Did Jesus Observe the Sabbath?

[paulespino]

Hi guys,

I do believe that Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath which means that He can choose to do things that are opposite from the requirements of Sabbath and yet He won't be guilty because He is the Master of Sabbath.

I also believe that Jesus did not violate the Law of Sabbath because He chose not to violate it.

It is true that doing good is work, as a matter of fact doing good is "good work" but there is nothing wrong in doing good on Sabbath Day because Jesus Said that it is Lawful to do Good on Sabbath. There is no indication in the Bible that doing good is limited to a specific good work and therefore there are immense ways to do good on Sabbath, in fact there are infinite ways to do good on Sabbath and yet will not be a violation of the law.

Helping your neighbor to stop the fire because his house is burning is a necessary good work and therefore is not a violation of the law.

But helping your neighbor to carry his sacks of rice inside his house is I think not a good work because that can wait till the next day. Wisdom must be used in choosing which good work must be done.

[look2jesus]

jriccitelli,

In Hebrews 7 we read:

"Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. For He testifies: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God."

I wonder when it is you believe the priesthood of Christ commenced. I would hope that you would agree with me that it commenced during his lifetime. It was during the life of Christ that the change from the Old covenant to the New began. And here the writer is telling us, as he does also elsewhere, that there is an "annulling of the former commandment" which was necessitated by the change from the Aaronic priesthood to the Melchizedekian one, of which Christ officiated. The former commandment, which I would argue includes the reiteration by Moses of the Sabbath regulations, is said to be weak and unprofitable. But with the coming of the new priesthood, there comes with Him a new law. I disagree with your comments earlier relating to how closely the New covenant was to be tied to the Old covenant (re: Heb.8:9,13). Notwithstanding, I think it is only reasonable to suggest that the period from the beginning of Christ's earthly ministry to it's conclusion marks a unique period of time where, concerning the Old and the New, things were in flux.

Now, this being the case, we often see Jesus initiating conflicts with the establishment (whose system was soon to pass away) in order to emphasize the fact that new things and new ways of relating with God were on the horizon. We see this in the sermon on the mount, for example. And we also see it in these controversies concerning the Sabbath laws. But all these things were the means by which the "better hope", which Jesus was bringing in, was being revealed. Part of that better hope was the entering in to God's rest (typified by the Sabbath) by faith.

The new priesthood of Christ and the changing of the law that this entailed, to my mind, cannot be ignored as we consider what Jesus had to say in Matthew 12 concerning His being the Lord of the Sabbath. His words and actions there, as well as in John 5, caused considerable chafing to the Jewish leadership, which we can look back on as only to be expected when we consider their hard and rebellious attitudes concerning the Messiah and His ushering in of the New Covenant.

My question to you is, in the context of Matthew 12, what point is Jesus trying to make by claiming to be Lord of the Sabbath if it isn't to demonstrate this change of the law (as the writer of Hebrews, looking back, has described) and to reveal the authority of Christ in His role as King and Priest? His claim (that He is Lord of the Sabbath) has no relevancy to the issue of His audience's hypocrisy (though this seems to be your claim) but it has everything to do with the revelation and establishment of Christ's kingdom and authority. I would love it if you would give a detailed explanation of the purpose for Jesus' claim to being Lord of the Sabbath in the context in which He spoke it. Thanks.

l2j

[Homer]

I wonder when it is you believe the priesthood of Christ commenced. I would hope that you would agree with me that it commenced during his lifetime. It was during the life of Christ that the change from the Old covenant to the New began.

I agree with L2J. As I mentioned earlier, I too believe there was a transition period in the change to a new covenant. This transition began with John the Baptist and was completed by the Apostles through the revelation by the Spirit. I do not think it all occured the moment Jesus was crucified.

We see this in Jesus' teaching in the "sermon on the Mount". Some dispensationalists mistakenly claim Jesus was teaching law that did not pertain to the New Covenant. With this I strongly disagree. Jesus was Lord of not only the Sabbath, but the entire law, and began to teach the "Law of Christ" during His ministry. He made some things less strict; for example I believe He effectively nullified the Sabbath requirement. He also made some lenient things in the Law, including the Ten Commandments, more strict.

