Do Sabbath Keepers KEEP the Sabbath?

[mmksparbud]

Maybe they needed "rabies" shots. lol (sp=rabbis)

Right. It was not a sin for him. But how is that possible?
Only because he was deconstructing the law.
It actually started with John the Baptist.

Matthew 11:13
For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.

Luke 16:16
“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John.
Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached,
and everyone is forcing their way into it.

He took the law back to what God intended, devoid of the added 100's of "add ons" put on by the "RABBIS"--(sorry about that!)

 

[Saint Steven]

He took the law back to what God intended, devoid of the added 100's of "add ons" put on by the "RABBIS"--(sorry about that!)

Is it unlawful to gather food on the Sabbath?

Matthew 12:1-2
At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”

 

[mmksparbud]

Is it unlawful to gather food on the Sabbath?

Matthew 12:1-2
At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”

They weren't out at the back 40 bringing in the harvest--they were strolling through a field and were hungry---that is not the same thing.

 

[Saint Steven]

They weren't out at the back 40 bringing in the harvest--they were strolling through a field and were hungry---that is not the same thing.

Why did Jesus agree with them then?

 

[mmksparbud]

Why did Jesus agree with them then?

He didn't!

 

[Saint Steven]

He didn't!

They said it was unlawful.
Every point Jesus made agreed with that.

Matthew 12:1-8
At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

 

[BobRyan]

Is it unlawful to gather food on the Sabbath?

Matthew 12:1-2
At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”

Unlawful to harvest on the Sabbath - but to pick some grain as you walk is not "harvest" - they would all have starved to death if that was all "harvest" was -- and we all know it.

What is more it is the enemies of Christ that "accuse" him of breaking the Commandments of God - not the saints. in the NT "sin IS the transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4 and Christ did no sin at all according to Gal 4 and 2Cor 5.

His accusers were "wrong" -- but interesting that you quote them.

 

[mmksparbud]

They said it was unlawful.
Every point Jesus made agreed with that.

Matthew 12:1-8
At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

And yet are "INNOCENT"

 

[Saint Steven]

His accusers were "wrong" -- but interesting that you quote them.

I was pointing out the fact that he agreed with them.
Most people miss that.

 

[Saint Steven]

And yet are "INNOCENT"

That doesn't negate my point. He agreed with them.

 

[mmksparbud]

I was pointing out the fact that he agreed with them.
Most people miss that.

That doesn't negate my point. He agreed with them.

Not really---they did not consider Him innocent.

 

[Saint Steven]

Not really---they did not consider Him innocent.

My original point was that he agreed with them that it is unlawful to gather food on the Sabbath.

The two examples he used proved my point. He said that what they had done was like David and his companions, who did what was unlawful; and the priests who desecrate the Sabbath with work. Are you claiming that desecrating the Sabbath is lawful? The claimed innocence was above the law.

 

[mmksparbud]

My original point was that he agreed with them that it is unlawful to gather food on the Sabbath.

The two examples he used proved my point. He said that what they had done was like David and his companions, who did what was unlawful; and the priests who desecrate the Sabbath with work. Are you claiming that desecrating the Sabbath is lawful? The claimed innocence was above the law.

Above Jewish law--not above God's law. The 4th commandment says nothing about gathering food. David did not gather food, it was already there. Neither one was working for that food--plucking an ear of corn is not gathering up 20 lbs of the stuff for future consumption--just what was needed. Human need (or animal) always overrides the Sabbath. I had to buy cat formula for 4 starving kittens on a Sabbath-- mother was killed--they would have suffered without it, if not died. They were already weak. I did not break the Sabbath by doing so. The answer by Jesus in no way suggests He agreed with them. Both were hungry--that was the need.

 

[ace of hearts]

Unlawful to harvest on the Sabbath - but to pick some grain as you walk is not "harvest" - they would all have starved to death if that was all "harvest" was -- and we all know it.

What is more it is the enemies of Christ that "accuse" him of breaking the Commandments of God - not the saints. in the NT "sin IS the transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4 and Christ did no sin at all according to Gal 4 and 2Cor 5.

