath in John 5 are the same people who are unable to defend their accusation against Him by implication of what He said in verse 17! So, HOW am I persuaded that the Lord did NOT break the sabbath even though He openly declared that He was 'working'?

[list] Was Jesus NOT breaking the sabbath day by declaring His healing as "work"?

>> He certainly was not breaking the sabbath. First, by virtue of who He is in Himself. He is the Lord of the Sabbath day (Matt. 12:6 & 8 - 'But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. . .  For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day').

>> Second, by virtue of the fact that the Law itself demonstrates the Levitical priests who ministered in the Temple also "worked" on sabbath days on behalf of the people. This is so, because it's quite simple to understand that the priests did their work everyday all week long without breaks inbetween days. I'll demonstrate this very point soon in answering another question TV01 had asked in this same connection; but suffice to say here that the priests worked also on the sabbath days - and yet, they were blameless. That again was one of the things the Lord pointed out to the Pharisees in the Matt. 12:8: "Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?"[/list]

Let me elaborate a little on the second point. First, the commandment regarding the sabbath day had already been given in Exo. 20:8-11. However, as regarding matters relating to the priesthood and services in the Temple, it was clear that their "works" were not in breach of the sabbath day commandment - because such works had a threefold value:

[list]
* they were stipulated by the same Law of Moses (Num. 28:6)

* they were done on behalf of the people (Exo. 27:21); and

* they were carried out as part of their worship to God and for His glory (Exo.24:7).[/list]


You've already helped us to see a few of those works done on the sabbath day according to the Law. But let's review a few of such "works" done on sabbath days cited within the same Mosaic Law (and by doing so, I'd also be answering TV01's previous question in the other thread, viz: "Was any type of work permitted on the sabbath?" - here's what we can share:

[list] (a) Sanctifying the altar was done in seven days, and not six days  --  "Seven days thou shalt make an atonement for the altar, and sanctify it; and it shall be an altar most holy: whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy" (Exo 29:37).

(b) the priests offered burnt offerings continually day and night - including on sabbath days:

"Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even. . . This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD: where I will meet you, to speak there unto thee" (Exo. 29:38-39 & 42)

"And thou shalt say unto them, This is the offering made by fire which ye shall offer unto the LORD; two lambs of the first year without spot day by day, for a continual burnt offering. The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, and the other lamb shalt thou offer at even. . . And on the sabbath day two lambs of the first year without spot, and two tenth deals of flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, and the drink offering thereof: This is the burnt offering of every sabbath, beside the continual burnt offering, and his drink offering." (Num. 28:3-4 & 9-10)

'It is a continual burnt offering, which was ordained in mount Sinai for a sweet savour, a sacrifice made by fire unto the LORD.' (Num. 28:6)

"He appointed also the king's portion of his substance for the burnt offerings, to wit, for the morning and evening burnt offerings, and the burnt offerings for the sabbaths, and for the new moons, and for the set feasts, as it is written in the law of the LORD." (2 Chron. 31:3; see also ch. 2:4).[/list]


It was also well understood at the inception that the Law, while prohibiting the kindling of domestic fires, yet allowed for what is necessary to be done for their meals:

[list]Exodus 12:16
'And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.'[/list]

Yes, indeed - the Law permitted and even ordained certain types of works to be done on the sabbath day; and these had to do especially with Temple services as outlined above, as well as certain other works that were not considered SERVILE for the common people.

D

It is interesting to note that all these were "works" that the priests carried out daily and continually all through the weeks and even on sabbath days, as stipulated by the same Law of Moses. Not only so, there were other things that the priests did on the sabbath days which others had been prohibited from engaging in on those same days.

For example, the common people were prohibited from kindling any fire in their dwellings -- "Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day" (Exo. 35:3); but the priests kindled fire on the altars even on the sabbath -- "This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations" (Exo.29:42). Another example: a man who was found gathering sticks on the sabbath day was stoned to death (Num. 15:32-36); whereas, the priests were arranging sticks (or 'wood') in the Temple -- "And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire" (Lev . 1:7). If people read these issues carelessly, they arrive at warped inferences and may think them a contradiction!

Now, the warning was clear concerning the sabbath: "Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death." (Exo. 35:2). And yet, it is clear that the priests carried on their Temple work day and night and on the sabbath days - where no one sought to put them to death! Let's not forget that the law for the sabbath burnt offerings were also given on mount Sinai (Num. 28:6). Could it be possible that there is a contradiction here?!?

There is no contradiction there - for in the first instance, the warning was given against domestic fires in their dwellings (or, 'habitations', 'homes') - "Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day" (Exo. 35:3); whereas the fire upon the altar should be kept burning night and day (Lev 6:13 - "The fire shall ever be burning upon the altar; it shall never go out". Secondly, the man picking sticks on the sabbath was not acting "ignorantly" (Num. 15:27-29); but he acted on presumption and willful disobedience (vs. vs. 30-31).

The seeming puzzle disappears when we realize that the priests were called and set apart from the common people on account of the work they did in the Temple:

Deut. 10:8
'At that time the LORD separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the LORD,
to stand before the LORD to minister unto him, and to bless in his name, unto this day.'

Deut. 18:5
'For the LORD thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes, to stand to minister in the name of
the LORD, him and his sons for ever.'

1 Chron. 23:13
'The sons of Amram; Aaron and Moses: and Aaron was separated, that he should sanctify the most
holy things, he and his sons for ever, to burn incense before the LORD, to minister unto him, and to
bless in his name for ever.'

Now, if we supposed that the priests were actually transgressing the sabbath because they clearly were working on the sabbath days, then it would mean that they were breaking that same Law that prohibited all Israel from working on the sabbath! We know that anyone who transgressed the Law of Moses died without mercy (Heb. 10:28); and yet, the priests were clearly working on the sabbath days by that same Law, so that they are "blameless" (Matt. 12:5). The reason for this, as already presented, was because (i) the priests worked in the Temple on behalf of others; (ii) it was divine service connected to the Temple, rather than the servile work of the common people.