Did Jesus Observe the Sabbath?

[Paidion]

JR, you are still trying to show that if Jesus broke the Sabbath, He sinned! That is not the case. Have you read the many previous post at all? I will say it clearly: JESUS BROKE THE SABBATH; HE DID NOT SIN BY DOING SO. Jesus explained why the Sabbath Law did not apply to Him; He was the Lord of the Sabbath. Similarly, Christians today break the prescriptions of the Sabbath as originally given—— every Saturday, and yet do not sin in doing so. Why? Because the original Sabbath law belongs to the Old Covenant, and not the New.

Or do you not know, brothers--for I am speaking to those who know the law--that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. (Romans 7:1-4)

We also find in Hebrews 4, the way to keep the Sabbath under the New Covenant.

For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.”
And again in this passage he said, “They shall not enter my rest.”
Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”
For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also ceased from his works as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:4-11)

The early Christians understood "ceasing from his works" as "ceasing from his sinful works". This theme is taken up by Justin Martyr, who explained to the Jews with whom he was discussing scripture, that Christians did not keep the Sabbath in the way that the Jews kept it, but they kept perpetual Sabbath by having ceased from their former evil works:

JUSTIN MARTYR ANSWERS THE SABBATIZERS
This translation is taken from volume 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers.

Justin Martyr was a Christian who lived in the first half of the second century. In a discussion with Trypho and a number of other Jews, he had the following to say (titles mine):

Why God Commanded the Jews to Observe the Sabbath
God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and imposed on you other precepts for a sign, on account of your unrighteousness, and that of your fathers...

For we too would observe the fleshly circumcision and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know the reason they were enjoined to you
— namely on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts.

God Is Ever the Same
But if we do not admit this, we shall be liable to fall into foolish opinions, as if it were not the same God who existed in the times of Enoch and all the rest, who neither were circumcised after the flesh, nor observed Sabbaths, nor any other rites... or that God has not wished each race of mankind to perform the same righteous actions, to admit which, seems ridiculous and absurd.

Before Moses the Righteous Did Not Sabbatize
Moreover, all those righteous men already mentioned [Abel, Enoch, Noah], though they kept no sabbaths were pleasing to God.

Surely Such Observances Are Unnecessary Now
Remain as you were born. For if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, or of the observances of Sabbaths, of feasts and sacrifices before Moses, no more need is there of them now.

Nature Does Not Keep the Sabbath
Do you not see that the elements are not idle, and keep no Sabbaths?

God Does Not Keep the Sabbath
Be not offended at, or reproach us with, the bodily circumcision with which God created us; and think it not strange that we drink hot water¹ on the Sabbaths, since God directs the government of the universe on this day equally as on all others.

¹(Fire would have been necessary to heat the water. This was expressly forbidden on the Sabbath day.)

How to Keep the Sabbath Under the New Covenant
The new law requires you to keep perpetual Sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious! ... The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances. If there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to be so, if any adulterer, let him repent. Then he has kept the sweet and true Sabbaths of God!

[jriccitelli]

There is no need to quote references to Christian Sabbath keeping, I totally agree with Justin and the church that we are freed from the Law. I have spent countless hours debating, persuading, and showing Seventh day Adventists, Mormons, and others (Who teach that we ‘must’ keep the Law To receive Salvation) that scripture teaches that we are saved by grace through faith.

The Jews were never able to keep the written Law (Neither could Christians or Gentiles). The only way the Jews received forgiveness was by the Priest offering a sacrifice, and although it is ‘commanded by Law to give a sacrifice’ the forgiveness still was by Grace ‘through Faith in Gods promise’ to forgive, which was fulfilled not by animals but on the Cross.

I can show legalists 200 plus verses in the Old Testament that prove we have ‘always and only’ been forgiven by Grace. (Note; Leviticus 1:3-4, 4:3, 26, 31, 35, 5:6, 10, 16, 18, 6:7)
I also share scripture with Legalists that show that ‘in the Law’ we are forgiven by Grace, the problem was that the Jews did not take it to heart.
"And now this commandment is for you, O priests.2"If you do not listen, and if you do not take it to heart to give honor to My name," says the LORD of hosts, "then I will send the curse upon you and I will curse your blessings; and indeed, I have cursed them already, because you are not taking it to heart” (Malachi 2:2)

