Did Jesus Observe the Sabbath?

[Ian]

Paidion, it looks like we`ve swept the second verse of 2 Samuel 12 v8 under the carpet for the time being!

[look2jesus]

jriccitelli,

I just wanted to make a quick response to something you wrote, and I will attempt to respond to some of your other comments soon. Thank you for addressing some of the questions I had for you.

Good morning Look, I was happy that you were referring to Hebrews earlier, and I thought you were going to answer your own question regarding when the New Covenant replaced the Old covenant. Since you made the following statement awhile back;

Concerning the commencement of the New Covenant, after reading through Hebrews 8 & 9, I have to conclude that it wasn't until Jesus' death that it truly commenced.

I was actually trying to be very careful in my wording here. I used the word "truly" to describe the idea that it wasn't until Christ died that the New Covenant was officially inaugurated. Perhaps I wasn't careful enough. As my agreement with Paidion before this comment makes clear, I obviously don't see this as any impediment to understanding that Jesus brought changes to the law, during His ministry (if only regarding the Sabbath as we have been discussing), and before His death, which officially inaugurated the New Covenant.

l2j

[jriccitelli]

Look said; “John makes the statement without reference to anyone else's opinions or frame of mind, and this argument fails completely”

In John 5:16, John has just said (without accusing Jesus); ‘the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath (5:16), then John adds to this “the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath…”
(Most people try not repeat the same sentence within the same text, and may even simplify the statement, possibly)
John is not explaining, or expounding on 'what' Jesus ‘did’ in this verse (Jesus explains His work Himself in verses 19-47); John is explaining ‘why’ the Jews wanted to kill Jesus.
The difference would be if John said something like; ‘Jesus explained to them that he was breaking the Sabbath’
Or; ‘it was clear to all that Jesus broke the Sabbath’
It would be a normative way of speaking when explaining why someone was being pursed, whether or not the accusation was correct, as follows;
The police noticed Sam when his car showed up on the radar, and they went after Sam because he was speeding, but it turned out that they were chasing the wrong car.
The police noticed Sam when his car showed up on the radar, and they went after Bob because he was speeding, but it turned out that they were chasing the wrong car.

Jesus has already begun answering the Jewish leaders when John includes his statement, the missing line is that of the Jews, John writes in vs.17 ‘He answered them’ but there is no mention of the what the Jews said to Jesus, what do ‘you’ think the Jews said to Jesus?

Your answer; ________________________________________________.
Do you think ‘maybe’ John is telling us what they said in vs.18?

So what about Jesus saying that He was working?

"My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working." is not a verse all by itself.
(Certainly the duality of Jesus and the Father both being God, yet Jesus doing only the will of the Father is at work here, and prone to difficulty in explanations, but..)
Jesus continues his defense and interpretation of working on the Sabbath all the way to vs. 47, Jesus never says I am ‘breaking’ the Sabbath, rather Jesus says He will do even greater works, in fact He says He will also raise the dead, and who else can raise the dead but God alone? Therefore Jesus is saying it is not me 'alone' (For Jesus does nothing of Himself vs.19) but that it is God who is doing these things.
If it truly is God doing the healing, then Jesus is innocent of the healing. So the Jews were wrong in saying Jesus was healing people, for who could miraculously heal but God!
(It’s as if Jesus were saying; if healing is a crime, ok, but it’s not me you should be arresting its God that is doing it) (Now all this involves Jesus being God, but here only to do the Fathers will, which of course leads to the great ‘perceived’ paradox of Christ)

John had heard Jesus just recently say (In Matt 5) that;
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 5:17-19)
(So wouldn't John be aware of this, and be wondering and questioning Jesus, rather than accusing Jesus, wouldent John have seen the inconsistency if He considered Jesus was breaking the Law?)

And Jesus ends His defense of works in John 5 with;
Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope.46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" (John 5:45-47)
Apparently it was the Jews who were breaking the Law not Jesus.

