E

The whole point of the foregoing is that the Lord did NOT break the Law as regards the sabbath day, and the Pharisees were NOT "correct" in their accusations against Him to have done so. If they were "correct", then it would mean that those who agreed with the Pharisees would be saying the same thing as the Pharisees accused against Christ: "Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner" (John 9:24)! Such allegations would falsify the testimony of Scripture that Christ was "without sin" (Heb. 4:15).

By now I'm sure TV01 would agree that his previous position was wrong to have thought that the Pharisees were "correct". And I'm also sure by now that his other questions have been answered, especially the one as to whether the disciples or the Lord Himself considered themselves to have contravened the Law".


The fourth question he left in that same connection:

~ Why did He not rebuke His disciples as He did the Pharisees in 23:23 who kept the law?

In the first place, there was nothing to indicate that His disciples merited any rebukes from Him. As we've observed, Jesus Himself went through the cornfield on the sabbath day (Matt. 12:1) - and His disciples who were with Him plucked corn with their hands and ate. It was not a matter of expediency, for He deliberately wanted to expose the hypocrisy of the Pharisees to their faces.

Secondly, the Pharisees did not keep the Law as they pretended they were doing. That was the one thing that the Lord sought to expose: their hypocrisy, double standards and partial obedience. How many times did He openly make the point that they did not keep the Law? A direct example:

[list] John 7:19
'Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?'[/list]

Later, His disciples would make the same point - as did Stephen who declared that they had received the Law by the disposition of angels, and yet had not kept it (Acts 7:53). Paul again made it plain that "neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law" (Gal. 6:13). It is obvious, therefore, that the Pharisees were being hypocritical in their pretences that they were keeping the Law, whereas any careful observer would no doubt see they did NOT keep it.

However, the import of the Lord's rebuke is huge. The Lord used the word "profane" (Matt. 12:5) to point out that if they were serious in their allegations that He had "broken" the Law or acted "unlawfully", they would not have had priests in the first place!

WHY?

Because, as I've earlier demonstrated, their priests also "worked" on the sabbath days according to THE LAW! "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?" So, if they thought that He had "broken" the Law by His actions on the sabbath days, then by their own interpretation it only means that their Levitical priests had been breaking that same Law since the days of Moses!

Now, if the Pharisees cringed at such a thought, they were acting out the hypocrisy for which the Lord rebuked them. Which is why several times we read how the Lord rebuked the Pharisees on precisely that one thing: their HYPOCRISY! A few examples:

[list]
>> 'Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying . . .' (Matt. 15:7)

>> 'O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?' (Matt. 16:3)

>> 'But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?' (Matt. 22:18)

>> 'But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!. . .' (Matt. 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29; and
Luke 11:44; 12:56; 13:15).

>> 'Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. ' (Matt. 23:28)[/list]


The Pharisees were simply NOT interested in the truth of the Law that they pretended to have been keeping - and they passionately hated the Lord for the very thing He exposed: their hypocrisy. Yet, indignant and incensed against Him as they were, what was the result of His rebuking them? The Bible says that they were afterwards ASHAMED!

[list] 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.'[/list]

Yes indeed! I join all the people who rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by the Lord!!

My Saviour and Redeemer put the accusing Pharisees to SHAME! For He did not break the Law; and they were absolutely wrong to have perjoratively tried to slur Him by calling Him a "sinner" and yet saying "Give God the praise" in that wicked accusation (John 9:24). It is amazing how people could be so perjorative in their slanders and still proclaim a sanctimonious "Give God the praise"!!

Is it any wonder then that the Lord Jesus declared to them: "But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless." (Matt. 12:7).

For all who ever thought the Pharisees might have been "correct", I urge you to see that there's no point in condemning the guiltless One by the allegations of the Pharisees - for they were WRONG!

Regards.

Well, enough for today. I had one mission in the present discourse: to demonstrate that the Lord did not break the Law at any point - and certainly not on the question of the sabbath day. Anyone having any reason to allege that the sabbath was broken (whether by the Lord or His disciples) should be clear enough to state what they want to defend - and do likewise in demonstrating their propositions.

For the present, we all learn everyday. And may God help and keep us from the sanctimonious hypocrisy of the Pharisees - "Give God the praise", they chanted. . and for all that, they were too busy calumniating Christ on their [b]mis[/b]interpretation of a Law they neither understood nor kept!

Cheers all.

hello
[color=#550000][/color] [flash=200,200][/flash][b][/b]

Omo, grammar po ni bi o, kilode?!! e fe d'oyinbo ni?

Wordsmith:

Omo, grammar po ni bi o, kilode?!! e fe d'oyinbo ni?

