Was Jesus a law breaker?

[Hobie]

We have many who accuse or claim that Jesus was a law breaker and use some of these verses..

Matthew 12:1
At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.

Mark 3:2
And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.

People say He was with the disciples on the sabbath when they plucked corn and also the healing on the sabbath, so was He a law breaker? Why or Why not.

 

[Mr E]

We have many who accuse or claim that Jesus was a law breaker and use some of these verses..

Matthew 12:1
At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.

Mark 3:2
And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.

People say He was with the disciples on the sabbath when they plucked corn and also the healing on the sabbath, so was He a law breaker? Why or Why not.

Probably not the answer you were looking for, but if you believe scripture, there is no question that he broke the law on several occasions. Not only that-- he would openly challenge and defy the 'experts in the law' often correcting them and he would then break the law right in front of their faces to prove the point.

So a question for you would be-- do you accept and believe scripture? -Or perhaps only when it's convenient?

 

[Jack]

Galatians 3:10
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse;

And that ain't good!

 

[Hobie]

Probably not the answer you were looking for, but if you believe scripture, there is no question that he broke the law on several occasions. Not only that-- he would openly challenge and defy the 'experts in the law' often correcting them and he would then break the law right in front of their faces to prove the point.

So a question for you would be-- do you accept and believe scripture? -Or perhaps only when it's convenient?

How do you read this verse then..
2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

 

[amadeus]

Consider this:

Mt 12:5	Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
Mt 12:6	But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
Mt 12:7	But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
Mt 12:8	For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Did the Lord of the Sabbath day break the law of God or did he simply define by his own example the difference between the letter and the Spirit of the law?

2co 3:5	Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
2co 3:6	Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

And is Jesus not also the Life?

Joh 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

[Mr E]

How do you read this verse then..
2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Don't let me step on your beliefs, but I read it just how it's written. Jesus was a man, and since all men have sinned, Paul isn't talking about a man when he refers to one who knew no sin, who became sin. He's talking about a lamb--and that's a spiritual being, not a physical being. Peter says it like this, referring to the one who pre-existed before Jesus>>>

With the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

John describes it like this, as seen in spirit-- after that sacrifice>>>


In the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain.... Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing...

 

[BarneyFife]

Frankly, I don't understand the desire to portray Christ as a sinner.

It seems inconsistent to me that He would chide the Pharisees for "condemning" His "guiltless" disciples in Matthew 12:7 and doing so much instructing on and defending of proper Sabbath-keeping, in general, that the word itself appears no less than 50 times in the Gospels—all for a law that is purported by objectors to be optional.

.

 

[Mr E]

Frankly, I don't understand the desire to portray Christ as a sinner.

It seems inconsistent to me that He would chide the Pharisees for "condemning" His "guiltless" disciples in Matthew 12:7 and doing so much instructing on and defending of proper Sabbath-keeping, in general, that the word itself appears no less than 50 times in the Gospels—all for a law that is purported by objectors to be optional.

.

 

[Keiw]

We have many who accuse or claim that Jesus was a law breaker and use some of these verses..

Matthew 12:1
At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.

Mark 3:2
And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.

People say He was with the disciples on the sabbath when they plucked corn and also the healing on the sabbath, so was He a law breaker? Why or Why not.

Jesus didn't break Gods law. The Israelite leaders added many things to certain laws, From what i understand they added about 39 rules to that Sabbath law not by Gods will. they had no right. Jesus broke one of their laws( added rules) that God did not recognize.

 

[BarneyFife]

The high-octane text used in this particular facet of Sabbath objection is John 5:18, which reads:

Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. (John 5:18)

It is urged that because the now Apostle John himself is recounting the incident and apparently stating, matter-of-factly, that Christ violated the 4th commandment.

(Call me crazy but I'm inclined to give Christ the benefit of the doubt when it comes to charging Him with sin. Especially when countless other texts conclusively depict Him as spotless from the taint of sin.)