You may have missed where I said in my post:
When we die to our own works we enter into His rest. We are freed from ‘our’ labours to do His will 'Not my will but your will be done' is the Christian work ethic. The Sabbath Law is fulfilled when we give up our will, to do His will (No matter what day of the week it is). His yoke is easy, so we can trust that if we are doing His will we are not violating the Law…
The Jews, who had added to Gods Words, never understood that we could go about doing good on the Sabbath as Jesus did. It was never a sin to do what pleased the Father… they had corrupted Gods intention of the Sabbath…
Not under the Law or above the Law. And not under the burden of the Law which we could 'not' keep, but under the Law of the Sabbath, ceasing from our works to live for His works... "Here I am to do thy will". The freedom to celebrate and live the Sabbath everyday, not as a burden but as joyful knowing we have entered into His rest; this is our holy Convocation, rehearsal, assembly and vocation…

So we are ‘free’ from the (Letter of the) Law of the Sabbath to keep the (Spirit of the) Law of the Sabbath, not because of fear or need, but because of our love and thankfulness to God who saved us from our works. This was His purpose; that we would ‘observe’ the Law which has now been written on our hearts, thus ‘taking it to heart’ (Having Him in our heart, having Him written on our heart, considering His sacrifice) so that in Him we could do His will, thus because we love Him we keep His commandments, saved in order to bring forth fruit pleasing to God which we could not do of our own, but in Him we can do what is pleasing to God; "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him." (John 14:21)

If we cannot reconcile Jesus’ commands to keep to keep His commandments with our having been forgiven by Grace, then there is still something we are missing and not understanding.

I am not under the Law, but having been forgiven I freely ‘want’ to obey the Law with my mind. As a slave to Christ, and as showing thanks, knowing also that the Law trains my mind to know good, and that His Law produces goodness in my life also.

(Except for the law against shaving the edge of our beards, and a ‘maybe’ another such law to which I do not understand the principle of) I do not find hardly any ‘principle’ of the Mosaic Law is 'not' beneficial and desirable to God, and thus will produce good works pleasing to God. Example; Touch not the unclean, which means the sinner cannot come to God without the covering of Christ, and not to touch sinful objects, give your best to God, dont marry an unbeliever, let the land rest for a year, etc.
What Law can you find not worth observing spiritually?

[jriccitelli]

As for being a pious law keeper, I wish I would take a day off.
(I agree with Justin that we are not under Law, but I would say rather that 'The Lord our God does take pleasure in our observance of the Sabbath, not out of compulsion or under Law but out of thanks, as a memorial, to do good)
Personally I am not one to consistently observe the ‘legal’ or ‘letter’ sense of the Sabbath since I am a notorious workaholic, and I have umpteen numbers of irons in the fire.
I had a job two years ago where I had to work 7 days a week for almost a year straight, Sunday through Monday, although I was promised Tue and Wed off it rarely ever happened.
I am both employed and self employed, (I am an electrician) so whenever I take a day off I find myself going right back out on a job of my own. (Plus I have been remodeling my house, etc. etc.)
I find myself fighting the urge to work today, but I decided to stay home and not go to church today since i would not have enough energy left then to keep my promise to visit my Mom in the nursing home, and to visit my daughter and grandchildren today, which I feel is doing good on the Sabbath.

Although not for any religious observance reason, I did visit my church friends last night not out of law, but because of a birthday party at a friends house.
I have to go now to help my wife with some dishs and laundry, my wife just said "we keep the sabbath by loving and trusting in Him, now get to work..."

[look2jesus]

jriccitelli,

I appreciate the time and effort you've shown in laying out your argument, but there are a couple of key areas where I think you have not represented an accurate interpretation of the text and other areas where you continue to confuse (or equate) ideas that should be separated. There are two main areas that I would like to address. The first is the issue of whether John was giving his own commentary in John 5:18, or not. This is a rather crucial point. The second involves the ramifications of Jesus equating Himself with the Father and claiming to be Lord of the Sabbath, and equating Sabbath breaking in all cases with sin (something you seem to do).

I've tried to cull statements from all of your posts in this thread to get an accurate representation of your view, even though many of these ideas are interrelated. I will attempt to respond to those. First of all, concerning John's commentary,

This is not Johns own comment and accusation, John is just relating what the Jews perceived. John rarely writes his own thoughts throughout this Gospel but he is relating what others are saying; they said, he said, they were saying, they were grumbling etc. If John, in no other place, anywhere, including his other letters, ‘agrees’ with the Pharisees accusations then why would John be agreeing with the Pharisees here?

John received revelation, and he learned from Jesus, but Johns ‘Gospel’ reads basically as a purely narrative focused account. After his opening synopsis in the beginning of John, John tends to stick simply to narrative after verse 1:19 (And not his own thoughts) all the way to the end of the book.