We find the law regarding divorce given in Deuteronomy 24 was changed in Matthew 19 back to God's original intent: one man and one woman. In the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:27-28, Jesus changed the meaning of one of the Ten Commandments regarding adultery. Most people do not know that under the LOM adultery consisted only in a man having sex with another man's wife (both the man and woman are guilty of adultery). That's it! But Jesus' law says to lust after another woman, by a married man, is a sin even though the object of that lust is unmarried. Under the LOM a man might have multiple wives and concubines, and sex with an unmarried woman was not adultery. Indeed, David, with all his wives and concubines was not condemned, only when he had Bathsheba, another man's wife. Yet God told him that if David had wanted more women David would have given him more! The Law of Christ does not permit that.

[Paidion]

Your post is good, Homer. But there is one sentence I don't understand:

Yet God told him that if David had wanted more women David would have given him more!

Can you help me out, here?

[look2jesus]

jricitelli,

Here is a question; is this statement below in Mark [11]:32 made by someone else, or is this statement the authors (Mark or Peter) own comment?

"They began reasoning among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say, 'Then why did you not believe him?' 32 "But shall we say, 'From men'?"--they were afraid of the people, for everyone considered John to have been a real prophet.33 Answering Jesus, they said, "We do not know." And Jesus said to them, "Nor will I tell you by what authority I do these things" (Mark [11]:31-33)

"And they began reasoning among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say to us, 'Then why did you not believe him?' 26 "But if we say, 'From men,' we fear the people; for they all regard John as a prophet."27 And answering Jesus, they said, "We do not know." He also said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things" (Matt 21:25-26)

If we only had Marks Gospel we might conclude that it was Marks own comment, since it reads ‘they’ were afraid of the people, yet in Matt it says “We fear the people”
So which is it?

This is a false analogy, if by this example you are trying to show that John did not make a truthful statement when he claimed that Jesus had broken the Sabbath in John 5:18.

If you'll notice, Matthew gives the account with the most information. We see here that it was the chief priests, scribes, and elders who, after conferring with themselves pronounced the words under consideration, i.e., "we fear the people; for they all regard John as a prophet." These are obviously the words spoken by the Jewish leaders.

Mark gives us the same information but without letting us know how he knew that "they feared the people, for all counted John to have been a prophet indeed." But these are NOT, as you suggest, the words of the Jewish leaders. This statement belongs strictly to Mark. The difference involves the little words "we" in Matthew's account and "they" in Mark's. Though they involve the same subject matter, they are actually two very different statements. Matthew has 'quoted' the Jewish leaders in his statement to give us the knowledge that they feared the people, etc. Mark doesn't do this. Mark declares that the Jewish leader's feared the people based upon his own knowledge of what they said. So to answer your question, "which is it?" the answer is both. In Matthew, the statement belongs to the Jewish leaders. In Mark, the statement is his own.

Here is another question; who is it that said; "He will come and destroy these vine-growers and will give the vineyard to others."?
""But when the vine-growers saw him, they reasoned with one another, saying, 'This is the heir; let us kill him so that the inheritance will be ours.'15 "So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What, then, will the owner of the vineyard do to them?16 "He will come and destroy these vine-growers and will give the vineyard to others." When they heard it, they said, "May it never be!" (Luke 20:14-16)
It would seem to be Jesus, but this is hard to jive with Matt 21;
"But when the vine-growers saw the son, they said among themselves, 'This is the heir; come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.'39 "They took him, and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.40 "Therefore when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-growers?"41 They said to Him, "He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and will rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons" (Matt 21:38-41)

It would be hard to simply say this was Jesus (Even though Mark and Luke have it in red letters) because in the Matt account Jesus had put it to the Pharisees as a question, and it is recorded as their saying it.

This is easily answered when we look at a few considerations that are forced upon us because of the many differences in the parable that we encounter in the three synoptic accounts. We have to make a decision between seeing this parable as one account, told separately by three different authors or seeing this as three similar parables told at three different times--each of the authors re-telling one of the stories. It appears to me that it is, most likely, one account told separately by the three authors. I would base this on the placement of the story in each of the respective gospels, considering the chronology of events going on before and after the telling of the story in each one. Obviously, if the authors are recounting three different versions of the same parable, told at different times, each with varying details, your point is moot.

But taking the other option doesn't give you any help either. This is because the stories recounted in each gospel are so different in the fine details of the story that we must conclude that each of the authors assumes great license in veering off from the fine details which were given by Jesus in the original telling, while still maintaining the original essence and meaning of the story that He intended to put across. I hope you can see the position in which this places your argument.

Another question! The opening statement of prophecy in Mark 1:1-3; is this Marks comment about John the Baptist, or did John the Baptist say this of himself?