Hehe. . e ma k'oba mi, mo be y'in!

pilgrim.1:

I had one mission in the present discourse: to demonstrate that the Lord did not break the Law at any point

Actually Pilgrim Jesus did break a few laws here and there;
Matt 14; 25-26
And in the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea. 26 When the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” And they cried out in fear.
the law of gravity

Mark 6;41-46
And He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up toward heaven, He blessed the food and broke the loaves and He kept giving them to the disciples to set before them; and He divided up the two fish among them all. 42 They all ate and were satisfied, 43 and they picked up twelve full baskets of the broken pieces, and also of the fish.
the law of conservation of mass/matter

etc etc

Hehe  actually that was just to lighten the mood in here a little - i know you are referring to the Old testament Law.

On a more serious note though, it is a wonder that we have to even have such a debate, especially among us christians. Have we really considered the implications? Maybe we could try to run through the implications.
If Jesus, who was born under the Law (Gal 4;4), were to have broken any law, what would that have made Him? If the Son were a lawbreaker, can we still say he was 'without sin' (Heb 4;15)? Or on the converse, what would that have made the Law? Unimportant? For a Jew that isn't what the bible teaches; as he himself indicated by his statement as regards fulfilling all righteousness. For, He being under the Law, breaking the law would have been sin. And saying He was 'without sin' does not only connote his sinless nature (He having not inherited the sinful nature of Adam), it also implies that he did not sin in (any of his) action(s).

The bible clearly says that the Law is holy (Rom 7;12, 14). The reason the law did not 'help' its subjects under old testament dispensation is because of the weakness of sinful flesh (Rom 8;3) - the requirement of the law still stood (verse 4). Even Paul who had a sinful flesh did not have a hard time saying "legalistic righteousness? Faultless" (Phil.3;6).  How much more the Lord who was without sin? As for him, he was not weak (in his members) in fulfilling or living up to the law as would have been the case with us. However, even though he had a sinless nature, he was still tempted (Heb.4;15) and thus, he had to resist the urge to sin in any way; which might of course have included (sinning by) breaking the law. For as innocent Adam's sin produced a nature of sin, likewise a sinful action would have brought him under the same - for "whoever sins (even once) becomes or is a slave of sin" (John 8;34). So the question then is: would the Son then had become a slave of sin? The prince of holiness, a partaker of unrighteousness?

What then would have been the basis for his being a sacrificial lamb? Would he still have been 'a lamb without defect'(1Pet.1:19)? Would he have been qualified to bear our sin, if he were no different from us? On what basis then, would he have 'nailed to the cross the ordinances that was against us' (Col 2;14) if he himself could not live above the said ordinances? Would the Son then, the Messiah, the one who came to 'save his people from their sins' (Matt. 1;21)  also have been doomed to the same fate as the lost objects of his good tidings? Like Paul would say; God forbid!

Yes he did partake in their human nature; yet, he did not share in their fallen nature. Yes, He did eat and drink with them, yet He did not indulge in their rapacity. For, like the writer of Hebrews says; "such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens." (Heb. 7:26)

Jesus did fulfil the law, but in doing so he came to raise the bar even higher; above that which can be attained by sheer legalism (Matt. 5;20). This is best illustrated in Matthew 6 -8. The law can only take one so far, a life in the Spirit however takes one to the holy of holies. This is what was responsible for the seeming acts of breaking the Law by the Lord (which in every case was the ceremonial laws introduced by the pharisees themselves or improper understanding of or interpretation of the Law). The Lord had a fine task; on the one hand, meeting the law's requirements whilst, on the other hand, still demonstrating the need to operate under a set of codes that is not based on what is written but what is inscribed in the heart by the Spirit. Jesus obeyed the Law, but he was operating by a higher law - the law of the Spirit of life. That is why the statement by Moses "The man who has practised those things shall live by them" (Lev. 18:5, Rom. 10:5) does not apply to the Lord, for even though he did practice those things (and even more), He did not live by them. He lived by the Spirit.

Jesus did not break any part of the law; rather he came to fulfill it (Matt. 5;17-18) so he could usher in a new dispensation; a dispensation of grace. "Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." (Rom. 10:4 - emphasis mine)
_{n.b. - the greek word for 'end' in that verse, telos (τελος), is, in my opinion, a good word to study}

"For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." (John 1;17). Praise Him ever more. Cheers .

Oga ricadelide,

ricadelide:

Actually Pilgrim Jesus did break a few laws here and there;
- - -
Hehe actually that was just to lighten the mood in here a little - i know you are referring to the Old testament Law.