His accusers were "wrong" -- but interesting that you quote them.

Why do you disagree with the Pharisees?

 

[Saint Steven]

Above Jewish law--not above God's law. The 4th commandment says nothing about gathering food. David did not gather food, it was already there. Neither one was working for that food--plucking an ear of corn is not gathering up 20 lbs of the stuff for future consumption--just what was needed. Human need (or animal) always overrides the Sabbath. I had to buy cat formula for 4 starving kittens on a Sabbath-- mother was killed--they would have suffered without it, if not died. They were already weak. I did not break the Sabbath by doing so. The answer by Jesus in no way suggests He agreed with them. Both were hungry--that was the need.

The reply sounds like arguing for the sake of argument.
Jesus clearly agreed with them twice that the activity was not lawful.

Are you claiming that what David and his companions did was only unlawful under Jewish law? (not so) Or that the priests who desecrate the Sabbath was only unlawful under Jewish law? (not so)

 

[Saint Steven]

Above Jewish law--not above God's law. ...

I don't recall that you responded to the Apostle's use of three different terms for law.
I notice you refer to "God’s law" as if it is "the law". (not the same thing)

1 Corinthians 9:20-22
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.

 

[mmksparbud]

The reply sounds like arguing for the sake of argument.
Jesus clearly agreed with them twice that the activity was not lawful.

Are you claiming that what David and his companions did was only unlawful under Jewish law? (not so) Or that the priests who desecrate the Sabbath was only unlawful under Jewish law? (not so)

Call it what you want. What David did was OK with the High Priest. The shewbread was changed once a day, they generally threw it out, David in no way was working, it was the eating of dedicated bread that was the problem but it had already been used and was set aside anyway. It wasn't a big deal to the High Priest and as has been pointed out---human or animal need always overrides the Sabbath. The problem is yours, not the Priests, nor God's. Jesus did not break God's Sabbath, He was not working. If you side with the Pharisees, that should tell you something about the state of your own heart.

 

[mmksparbud]

I don't recall that you responded to the Apostle's use of three different terms for law.
I notice you refer to "God’s law" as if it is "the law". (not the same thing)

1 Corinthians 9:20-22
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.

I answered your question. There are only 2 laws--the ceremonial laws pertaining to sacrifices and feasts which point to Jesus which were done away with at the cross and the Law of God--written by His own hand--the 10 commandments. Paul was going to those under the law (Jewish ceremonial laws)--and to non- Jews-- he was not under the law--but remained under Christ's law --His law written in the heart---the 10.

 

[Saint Steven]

Call it what you want. What David did was OK with the High Priest. The shewbread was changed once a day, they generally threw it out, David in no way was working, it was the eating of dedicated bread that was the problem but it had already been used and was set aside anyway. It wasn't a big deal to the High Priest and as has been pointed out---human or animal need always overrides the Sabbath. The problem is yours, not the Priests, nor God's. Jesus did not break God's Sabbath, He was not working. If you side with the Pharisees, that should tell you something about the state of your own heart.

Jesus said it was not lawful. Did you not read that part?

Jesus said that what David and his companions did was not lawful for them to do. How can you claim I am siding with the Pharisees against Jesus, when I say Jesus was agreeing with them? Did Jesus say that what they did was lawful? No, that is not what he said. He compared what they were doing with two unlawful acts. What should we conclude about that? His response was completely outside the paradigm of what you are suggesting.

 

[Saint Steven]

I answered your question. There are only 2 laws--the ceremonial laws pertaining to sacrifices and feasts which point to Jesus which were done away with at the cross and the Law of God--written by His own hand--the 10 commandments. Paul was going to those under the law (Jewish ceremonial laws)--and to non- Jews-- he was not under the law--but remained under Christ's law --His law written in the heart---the 10.

Okay, thanks. I recall that now.

Which of those two is "God's law"?
Which of those two is "the law"?
Which of those two is "Christ's law"?