But a closer look at the text in question reveals another possibility.

What John is recounting are the charges that the Jews believed against Christ—not what He had actually done.

For, if we are to believe that Jesus actually violated the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy, was He also then guilty of blasphemy by saying God was His Father, making Himself equal with God?

Did Christ admit to either of these charges?

No, He admitted only to the acts that precipitated the charges, outright in the case of Sabbath-breaking, and by silence and demonstration in the case of blasphemy.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

How do you read this verse then..
2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Don't let me step on your beliefs, but I read it just how it's written.

Jesus was a man, and since all men have sinned, Paul isn't talking about a man when he refers to one who knew no sin, who became sin. He's talking about a lamb--and that's a spiritual being, not a physical being. Peter says it like this, referring to the one who pre-existed before Jesus>>>

With the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

John describes it like this, as seen in spirit-- after that sacrifice>>>


In the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain.... Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing...

There's only one problem with this: There's no way to read 2 Corinthians 5:21 "just how it's written" without imposing the otherwise legitimate Lamb imagery onto it from elsewhere because the context of 2 Corinthians 5:21 suggests no such relation whatsoever. In fact, verse 16 speaks explicitly of "knowing Christ according to the flesh."

Surely you're not denying that He both came in and condemned sin in the flesh. That's dangerous territory if I remember right. Something about "antichrist."

.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Probably not the answer you were looking for, but if you believe scripture, there is no question that he broke the law on several occasions. Not only that-- he would openly challenge and defy the 'experts in the law' often correcting them and he would then break the law right in front of their faces to prove the point.

So a question for you would be-- do you accept and believe scripture? -Or perhaps only when it's convenient?

This is because... He came to take the old covenant away so He could establish the New Covenant.

Hebrews 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

And with the changing of the priesthood, God’s Word tells us there is also a change of the law.

Hebrews 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

 

[Mr E]

Jesus didn't break Gods law. The Israelite leaders added many things to certain laws, From what i understand they added about 39 rules to that Sabbath law not by Gods will. they had no right. Jesus broke one of their laws( added rules) that God did not recognize.

I don't mean this as a personal criticism, so I hope you don't take it that way-- I'm addressing only the point you are trying to make. I call that equivocating. Here's why...

Scripture clearly shows Jesus to be a law breaker, with respect to sabbath laws in particular. I've heard folks argue often, that-- well, he only broke man's law, and not God's law. Let's say that's true. He'd still be a law breaker. I'll leave it up to you to decide if that makes him a sinner, but here's the flip side.

I'll give a mild comparison. School zones. It's man's law, not God's law-- that says you must slow down for school zones. If you speed through a school zone and mother's and children have to scramble to get out of the crosswalks while you race through at 50 miles per hour because you're late for work.... You are a law breaker. If you do this every day-- you are a law breaker and a sinner. Aren't you also a law breaker and still a sinner if you do it only once? Of course. It doesn't matter a bit that it's only man's law. You are still a law breaker. You are still a sinner.

Draw your own conclusions, but adhering to scripture-- Jesus was a law breaker.

 

[Mr E]

The high-octane text used in this particular facet of Sabbath objection is John 5:18, which reads:

Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. (John 5:18)

It is urged that because the now Apostle John himself is recounting the incident and apparently stating, matter-of-factly, that Christ violated the 4th commandment.

(Call me crazy but I'm inclined to give Christ the benefit of the doubt when it comes to charging Him with sin. Especially when countless other texts conclusively depict Him as spotless from the taint of sin.)

But a closer look at the text in question reveals another possibility.

What John is recounting are the charges that the Jews believed against Christ—not what He had actually done.

For, if we are to believe that Jesus actually violated the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy, was He also then guilty of blasphemy by saying God was His Father, making Himself equal with God?

Did Christ admit to either of these charges?

No, He admitted only to the acts that precipitated the charges, outright in the case of Sabbath-breaking, and by silence and demonstration in the case of blasphemy.