Jesus may be using the term 'work' in John 5 as a 'term' in the sense that He uses the word 'work' in John 6:29, where Jesus equates working with believing, do we really believe 'believing' is a work, or is it an analogy in order to teach us something?
It was already being ‘assumed’ that His teaching was opposed to the Law, but in truth he was fulfilling the Law. And he certainly was ‘not’ teaching anyone that the Law was being annulled.
Just before these things Jesus said;
"Unless you people see signs and wonders, you simply will not believe." (John 4:48)

So Jesus was doing these miracles and healing so that they might ‘believe’
Soon after these things Jesus said;
"Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.27 Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life…" (John 6:26-27)

I suppose then Jesus is saying here that it is a ‘work’ that we must do to receive eternal life. The Disciples even thought so;
"What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?"29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent"… Then they said to Him, "Lord, always give us this bread."35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. (John 6:26-29, 34-35)

Is it really a work to receive eternal life?
Is it really a work to receive this bread?
Is it really a work to ‘come to Him’, and ‘believe’, so that he can ‘give us’ eternal life?
(I know some do say it is a work to believe, I say; it is if you say so, but that makes believing sound exhausting, I trust that believing is entering into that rest (Heb.4)

[jriccitelli]

Q. If Jesus did not keep the Law, how could He even speak of keeping the Law?
A. Jesus did keep the Law in every respect that it was necessary for Him to do so… it isn't necessary for Him to keep every aspect of the Law.

Still you did not answer; “…how could He even ‘speak’ of keeping the Law?
(Why is it not necessary, when Jesus has said; I have come to fulfill the Law?)
It would be hypocritical to condemn others of what you were not doing yourself.
Sure Jesus was full of grace towards those who could not, but He also criticized the teachers of the law for not keeping the Law. Jesus also told others to keep the Law, and not to set aside the commandments of God;

"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 5:20)
"The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.4 They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger” (Matt 23:2-4)
“Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men. He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition… thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that" (Mark 7:8-9,13)

We cannot confuse Jesus disagreement with the Pharisees as Jesus being in disagreement with the Law.


Q. Where is there a Mosaic law against eating in a field?
A. “Jesus did not point out that they were mistaken in the belief that this was forbidden, in other words, He didn't deny it”
How would you suggest Jesus answer their overt legalism?
Should Jesus just have retorted with “No we didn’t’, or “Don’t be so picky”?
How does Jesus generally respond? That’s right, wisdom and scripture.
Using the story of David is not the sentence of guilt upon the Disciples, if they were guilty Jesus should have simply said they were guilty. His story of David is not to convict the disciples, but to convict the Pharisees of ‘their’ unjust ‘judgment’. Sure you could find fault in anything for that matter, On a miniscule scale you could convict someone for stepping on a grain by accident and accidently rubbing off some chaff. The Pharisees were wrong, God had not intended to make the Law so ridiculously burdensome and without reason, that’s all there is to it.

A. “Instead, He demonstrated to them that the Sabbath, and other ritual laws could be broken at times, without incurring the guilt of sin”
I will agree with you that what the Disciples did does ‘not incur’ the guilt of sin, yet the Pharisees were saying that it ‘did incur’ the guilt of sin.
Jesus is not agreeing to their extreme legal observations, He demonstrates from scripture that being overtly judgmental is not the intent of the Law.
If Jesus were ‘agreeing’ that they broke the Sabbath He would have said so, not make excuses. If Jesus wanted to explain the new Covenant with them then, it would have been a perfect opportunity, but he doesn’t, because the New Covenant doesn’t promote breaking the Sabbath, it is a fulfillment of the Sabbath.
Harvesting is certainly work, but obviously the Disciples were not engaged in work, certainly not in the sense of real harvesting, they were hungry and picked something to eat. Jesus doesn’t waste His time launching into a personal defense about how they were living outdoors, engaged in the Lords work, and only picking what they could eat, that would have meant nothing to the Pharisees.
I think it is written ‘do not answer a fool in his own foolishness or you will be like him’

Q. They were not preparing a meal, or gathering, they were eating as they went along, what Mosaic law was being broken?
A. “So it is incorrect to say that they were not gathering”
You are gathering when you go to the supermarket, but do you consider ‘eating’ your dinner as gathering?
I forgot to add harvesting, but do you consider ‘eating’ your dinner as harvesting?
As long as you were not working, then the Law against harvesting should not apply to plucking the grain of something you were eating, what about peeling a banana, Jews today still are worried about eating peanuts and peeling oranges on the Sabbath, but these rules were not necessary, it was laborious work that was to be ceased. Not straining at gnats.
This charge was never brought to their court, if it was, it would probably been dismissed as unreasonable even then. It was just slander.