After doing a quick survey of the gospel of John, I found over 50 occurrences of John providing either parenthetical statements or his own explanative commentary such as he does in 5:18. They include: 1:28, 38, 39, 41, 42; 2:9, 11, 17, 21-22, 24-25; 3:24; 4:2, 8, 9, 44, 54; 5:2-3a, 16, 18; 6:6, 59, 64, 71; 7:5, 30, 39; 8:6, 20, 27; 9:14, 22; 10:6; 11:2, 51-52; 12:6, 16, 33, 37-43; 13:1-3, 11; 18:2, 9, 14, 32; 19:24, 28, 31, 35-37; 20:9, 30-31; 21:12, 14, 19, 23-25. It is simply not the case that "John rarely writes his own thoughts throughout this Gospel" or that he "tends to stick simply to narrative after verse 1:19..."

The fact that there are no other cases of John agreeing with the Pharisees (for now I'll happily grant this fact) does not prove, in any sense, that he does not do so in 5:18. But in looking at 5:18 again, your view is problematic because not only does John say that Jesus broke the Sabbath (which you say is simply the Pharisees view and something John would not agree with) but he also said that Jesus claimed that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. I'm quite sure John would agree with this "accusation" of the Pharisees, so in the same verse (5:18) your assertion that John "in no other place, anywhere" agrees with the Pharisees is shown to be false.

Jesus accuses the Pharisees of sin and blindness, that would be hard for Jesus to do if they were ‘correct’ in their accusations of Jesus’ breaking the Law (Sabbath).

As was pointed out from John 5:18, taking your view, the Pharisees were incorrect in their accusation that Jesus broke the Sabbath but were "correct" in their accusation that Jesus made Himself equal with God (something I assume you acknowledge). This shows that the Pharisees were not always blind and that Jesus' accusations do not lose any of their force just because the Pharisees occasionally got something right. Your argument here, therefore, is shown to be invalid.

Does John give a detail of the truth about Jesus here (In 5:18) that contradicts everything else we believe about the one who said “Which of you convicts me of sin?”

Although I addressed this in an earlier post, nothing you've stated so far has shown that John was not representing his own thoughts when he wrote that Jesus "not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God." It is your refusal, in my opinion, to understand that Jesus, because of His special person, could break the Sabbath and yet, not sin, that is the problem here.

I always considered Jesus 'kept' 'His interpretation' of the Sabbath, not the rabbinical interpretation. Therefore He did not break the Sabbath.

I always considered that Jesus, being Lord of the Sabbath, could do on it whatever He deemed appropriate. But this leads to the second area of discussion--what it means for Jesus to be Lord of the Sabbath.

In the same way Jesus answers the Pharisees in Matt 12:5 in response to their eating grain in the field. Jesus said, as John says similarly in John 5:18, that “the Priests break the Sabbath” but even though Jesus ‘says’ they break the Sabbath, they were not ‘really’ breaking the Sabbath because then the very act of keeping the Law of officiating the Sabbath ceremony would be thus broken by keeping it. All Jesus is doing is pointing out their hypocrisy, and lack of understanding, in a very high brow way...

Did the Priests break the Sabbath?
No, because God had ordained their work, they were doing the work of God, not their own work.
In the same way Jesus is saying in John 5:18 that He is doing the work of God, since God also works on the Sabbath, Jesus is therefore asserting His Deity, and just as importantly Jesus is revealing His office of ‘Priest’...

It is not necessary to try and justify 'how Jesus alleged' breaking the Sabbath, because He was not breaking the Sabbath. You don’t need hypothetical situations where it is ok to break the Law, if you are ‘doing’ good...

Doing 'Gods work' was commanded on the Sabbath for the Priests, the work to be performed is known as the Holy Convocation. So the Priests were not breaking the Law (!?)…you are not breaking a command by keeping the command...

Overriding principle? Doing Gods work was ‘commanded’ on the Sabbath for the Priests, the work to be performed was known as the Holy Convocation. So the Priests were not breaking the Law (!?)...

I am not making up 'excuses' as to how Jesus could break the Law, and yet not break the Law. I am asking the question; How did Jesus break the Law? By healing? No, yet that is the Pharisees judgment based on their own 'misjudgment'. Where in the Law is miracuolous healing a labor?

The way I see it, it was Jesus' statement, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working" (vs.17), that caused the Jewish leaders to accuse Jesus of making Himself equal with God. This is directly related to Jesus' breaking of the Sabbath. It was well understood in Jewish circles that it was only within the purview of God Himself to do works on the Sabbath (even healing), something God never ceased from doing. This He did (Sabbath or not) in sustaining the universe and directing it and especially in the giving of life (through birth) and the taking of life (through death). This is what prompted Jesus to continue on in the discourse that immediately followed (vs.19 through the end of the chapter.)