.

Whoa. This is equivocating in the extreme.

You are insisting that scripture got it wrong. That Jesus didn't actually break any Sabbath laws, as scripture states he most certainly did. Instead, you are reducing the text to mere accusations of law-breaking. That's ridiculous.

Scripture tells us repeatedly the very things he did on the Sabbath. These things he did were clear violations of Sabbath Law.

But I get it. You are not alone in feeling a need to somehow sanitize the story. The need to do so stems from certain beliefs that you and others hold, that you can't get past. Orthodox beliefs. Accepted beliefs. --But beliefs nonetheless and at the same time nothing more.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Scripture tells us repeatedly the very things he did on the Sabbath. These things he did were clear violations of Sabbath Law.

He came to take the old covenant away so He could establish the New Covenant.

Therefore, the Sabbath laws were being done away with and technically He wasn't in violation of the law since it was no more... now that God's Word had come in the flesh.

 

[BarneyFife]

This is because... He came to take the old covenant away so He could establish the New Covenant.

Hebrews 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

And with the changing of the priesthood, God’s Word tells us there is also a change of the law.

Hebrews 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

There is a change to the law regarding the priesthood—not to the law governing morality, which includes the 4th commandment.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

Scripture tells us repeatedly the very things he did on the Sabbath. These things he did were clear violations of Sabbath Law.

Except that He said that they weren't.

.

 

[Mr E]

There's only one problem with this: There's no way to read 2 Corinthians 5:21 "just how it's written" without imposing the otherwise legitimate Lamb imagery onto it from elsewhere because the context of 2 Corinthians 5:21 suggests no such relation whatsoever. In fact, verse 16 speaks explicitly of "knowing Christ according to the flesh."

Surely you're not denying that He both came in and condemned sin in the flesh. That's dangerous territory if I remember right. Something about "antichrist."

.

Without meaning to perhaps, you hit the nail on the head. Yes-- Jesus was flesh. But before Jesus was born, there existed the spirit of God that descended and that spirit was the perfect, sinless, blameless, spotless, innocent seed-- the logos, or word of the Father-- His seed- that was planted in human soil--- the dust of the earth-- that man. The word became flesh.

You can read it like this-- verse 21. God has made flesh, who knew no flesh.

For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten son.....

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

There is a change to the law regarding the priesthood—not to the law governing morality, which includes the 4th commandment.

And yet... Jesus did exactly that!

He brought forth a rest that is far superior than anything Saturday sabbath could do as it could not bring life along with the rest of the Law of Moses that couldn't bring life.

Here's REST according to the New Covenant... is it's not speaking of keeping Saturday sabbath!

Hebrews 4:4-11
For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

Hebrews 4:6 tells us "to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief" so those living under the Law of Moses did not enter in to God's REST... even though they were observing Saturday sabbath!

What the Lord's Word is speaking of in Hebrews 4:8 is what we have under the New Covenant which is resting in faith IN Christ... not just one day a week, but ALL days.

Therefore Saturday sabbath does not meet the higher standards Jesus Christ has brought forth for His people in the New Covenant due to it's better promises.

Maybe some day... the sabbatarians can come on over in to the New Covenant and let Jesus be their High Priest rather than trying to go back and live under Moses.

 

[BarneyFife]

Without meaning to perhaps, you hit the nail on the head. Yes-- Jesus was flesh.

...in which, He condemned sin.

But before Jesus was born, there existed the spirit of God that descended and that spirit was the perfect, sinless, blameless, spotless, innocent seed-- the logos, or word of the Father-- His seed- that was planted in human soil--- the dust of the earth-- that man. The word became flesh.

You can read it like this-- verse 21. God has made flesh, who knew no flesh.

For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten son.....

Sorry, I don't see how any of this is relevant to whether or not Jesus sinned. I'd like to, but I don't.

.