The foundation is in Jesus' teachings in the gospels. Examples...
Interesting.
You and I see this very differently. Which is fine.
Here's my take. (for what it's worth)
In Luke 6 the disciples are accused of breaking Sabbath. Jesus essentially tells the Pharisees that the point of the commandment is rest, not religious observance, and that fixing themselves a snack is lawful as part of resting. As long as the intent of the commandment is upheld, the commandment is upheld... and the letter of the law be damned.
The disciples WERE breaking the Sabbath.
Sabbath was introduced in Exodus chapter 16 with the Manna collection.
Food was to be put aside the day before to observe the Sabbath rest.
Confirmed by the fact that there was no Manna to collect on the seventh day.
Therefore the most BASIC violation of Sabbath rest is collecting food to eat on the Sabbath.
And Jesus implicates himself with his David and his companions example.
In Mark 7, Jesus condemns the practice of donating money/property to the temple as a way of legal avoidance of the commandment to support their aged parents. Again, the intent of the commandment (supporting the aged in retirement) is more important than the letter of the law.
That wasn't a law from God.
In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7), Jesus goes through a laundry list of OT Commandments, saying "you've heard it said... but I say to you..." He contradicts the idea of "enforce these against each other" (which is to say, by bringing each other before the judge) and instead internalizes them as "enforce these upon yourself." I might summarize the whole thing as "stop trying to figure out what you can get away with, and instead aim to uphold the intent of the commandments."
The "You have heard it said... but I tell you" statements treat the law as hearsay.
He was replacing the law with his own, not honoring the law.
None of that is an explicit statement of the principle, but when we examine Jesus' argument inductively, that's the logic we see behind them. Paul may state it more clearly...
There it is (below), but not clear at all.
Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not
in the oldness of the letter.
The NIV says it this way:
But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law
so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
The new way of the Spirit, not in the old way of the law. (the written code)
The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Corinthians 3:6)
Hmmm... maybe not as explicitly stated as I remember. I sort of read between the lines, like... serve in newness of the spirit [of the Law], and not in the oldness of the letter [of the Law]. But Paul spends a good amount of time contrasting Spirit with Law in several letters, and this is what I understand him to mean.
The term "the spirit of the law" is secular, not biblical. IMHO
/
