The7thColporteur
Well-Known Member
- Jun 30, 2017
- 1,336
- 266
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
It's like you didn't read what I wrote. Let me attempt one more time.Okay.
If by "God's Law" you are referring to the Ten Commandments, then yes the priests were in fact violating the 4th commandment of "God's Law" by desecrating the Sabbath day.Jesus was not merely using the pharisees' definition of violation, He was using the Law's definition of violation:
“Haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent?” – (Matt 12:5)
The desecration was not defined by the pharisees, it was defined by what was read in the Law.
Jesus was reminding the pharisees of what the Law had said about desecrating the Sabbath day.
According to the Law, the Sabbath day was desecrated because the 4th commandment of the Law was violated.
"... Jesus was not saying that the Priests were actually breaking God's Law. He was responding to pharisees about their misunderstanding of what it meant to break Sabbath. He was using their idea of 'violation', see verse 2.
Jesus said "guiltless", "... ye would not have condemned the guiltless." and that before he gave them their example [as he refers back to their original condemnation]. The pharisees had "condemned" based upon their tradition, not upon a Thus saith the LORD. Jesus then uses their definition of 'violation' and shows them from the scripture that their idea of violation is not actually transgression, thus absolutely innocent. ..."
Why then did Jesus refer to "the law" ["shows them from scripture", "have ye not read"; notice, given in the negative]? To show the Pharisees that their definition of "violation" ["not lawful" vs 2] was not actually "violation" ["guiltless" vs 7] since their traditions were negating the scriptures, commandments of God, and the disciples were doing nothing against scripture, though the Pharisees accused based upon their tradition, saying of men. Jesus did not go to "the law" to show that the Sabbath could be violated by His people, but went to the "it is written" to demonstrate the Pharisees error in judgment about what a "violation" on Sabbath was. The disciples were innocent, guiltless, and the Pharisees were the wrongfully informed accusers, and Jesus showed them this from the scripture. Their standard of judgment/accusation was not founded upon thus saith the Lord.Jesus said "guiltless", "... ye would not have condemned the guiltless." and that before he gave them their example [as he refers back to their original condemnation]. The pharisees had "condemned" based upon their tradition, not upon a Thus saith the LORD. Jesus then uses their definition of 'violation' and shows them from the scripture that their idea of violation is not actually transgression, thus absolutely innocent. ..."
I have cited evidence, from vs 2 that Jesus was doing this.
What evidence did you cite? vs 5. But vs 5 is contextually linked to vs 2. You assumed apriori about vs 5 saying what you want it to say. I showed by evidence in vs 2 your apriori was wrong, even as the Pharisees apriori about sabbath violation was in error - both of you are outside of the it is written.
Last edited:
Upvote
0