“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: "Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You, Who will prepare Your way;3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make ready the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight”(Mark 1:1-3)

(Matthew and Luke make their comments concerning John the Baptist also as follows;)

"For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet when he said, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make ready the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight!”(Matt 3:3)

"And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins;4 as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make ready the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight" (Luke 3:3-4)

(If we didn’t have Johns Gospel we would assume that it was the writers insertion or opinion of the fulfilled prophecy, but John writes that John the Baptist said it;)

"Then they said to him, "Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?" 23 He said, "I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way of the Lord,' as Isaiah the prophet said." (John 1:22-23)

(So although it ‘seems’ clear, it is not good to make a quick judgment if we have other reasons to be ‘cautious’ as to whose statement is actually being recorded. This is why it is hard to determine if this was Johns own conclusion, or whether John heard it from someone else.)

Are you aware of the prophecy in Isaiah 40? Matthew, Mark, and Luke are quoting Isaiah. John is quoting John the Baptist. In John's quote, John the Baptist is identifying himself as the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy by using those very words of himself. Your argument here is no argument at all.

Even though John knew that the Jewish leaders were accusing Jesus of breaking the Sabbath, he was not quoting anyone when he made his statement. The fact that John's statement agrees with the sentiments of the Jewish leaders does not make John's statement theirs. You still haven't given one valid, biblical reason for denying that Jesus broke the Sabbath. Perhaps you may in the future, we'll have to see. Best regards,

l2j

[look2jesus]

Paidion,

I think Homer was making a reference to 2 Samuel 12:8,

'I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more!

Except that he used "David" in the second reference, where he should have used "God" or "He".

[jriccitelli]

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"

The First Covenant was inaugurated with blood and so was the second;

Hebrews 9:1 "Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary… 6 Now when these things have been so prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle performing the divine worship,7 but into the second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance.8 The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing,9 which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience,10 since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all…
15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.18 Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood"

(I do not see how it could be any clearer than it is stated above,)

... 19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,20 saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you."21 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood.22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
… 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

Hebrews 10:9…"Behold, I have come to do Your will." He takes away the first in order to establish the second.10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God,13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet.14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.15 And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying,16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them After those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws upon their heart, And on their mind I will write them," He then says,17 "And their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus,20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh…

(When He died the Veil was torn, as was His flesh)
(Notice the Lord will write 'His' Laws on our heart, our Lord is One, these are Gods Laws)

(Sure God did not have to keep His end of the Covenant, since the Law was made for man and not for God, but God promised He would keep His side of the Covenant;)

(In fact the Jews had every chance to keep their end of the First Covenant, and to make Jesus Lord, they still had a chance to receive all the blessings under the First Covenant, and God gave them opportunity all the way till their own Judgment when they said 'we have no king but Caesar', and saying 'away with Him and crucify him', they refused to acknowledge their sins and repent, thus God fulfilled the Law for them even offering the Sacrifice of Himself for them)

"For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God" (Hebrews 10:26-29)

Jesus came in the flesh, as a man, everything he did and was a fulfillment of the Law, and otherwise how could He be a High Priest, which was an ordinance of the Law?;

“Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.18 For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted. 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 2:17-3:2)

Notice it says 'He became' a merciful high priest, it does not say He was a high priest because He being God, He is above the Law.
How could Jesus offer His own blood if He broke the Law? How could Jesus fulfill the Law if He did not keep the Law? If He did not fulfill the Law, whose blood would He offer if He had broke the Law?

[jriccitelli]

Jesus taught the Law, otherwise we would not know sin:

For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:19-21)

Romans 7:1 "Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.
4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet."8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;10 and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me;11 for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
13 Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful”...
16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good...
22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man...
25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God...

Even the Christian is under the penalty of the Law (Romans 5:19), and the curse, until we die to ourselves, the same principle applies to us, the Law convicts us of sin, therefore we must die also, but thanks be to God; "through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous"
(Romans 5:19)

[look2jesus]

jriccitelli,

As I said before Jesus answers at another time in a similar situation to the same objections with a statement that;

"He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)"

Jesus was not declaring that God really meant they were Gods, and Jesus was not declaring to the Pharisees that He also was a phony as were the priests in Psalm 82:6. (It was the Pharisees that had made themselves out to be gods by judging Him)
These verses in Psalm 82 are really revealing; “God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers. 2 How long will you judge unjustly And show partiality to the wicked?...5 They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness.”
Surely these priests are as the Pharisees who ‘judge unjustly, show partiality, do not know nor do they understand’. I think this could be said for the Pharisees in 5:16.