Q. Where is it written that healing was a work on the Sabbath?
A. Jesus said it.
I was referring to the Law, where in ‘the Law’ does it define healing as work.
Jesus called it work, but not all work is unlawful. What is unlawful is still unlawful, and what work is lawful is lawful. Jesus said so.
(Certainly, if you want to be extreme, putting on your sandals is work, but ‘where is it written’ you shall not put on sandals on the Sabbath. The Pharisees had confused what work they could ‘not’ do, with what they ‘could’ do. The Law tells us what ‘not’ to do, it doesn’t say we can’t do anything. You have to agree that was not the intention of the Law)


Q. And if John is saying Jesus broke the Law; Where 'else' is it written where Jesus broke, or violated the Law?
A. There is no onus on anyone to show where else it may be written that Jesus broke the Law. Even if you could demonstrate that there are no other places in Scripture where this is stated (which you cannot) it would have no force… it simply has no bearing.
All scripture should find compatibility with other scripture, this is a basic hermeneutical principle, it doesn’t have to jive, but most likely it should. It is also a basic ground for establishing innocence, if the defendant has never shown any other reasons for offense it would seem odd that the defendant would be guilty here.
If, as some Christians believe, that Jesus is establishing the New Covenant by ‘breaking’ the Old, shouldn’t Jesus be demonstrating this somewhere else also?
Jesus is accused of the Pharisee’s own technicality in interpreting the Sabbath rules.
Jesus does not do anything overt like harvesting a pile of wheat, or lighting a fire, or fixing a fence, something that was ‘really’ a violation. Something that would signify the New Covenant, if that is what Jesus was doing. (Which He was not)


A. The onus is actually on you to demonstrate clearly, in the light of the Scriptural evidence against you, that healing is not a work…Please demonstrate these things from the Scripture.
You noted Luke 13:10-16, so you are saying that healing the woman was breaking the Sabbath.
If Jesus was really ‘guilty’ of breaking the Sabbath, Jesus wouldn’t be defending His actions, or excusing them.

Q. How can healing be wrong, if Jesus plainly states that it is 'lawful' to do good on the Sabbath?
A. It's not wrong for Jesus to heal on the Sabbath. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath.
Then we agree, it’s not wrong to heal on the Sabbath!

Q. He is also 'Lord of all the Commandments' so being Lord does not mean He breaks them. He is 'Lord of not lying' can He thus lie? (Q. He is 'Lord over not committing adultery' can He thus commit adultery?)
A. Please show me where it is written that Jesus is "Lord of all the commandments" in the way that He spoke of being Lord of the Sabbath.
I think you just answered it “Jesus is Lord of all”;
"For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;13 for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Acts 10:12)

For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords (Deut 10:17)
Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth is crossing over ahead of you (Joshua 3:11)
Now this man would go up from his city yearly to worship and to sacrifice to the LORD of hosts (1 Samuel 1:3)
but you have exalted yourself against the Lord of heaven; (Daniel 5:23)
Therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest." (Matt 9:38)
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all (Romans 10:12)
"the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor 2:8)
Now may the Lord of peace Himself continually grant you peace in every circumstance (2 Thes 3:16)

“And just as Isaiah foretold, "Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left to us a posterity, We would have become like Sodom, and would have resembled Gomorrah."30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, (Romans 9:29)
(Paul equates the Lord of the Sabbath with the Lord of Hosts, which is a name applied to Jehovah throughout the Prophets)

“…and the outcry of those who did the harvesting has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.6 You have condemned and put to death the righteous man; he does not resist you” (James 5:4)

2 "How blessed is the man who does this, And the son of man who takes hold of it; Who keeps from profaning the sabbath, And keeps his hand from doing any evil." (Isaiah 56:2)

[look2jesus]

Hello jriccitelli,

I appreciate you posting a bit of your testimony earlier. Sometimes we lose track of the personal side of things during these debates. I wanted to assure you, as I would suppose you to be doing as well, that I am only addressing your arguments and in no way would I want to be seen as attacking you personally. I consider it a privilege to be able to discuss these various issues with my brothers and sisters in the faith. I hope you feel the same.