But in Matthew 12, after the Jews had scolded Jesus for allowing His disciples to eat the grain on the Sabbath, it is clear that His intention in the conversation which followed was not to correct the Pharisee's mistaken, hypocritical notions about Sabbath keeping (something that you have continuously stressed), but to correct them on their mistaken notions about Himself. If He had wanted to correct their hypocritical religious observances, we already have an example, in Mark 7, where He did just that.

First of all, back in Matthew, Jesus points out a number of examples where the strict keeping of religious ceremony had been supplanted, without occasion for sin, for various reasons. The danger from starvation in the account of David overruled the strict observance of the priestly bread rules; the fact that the priests profaned the Sabbath in their Temple ministrations and were considered not guilty because God had consecrated the Temple with it's various accoutrements, making the Sabbath command to do no work moot, in their case. But at vs. 6 is where Jesus directs His argument towards Himself. "Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple." Consider for a moment what Jesus was saying. The reason the priests were not guilty of Sabbath breaking, though they constantly worked on the Sabbath, was because of the consecration that was afforded them by their service in the Temple. This is what gives force to Jesus' words. If the priests were held guiltless because of their mere association with the Temple what are the implications for the "One" who was greater than the Temple? Jesus is here correcting the Jews mistaken ideas about Himself. He is Lord of the Sabbath. The typological emblems of the Temple and the Sabbath were in the very person of Christ--the antitype--being fulfilled.

How does the statement, "the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath" in anyway address the hypocritical way in which the Pharisees observed the Sabbath? It doesn't. But it does address who Jesus is, and forcefully answers His critic's complaints and this is exactly what Jesus pointed out in John 5, only in a different way. He was (and is) equal with God. He can work on the Sabbath or at any other time without facing any recriminations. So Jesus did break the Sabbath while committing no sin. This is what it means to be Lord of the Sabbath. To my mind, this is the only understanding that reconciles within the context of John 5 and Matthew 12.

Another problem I have with your view is when you quote Jesus as saying that the priests profane the Sabbath but then add that "they didn't really prophane the Sabbath". I think I'll take Jesus' word for that. My view has no problem reconciling that statement of Jesus.

Perhaps more importantly (regarding your second question), when Jesus commanded this man whom He had healed to "take up [his] bed and walk", He was instrumental in causing the man to violate the restrictions of Sabbath observance to "bear no burden". There isn't any question of this act being a violation of the Sabbath. Does this mean that Jesus or the man sinned? No. Why? Because Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath!

I'm not sure if you had noticed this comment but I'd like to see you address it, if and when you have time. Thanks.

l2j

[jriccitelli]

"When Jesus commanded this man whom He had healed to "take up his bed and walk", He was instrumental in causing the man to violate the restrictions of Sabbath observance to "bear no burden". There isn't any question of this act being a violation of the Sabbath. Does this mean that Jesus or the man sinned?

It is the Jews own blindness that would consider this a violation of the Sabbath. Is it a burden to carry a handkerchief on the Sabbath? The Law refers to labour, not a cripple carrying his mat home, come on. This nitpicking is what Jesus addressed; "I desire mercy and not sacrifice" and this is not opposed to the Law.

Many of your references are still purely narrative and reporting of events as they were 'observed'. (1:28, 38, 39, 41, 42, 2:9, 11, 4:2, 8, 9, 44, 54... 5:16 etc.) Such as; they went , they said, it was about the third hour, etc.
The other instances involve;
Prophecy. (About 5) Such as 2:17, 21
Judas. (About 4) 6:71
The “His hour had not come” notations. (About 4) 7:30, 39, 8:20,
Jesus thoughts at the time. (About 4) 2:24, 25, 6:6, 64
(These are things that they did not understand at the time, and or that the reader could not have known from the text, such as 8:27, 10:6, 12:6 clearly point out)
And some seem to be commentary as 7:39, but like the others these comments are added in because it is not observable from the scene, as opposed to the obvious conclusions of the Pharisees in 5:18 which can be observed.
Still most all the above are from teachings of Jesus and noted in other places also, such as 12:43.

None of the above things apply to John 5:18, if it is Johns commentary, and not narrative.
And I will list the reasons for each of your references, later, since you are correct it is pivotal upon this one verse in John 5:18.