It seems to me that you have missed the point that Jesus actually made concerning the reference to Psalm 82 and are trying to emphasize something that He was not alluding to in the least. Your use of this text leads me to believe that you either don't understand why He quoted it or that you are ignoring the point of it and trying to force something out of it that isn't there to try and bolster your argument. Here is the context from John 10:

'I and My Father are one.' Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?" The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God." Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods"'? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

The reference to Ps. 82 is Jesus' answer to their charge of blasphemy, because, being a man, He made Himself out to be God. Jesus was simply pointing out that God Himself had called men "gods" in Ps. 82, and that, therefore, the Jews shouldn't be making a big deal out of Jesus' claim that He was the Son of God. That's it. Jesus was not comparing the Jews of His time to the Jewish leaders referred to in Ps. 82 (though, there may have been similarities). Neither was Jesus pointing out that "it was the Pharisees that had made themselves out to be gods by judging Him" as you seem to be inferring. Jesus did not refer to Ps. 82 to imply any of these things.

You say of Ps. 82 that "these verses are very revealing", as if they are going to shed a great light upon what we are discussing. However, what they are revealing has nothing to do with establishing that John didn't say what he said in John 5:18. There is nothing here that is mysterious or hard to understand or that might lead us to question anything there.

The only point that I can possibly see that you're trying to make would be this: 1) Jesus quoted Ps.82 to the Jews. 2) Ps.82 is talking about people who judge unjustly, are partial towards the wicked, do not know, do not understand, and walk in darkness. 3) Therefore, Jesus is saying that these Jews are the same as those in Ps.82. 4) Since this is the case with the Jews in John 10, it must be the case that the Jews in John 5 are the same. 5) And since the Jews in John 5 do not know, and do not understand, we can extrapolate from this that they were mistaken about Jesus' violating the Sabbath. 6) Therefore, John must have been speaking for them when he said that Jesus broke the Sabbath.

Even if I were to grant this line of argument, as I said before, the Jews were not always wrong about everything. This fact alone negates the force of this argument. And, again, Jesus is not using Ps.82 here to compare the Jews of His day to the Jewish leaders in Asaph's day. This also negates the force of this argument. Add to this that nowhere are the Jews said to be mistaken in their belief that Jesus broke the Sabbath and that John makes the statement without reference to anyone else's opinions or frame of mind, and this argument fails completely. If this was not the point you were trying to make then I am at a loss as to what it is that you are trying to say.

l2j

[jriccitelli]

Twenty two years ago I was reading the following verse in Matt 22 where Jesus says; "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."22 And hearing this, they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away”

I had read other verses in the Gospels and I was already in love with Jesus’ wisdom, yet finally it was this verse that convinced me of Jesus’ deity, I was amazed because the continual wisdom and the depth of His answers.
That week I was both born again and decided I would go to church for the first time, my best friend was Mormon so I joined the Mormon Church not knowing they were a cult at the time. I spent two years leading people out of Mormonism from within, I left, but I continued to work with ex-Mormons for Jesus. I made Soteriology my life study and work when I found that I could convince them LDS was wrong but I needed to show them ‘how and what’ it means to be saved (Quickly before they go back, or lose faith altogether) and also; how they cannot be saved by the Law, but that the purpose of the Law was to convict us of our sins.

John 10:34 is not unfamiliar to me, since it is one of the premier LDS proof texts.

Since men cannot truly be Gods the Pharisees could have quickly retorted to “you blaspheme calling men gods”,
but they knew well enough that God isn’t saying they are ‘really’ gods, just as Jesus knows God isn’t ‘really’ calling them Gods, (I am sure that they knew that Jesus knew, that is why they could not answer Him)
Jesus did not use a verse ‘out of context’ and would therefore ‘seem’ to call men gods,
The context is; “God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers. How long will you judge unjustly…

The impact was not in using a verse that they could refute easily, the verse was clearly aimed at them, otherwise Jesus would be unwise to use a verse about false gods who judge unjustly and who are but men, as a reference to Himself (!?)
Asaph’s statement in Psalm 82:6 itself is ‘most’ likely a reference to psalm 58:1 (& 58:11);
Do you indeed speak righteousness, O gods? Do you judge uprightly, O sons of men?... Surely there is a God who judges on earth!"