As much as I've enjoyed this debate and the study it has provoked, I'm having a hard time keeping up with my responses lately and, frankly, I'm not sure if this subject justifies any more of our time than we have already given to it. To my mind, there isn't very much of importance hanging on the issue, and I'm not sure that we're making very much progress at this point. I'm pretty sure that we both hold our Lord and the Scripture in the highest regard--we just see this issue through different perspectives. Let's just agree to disagree for now and look forward to more discussion in the future, Lord willing.

Respectfully Yours,

l2j

[jriccitelli]

Look 2 Jesus, I appreciate your fellowship also.
You come across as being fair minded and gracious, even when my replies can come across as blunt and tedious, etc.
I agree, we can agree, but I am favorable to any objections from others (or agreement) because this subject does effect our lives in a big way, it is central to the heart of Christian behavior.
And as I observe some of the Christians in my life, there seems to be something they are missing.
I 'can' keep the law when I pursue being in Christ, not under the Law, but under Christ, and in Christ by faith through grace, a righteousness that comes from God, unto good works…
I am not out to prove myself for my sake, I really have no motive other than to seek the meaning of scripture the best I can. I appreciate all the debate here even if it is tense.
I am pursuing this for two reasons;
1. I am challenging my own position.
2. I am challenging your position.

It doesn’t seem so important an issue as ‘how to be saved’, and what it means to be saved. Or the doctrine of Repentance, and Good Works, or the difference between Grace and Wrath, Faith and Works, but like with all these issues they are all so related they all need to be studied, to love Christ is for what, why and how we were saved.

Most Christians live in a cloudy paradox, where on one hand they are told to “keep my commandments” and on the other hand being ‘freed from the Law’. My concern is because;
1. I have witnessed unchristian behavior among friends, church members, and Christians in general, for along time.
I ask myself; what is wrong, and why?
2. Sometimes a lack of morality is the result of the break down in biblical literacy, and more directly; a disinterest or understanding of the 'Old Testament' which can result in a false sense of who God is, and who we are.
3. I have become astonished at the number of times, and how quickly, a Christian will respond to any statement they don’t like in the Old Testament, with “well that’s the Old Testament, it doesn’t apply to us”.
I have heard this over and over.

[jriccitelli]

I wrote my post yesterday in a hurry, I want to add that;
I feel that an opinion that; 'Christ did not keep the Law' can lead to a misrepresentation of the purpose of Gods Law, and I think this misrepresentation leads to the whole Law being swept under the rug.

Secondly,
The ‘common’ Christian thinking seems to be as follows;
If Jesus did ‘not’ keep the Law, therefore we cannot, nor do we have to keep the Law.
Versus, Gods intent, a righteousness that is by Faith ‘in Him’;
If Jesus ‘did’ keep the Law, then ‘in Him’ we can keep the Law.

The Law’s intent proved that we are sinners, but at the same time proved Christs’ righteousness.
(As opposed to making Christ guilty of breaking the Law)

Remember I am not saying we must keep the Law to be saved.
Remember I debate Mormons (some and Seventh day Adventists) regularly, showing them from the Old Testament that man ‘cannot’ keep the Law (Ezekiel 20:28), and that I fully persuade them that it is by Gods Grace we are saved. By His Sacrifice, not ours.
I show them that Christ fulfilled the whole Law for us, even the ritual laws and holy days.
Therefore ‘in Him’ we can keep the whole Law, ‘If’ we die to the Law, which means the Law puts to death our ability of self righteousness, in order that we can live in His righteousness, doing good, against such there is no law (Gal 5:22).

But this death was not an end in itself, but only the beginning, His death should be the motivation for our obedience, not disobedience. Our obedience is that which comes from our gratitude and thanksgiving (See Hebrews 12:28).

“Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship”
(Romans 12:1)

For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it.2 For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty,3 how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? (Hebrews 2:1-3)
Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession;2 He was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was in all His house. (Hebrews 3:1-2)

Q. If keeping the Law was the main obligation of the Old Testament, then why is it the least important obligation for Christians? If it is not the least, then what place of importance does it have?

