He was harvesting grains on sabbath to eat them. He did break the letter of the law just like David did which is why he used that example then pointed out the aspects of the spirit of the law. Jesus broke the law a bunch of times.
1 Like
My interpretation has been that the Mosaic covenant has not disappeared or ended. The followers of Yeshua have just been transferred to another covenant through death (in Christ) and therefore are not bound by the laws and rules of the Mosaic covenant.
There can be simultaneously different covenants, each with its own rules. How we should live depends on the covenant where we are. Paul writes in Galatians 5:1-3 that it is possible even to switch from the New Covenant to the Mosaic Covenant but those that do it loose salvation in Christ - they will have to earn their salvation by following the Mosaic law without flaws.
1 Like
What?!!! You mean itâs NOT?!
-your local council for Jewish relations (and a handful of Zionist Christians along with them)
1 Like
There is a difference between harvesting and having a snack. Obviously. He did not break even the letter of the law:
If you enter your neighborâs vineyard, you may eat all the grapes you want, but do not put any in your basket. If you enter your neighborâs grainfield, you may pick kernels with your hands, but you must not put a sickle to their standing grain.
Deuteronomy 23:24-25
About David, the point is that mercy trumps law. Jesus had a good right to be angry when the accused him of working when he healed someone.
Then he asked them, âIf one of you has a child or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull it out?â
Luke 14:5
No, he didnât. (The only bunches are of grapes you may not put in a basket when walking through someone elseâs vineyard. ; - )
We are simply going to disagree completely on this point.
Iâm not sure how you are connecting the laws on your neighbors land with the sabbath. They were not allowed to collect food on the sabbath just like in the wilderness they could not collect mana on the sabbath.
Because I think itâs obvious he did break it. Then showed why the law was not there to restrict us. Then he and the apostles did a lot to show how itâs fulfilled and we are not under it. Which is why, I donât have to celebrate the sabbath or be worried about mixing my clothes and why I can pet pigs and so on.
If he had really broken the law, would he have been righteous? No, he would not. You may certainly disagree.
There is a legitimate distinction between moral law, âlaws of loveâ, and all the rest â ceremonial, dietary and civil.
Loving God means keeping his commandments, and his commandments are not burdensome.
1 John 5:3
He who is having my commands, and is keeping them, that one it is who is loving me, and he who is loving me shall be loved by my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
John 14:21 YLT
I donât think there is actually a distinction in the OT between moral and dietary laws. Thatâs something people , Christians , added. A distinction not there thst insee.
But this will be my last comment. I donât think breaking the letter of the law means you are not righteous. I think breaking the spirit of the law makes you unrighteous.
@mods, a little grace and an exception to the meme rule? (Speaking of letter of the law letters and pictures of the law. 
)
I think Christians take the vision at Joppa as a cancellation of dietary laws. In reality it is talking about Jews and non Jews. The bugs are for illustration. God says that He alone decrees what is Kosher and what is not. He did not say at that point He was revoking the dietary laws, only that if God asks him to baptise a non-Jew he should do so. It could easily be argued that the dietary laws still apply because they were decreed by God and He has never specifically revoked them.
Richard
I was thinking 1 Corinthians 10:31. Same for Romanâs saying if it does not bother you, itâs not your problem, unless it bothers your brother or sister in Christ. Which is something we donât do unless we are with them. At best.
1 Like
They do not specify Kosher. Both talk about food for idols.
Donât get me wrong, the idea is that if you do not have a problem then there is no problem. I am just querying whether the cancelling of Kosher is actually justified or just inferred.
Christianity grew out of Judaism but was ejected as being no longer in line with it. Perhaps Kosher is part of that separation. Whatever, it probably comes under the Romans 14 umbrella of disputable matters.
Richard
Lucky for me I never have to worry about it anyways since I only eat plants and mushrooms. Iâve not eaten animals for close to 15 years including eggs or milk. Though recently I had kvass with honey.
1 Like
That doesnât fit the text. The claim before the Council was this:
âIt is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.â
âThe law of Mosesâ doesnât mean âsome of itâ, it means the whole thing. The Pharisees especially regarded the Law as a seamless whole, so when they said âthe law of Mosesâ they werenât leaving anything out â and thatâs the context of the ruling.
Thereâs a problem with this: everything Jesus did in the Incarnation was done for us; as the Creed puts it, âfor us men and for our salvation He came down from Heavenâ. So when He fulfilled the Torah, that wasnât for Himself, it was for us.
As for âmoral lawâ, thatâs an artificial distinction drawn by late theologians: to the Torah, and to the Jews, the Law was the Law, without divisions.
âFulfilledâ isnât the same as ârevokedâ or âDiscontinuedâ, it indicates that was was filled full was superseded because nothing more could be added to it.
Further, Paul tells us what it means that the Law isnât set aside: the Law is a tutor with the function of pointing us to Christ. Once we have Christ we no longer need the tutor, that is, we are no longer under the authority of the tutorâs teachings. It can still be drawn on for understanding, but that comes not from direct obedience but from doing as Paul did, drawing lessons from what it meant for the people who were under its authority. The Pharisees were still clinging to their belief that they were preeminent because of adherence to the Law, and the Spiritâs response was to reduce the entire Old Testament requirements from Abraham through Moses to just four items.
Finally, following commandments is the wrong motivation! Jesus took all the âdecreesâ that were âadverse to usâ â which is all of them! â and moved them out of the way, nailing the commandments to the Cross.
Our motivation is to be different â growing to be like Jesus.
1 Like
Agreed, but we are to test ourselves. Against what?
(And I love Keith Green.)
1 Like
Posted speed limits.
That depends: if He broke it by being more righteous than the Law could contemplate, He would still be righteous. Thatâs basically the argument He ends up using without saying so in quite those words.
The Torah knows nothing of such distinctions; the Law is the Law. The rabbis always regarded the Law as a complete cloth with no divisions. The point of the Law was not to live to a certain standard, it was to show loyalty to YHWH.
Yes, though I donât know how far back it goes. I know it was something that the Reformed latched onto pretty firmly. It may go back to Aquinas.
I always go to Acts 15 where we are told that the Holy Spirit reduced all the Old Testament laws to just four items.
Oh, Iâd say life supplies quite enough testing. What we have to do is figure out good works that serve to help put our old man to death.
One idea I hadâŚIâve heard it mentioned that the Hebrews breaking the Mosaic Covenant in AD30 could have ended the Mosaic Covenant. Could denying the Messiah be that? Because, our faith (Christianity, obviously) could say denying the existence of the New Covenant and rejecting the Messiah means youâre worshiping the wrong God, and therefore breaking the Old Covenant. Denying the existence of the New breaks the Old, essentially.