Look, you said; “the Jews were not always wrong about everything. This fact alone negates the force of this argument”
Just because the Jews ‘accused’ Jesus of ‘claiming’ He was God, doesn’t make them right. They were still wrong because they did ‘not believe’ Jesus was God, and their judgment concerning the Laws were wrong also.

Look says; “And, again, Jesus is not using Ps.82 here to compare the Jews of His day to the Jewish leaders in Asaph's day. This also negates the force of this argument”
Your argument is that Jesus didn’t know the context of this verse, thus insulting Himself. Your argument negates the force of Jesus’ statement, I’ll stick with the belief that Jesus knew what he was quoting.

Look says; “Add to this that nowhere are the Jews said to be mistaken in their belief that Jesus broke the Sabbath”
Nowhere!? It seems that the Pharisees were mistaken everywhere they went! In their beliefs about Jesus, their understanding of the Law, and everything else Jesus reproved them, of (You have read Matt chap. 23).
They ask Jesus point blank; “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”, Jesus answers “So then it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath”, how could Jesus make it any plainer?

Since there is no Law ‘against’ healing on the Sabbath, Jesus uses the Law to show them that a good work was indeed lawful on the Sabbath. Jesus proves to them that ‘some’ work is indeed lawful on the Sabbath, God is not blind to this, God is not oblivious to the fact that men have to work in the Temple, nor is God so ridiculous to imply such a meaning to Sabbath keeping.
What did Jesus mean by lawful, what Law is Jesus referring to?
Jesus said it was lawful, therefore it was lawful.

Were the Priests guilty of breaking the Sabbath? (In Matt 12:5)
In a ‘sense’ the Priests in the Temple break the Sabbath, they must break the Sabbath in order to keep the Sabbath, to hold the Priests guilty would be ridiculous (You would have to put them to death for breaking the Sabbath), just as it is ridiculous in saying that healing is breaking the Sabbath. Only a Pharisee would convict the Priests of ‘really’ breaking the Sabbath, Jesus just draws their attention to it, so that maybe they could consider condemning the Priests also! The Pharisees are actually 'guilty' of sin for condemning the innocent.

So in what sense were they breaking the Sabbath?
In the Pharisees sense, but not using common sense, how could anyone get up in the morning, or put on their clothes on the Sabbath, if that ‘work’ broke the Sabbath?
Jesus says "the Priests are innocent” (Matt 12:5).
Were the Priests ‘really’ breaking the Law, really may be too vague in this context, did they really break the 'intent' of what God meant when He wrote the Law?
God’s law is no different than our law, if it isn’t also the origin of our law. Isn’t the Purpose of the Law greater than its detail, isn’t the ‘intent’ of the Law the context for the interpretation? Jesus is setting up a legal interpretation of the Law, just as the Jews did in their approach to law and in their own legal writings; they make a case, hypothetical or real, and work through it from there, just as Jesus gave them a case here, 'to study'. (The phrase; Have you not read? repeated)

In fact the Priests in the Temple were not guilty of anything according to 'our' Common law. To keep from twisting the law we establish some guidelines known as Tort law;

Tort law is a body of rights, obligations, and remedies that is applied by courts, the first two being; you must establish that the defendant was under a legal duty to act in a particular fashion. Second, you must demonstrate that the defendant breached this duty by failing to conform his or her behavior accordingly.

The Priests were servile to the Temple, The only thing greater than the Temple is God, they were serving God at his command.
When Jesus said He is Lord of the Sabbath, is the Lord abolishing the day that He created, and established as a reminder and memorial for ever, He said. He is Lord over the Sabbath, but He also says it was made 'for' man, that would be a weird thing for a good Lord to do. If He is taking it away completely, and making work now legal on the Sabbath, that would signify that there is no more Sabbath rest. The Sabbath was a day of ceasing for man (And not for God). The way to be freed from the law is not to break the law, but by having it fulfilled. And in Him it is fulfilled, and in Him we 'as priests' can work, and be innocent of the Sabbath Law yet keep the Law, because in Him we are serving the Temple which is His body. Everyday.

It would be strange for the Lord of the house to break the Law of the house, and teach us to do the same, when it was supposed to have been for our benefit in the first place.

(There is probably more to the story about David in Matt 11, since he was traveling with Abiathar. Abiathar's father was high priest and he himself became high priest soon after, and David being a type of Christ, and so forth, but Its hard to discern everything in that story, but one thing is for sure Jesus doesn't pull verses willy nilly, there is usually 'alot' more to the verses Jesus uses, I love that …)
David is also this day in the Temple, eating the bread, the bread of life, which is His body, His Word.