Q. Is it unlawful then to 'want' to keep the Law 'in' Christ?

[look2jesus]

jriccitelli,

Just a quick explanation of my view, though you obviously think it contradictory:

1. Jesus kept the Law.

2. Jesus broke the Sabbath.

Scripture states both. However we understand it, we must take these two truths into account.

l2j

[jriccitelli]

This certainly is a huge contradiction, so it doesn’t make sense for these two verses to be contradicting the rest of Scripture.

I have stated many very good reasons why John must simply be writing down what was said by the Pharisees.
I have stated many very good reasons why the Temple Priests were not guilty of ‘really’ breaking the Law.

Healing is the ‘only’ work of which Jesus was accused, ‘but there is no Law’ against healing'
(As there is no law against grooming, washing, eating, clothing, walking, talking, reading, etc.).
Just think about the phenomenon of a miraculous healing! It was wonderful, super fantastic, Supercalifragilous Expialidocious in fact, almost unbelievable. Nobody had ever witnessed it and no one but God could do it, yet the Pharisees found fault with it.
This was a judgment on the Pharisees not a judgment against Jesus.

To think that the Sabbath was ‘simply’ a ritual or that it ‘ranked much lower’ than the other Laws would be admitting to a complete failure to grasp the seriousness that God has kept for His Word and His Commands, to view the Sabbath as trivial in comparison to other Laws finds no place in Scripture or Judaism.
To think that the Sabbath was anything less than Holy to Judaism (And to God) would be to treat the whole Law as a sideshow. The Law meant more to Judaism than our own Constitution means to America, and Sabbath breaking no less inflammatory than burning a flag would be to a Patriot.
To consider the Sabbath law as simply ritual would be the same as placing the Law of Atonement in a category of simply ritual, and thus of less matter and rank.
To consider ritual as ‘less important’ than moral Law would mean the rituals of sacrifice were less important also, yet that would mean that 'our' own atonement was less important.
Obedience is better than sacrifice, but no less important. Since the law ‘proves’ we do not obey, we must have a sacrifice, and the sacrifice must be greater than our sins, and truly Christ’s sacrifice was greater than all sins.
Christ’s sacrifice was in strict obedience to the Law, and a ‘complete’ fulfillment of the Law.

Healing is ‘as much’ a work as believing is a work John 6:29 (Or as much as 'receiving' is a work).
(I have heard that the Jews have a law that says you cannot receive a free gift with your hands on the sabbath, unless the giver places the gift on the floor inside your open door! Cmon, Really, is receiving a free gift a work?)

Q. Jesus asked the question;
"Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, and walk '?
The answer is that neither are easy, to do either would be impossible for man to do, only God could forgive sins and only God could heal the cripple (And raise the dead).
If healing is impossible, then Jesus was being charged with doing the impossible. The Pharisees were charging Jesus with what could not be done (I love the wit of God). It was obvious to some, but not the religious leaders, why?

Q. So is it a work to receive forgiveness?
If you say it is, but I choose to believe that it is by faith and no longer works.

"...even when we were dead in our transgressions, He made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),6 and raised us up with Him...8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. (Ephesians 2:4-10)

[look2jesus]

jriccitelli,

Jesus was able to break the Sabbath because He was the fulfillment of the Sabbath. Because He demonstrated that He was Lord of the Sabbath during His ministry leads me to understand that this fulfillment commenced before the official end of the Old Covenant. This is why His Sabbath breaking is no reflection on His keeping the Law otherwise (cf. Mt. 5:18). The Sabbath rules became irrelevant (excepting as they are to be observed spiritually "in Christ") after their fulfillment.

The same could be said for Jesus forgiving sins during His ministry and before His death. How do you explain His doing this before the New Covenant had officially commenced? The Law of Moses provided specific instructions for what was to be done to expiate sins. Jesus did not follow the Old Covenant "rules" in Matthew 9. Why not? My answer is that Jesus was a "new" kind of priest under a "different" priesthood, and it was during His ministry that the Old order was beginning to pass away. Otherwise, Jesus, it seems to me, would have been violating the Law of Moses by attempting to forgive sins while the Old Covenant was fully in effect. He was, after all, "born under the Law", wasn't He? How do you answer these questions?

l2j