You nearly make hypertension catch me there! But good crack you gave!

ricadelide:

Jesus did not break any part of the law; rather he came to fulfill it (Matt. 5;17-18) so he could usher in a new dispensation; a dispensation of grace. "Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." (Rom. 10:4 - emphasis mine)

_{n.b. - the greek word for 'end' in that verse, telos (τελος), is, in my opinion, a good word to study}

That's true with regards to "telos" (τελος), but I didn't want to bring out my study tools in my previous posts (as some have expressed how uncomfy it makes them to consult study tools for clarification on any subject).

All the same, thanks for weighing in and helping to make good sense in a succinct manner. Me and my 'long epistle' sef, na wa!

Cheers.

@ First Pilgrim

pilgrim.1:

You nearly make hypertension catch me there! But good crack you gave!

I anticipated that! (not the hypertension part though)
Actually i need to apologize cause i was too lazy to read the 1st two pages of the thread, i just barged in and saw the first line of your post and decided to throw in a joke. In so doing i decided to provide my response to the issue; not knowing you had already addressed the implications of that accusation albeit comprehensively.

I'll take it that my contribution was a necessary summary for lazy, time-challenged folks like me .

pilgrim.1:

That's true with regards to "telos" (τελος), but I didn't want to bring out my study tools in my previous posts (as some have expressed how uncomfy it makes them to consult study tools for clarification on any subject).

All the same, thanks for weighing in and helping to make good sense in a succinct manner. Me and my 'long epistle' sef, na wa!

Obviously, I really haven't been following things on here as i should have. 'Long epistles' are good though; afterall, the writer of Hebrews had, after 13 chapters, only written a 'short letter' (vs 22)
Cheers

Hehe. . whether you like it or not, you be "oga ricadelide"

ricadelide:

@ [b]First Pilgrim[/b]I anticipated that! (not the hypertension part though)
Actually i need to apologize cause i was too lazy to read the 1st two pages of the thread, i just barged in and saw the first line of your post and decided to throw in a joke.

Lol. . . but you need not apologise! I'm surprised, but all's well. The joke was well enjoyed (at least, I did enjoyed it tremendously).

ricadelide:

In so doing i decided to provide my response to the issue; not knowing you had already addressed the implications of that accusation albeit comprehensively.

All the same, I'd say you were right on target.

ricadelide:

I'll take it that my contribution was a necessary summary for lazy, time-challenged folks like me .

The summary was the best part of it all (as well the fresh insight it provided - as did OLAADEGBU's).

ricadelide:

Obviously, I really haven't been following things on here as i should have. 'Long epistles' are good though; afterall, the writer of Hebrews had, after 13 chapters, only written a 'short letter' (vs 22)
Cheers

Lol, who wan compare with apostle Paul? "For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful" (2 Cor. 10:10)

Enjoy.

TV01:

Pele 0 about your "busy schedule", se you'll find time before Xmas ?

How body? Now wetin happen? You sef don enter "busy schedule" to resurface before Xmas?

I just say make I hail you O!

Hi.

I was just wondering if we could share and deepen our understanding of God's WORD as relates to what is known as "The LAW".

I'd like to start by peridodically posting some verses that speak about the Law.

So here:

Hebrews 10:1

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

Missing me Pilly ?

TV01:

Missing me Pilly ?

Yes O! How body?

Hiya Pilgrim.1,

I'm well thank you very much for asking. Just taking leave from posting, although I've stopped by to "have a look" most days. I've followed your various discursive forays on the board. My, you have been busy . Hope you are not letting your zeal for theological learning interfere with your studies.

Take care Miss.

God bless
TV

@TV01,

TV01:

My, you have been busy . Hope you are not letting your zeal for theological learning interfere with your studies.

Lol. . . it's hard to balance the two; but God has been gracious. Thank God my classes have been shifted to weekends and midweek; but I'll be logging off for a long while towards the time for my next exams.

The going's been good all the same. How's yours coming on?

Many blessings.

pilgrim.1:

I'd like to start by peridodically posting some verses that speak about the Law.

1 Timothy 1:8

But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully.

pilgrim.1:

The going's been good all the same. How's yours coming on?

Fine thanks.

Truth is, I've had something of a paradigm shift - although not overnight - in my comprehension of the gospel and hence in my walk of faith. It's profoundly affected the way I view and understand scripture.

There something of the "Fear & Trembling" about me and my walk now.

How's you and yours?

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:

1 Timothy 1:8

But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully.

1 Timothy 1:9 ~ knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person

I begin to grasp that as "bodily exercise is to godliness", so is doctrinal/theological excellence to knowing The Lord.

Discussions around the law, whilst not without merit, are far from where we need to be.

TV01:

Discussions around the law, whilst not without merit, are far from where we need to be.

Aye. Knowing that many people today are forever confused as to its true meaning, it all the more becomes germane to discuss and seek its proper meaning in God's WORD.