It is clear to the observer that Jesus was making Himself out to be God, and that he was 'healing' on the sabbath, but as to what 'the Pharisees' were accusing Him of; breaking the Sabbath, it is not clear from 'our' reasoning or perspective that Jesus actually was breaking the Sabbath. That really is a technical judgment that Jesus does not confirm Himself (Where Jesus does confirm His claim to Deity numerous times and places), and we, or John, would probably rather not assume we should make a judgment on such since it is a technical matter of the Law and neither the observer or John would (Or should) make since we are not Levitical judges, the Pharisees on the other hand did assume this role for themselves, and indeed some of them probably were Levites.

All the Gospels are most completely historical narrative, although it is rare in the Gospels for a writer to insert his own thoughts (As Paul writes; not I but the Lord says…), personal observation, evaluation, and judgments are important to identify and separate from revelation (As in John 1:1-19). What I mean by 'the writers own thoughts' would be something that is added it seems for clarification, something that was not apparent to the reader in the historical narrative being recorded (Or just an insight that somehow fits the context).

Since the Gospel writers and Apostles do not speak as though they are Prophets, rather they speak as witnesses that knew Jesus, instead of 'thus saith the Lord'. And (In the Gospel accounts) when they insert revelation knowledge it is generally backed up with a qualifier i.e. a reference verse for prophecy or a note as having heard Jesus teach it.

Most of the writers personal insights recorded in the Gospels can be concluded to have been something that Jesus had taught them in another place, and yet inserted in another to add light, and this is most always the case. You can find most all the insights, even the revelation knowledge, coming from other places or times during Jesus walk with the Disciples.

I see this verse in 5:18 to be like most everything else around it; a record of the narrative being said by Jesus and others in the scene.
You are suggesting that John is inserting a comment to clarify the situation, when normally John only does this to clarify something that is not readily apparent to those observing the situation or reading the record of the scene, such as a fulfillment of prophecy. This situation calls for none of the above qualifications, and would be an insertion of a teaching (Or comment) about Jesus not found anywhere else, nor do you read anywhere else of Jesus sitting down the Disciples and teaching them something like this.

The assertion that being Lord of the Sabbath ‘means’ not having to keep the Law of the Sabbath, is something we are imagining for ourselves and imposing upon this statement of Jesus. Anything we say in defining what Jesus meant by saying I am Lord of the Sabbath would have to be conjecture since nowhere is the term readily defined, unfortunately.
I cannot see how such a statement automatically assures us that Jesus can break the Law He has given us, thus destroying all sense of His fulfilling the Law, (And not being a hypocrite, not observing the Law, etc) it seems to me it is more likely Jesus is saying He has authority to make Judgments on the Law, as the Law giver Himself. (Not as is being suggested, that He can break the Law).
This is not only a reference to His Deity, but also his being The Judge of all things, just as He is revealing His Priesthood in working on the Sabbath, Jesus is also revealing His status of being Judge (As He will of Shepherd, Savior, etc.).
This assertion of authority is well attested to throughout the Gospels, especially John, and a foundation for almost all His teachings. That is; that He had Authority.

Jesus being above the Law, breaking the Law, disregarding the law is not a theme supported by other scripture, it is an interjection.
Like I said; where are the other verses that tell us plainly that Jesus broke the Law?
And the verses that show from the law that Healing on the Sabbath was illegal?

And note the Pharisees often accused Jesus of having a demon in the same context of their addressing His deity claims, does this mean the Pharisees were correct on this judgment also, as they were as you say, when they accused him of breaking the Sabbath? I appreciate the aggressive study you have done, as it was rewarding for me too, but I do not see any of your arguments as valid, either, but i gotta go now, and address the rest of your references later, still Jesus is our reason, God bless.

[Homer]

Hi JR,

I do not think full consideration has been given to the incident in Matthew 12:1-8. It seems to me the hierarchical understanding of the application of our duties is the only explanation that makes sense. The hierarchical position is that it is not always possible to keep all laws. There are times when obeying one command necessarily requires not keeping (disobeying) another. It is not difficult to find examples of this in the scriptures. One command that doesn't receive much notice is found in Exodus 16:18-19:

Exodus 16:28-29
New King James Version (NKJV)

28. And the LORD said to Moses, “How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws? 29. See! For the LORD has given you the Sabbath; therefore He gives you on the sixth day bread for two days. Let every man remain in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.”

So here we find that the Israelites were not to leave their place at all on the Sabbath. That is, unless they were bound to carry out a higher duty, such as the work of the priests on the Sabbath. Yet at the conquest of Jericho the Israelites were commanded, by the same God, to march around the city each day for seven days, and seven times around on the seventh day, likely the Sabbath! They "broke" the Sabbath law by leaving home to go on a march. The "Lord of the Sabbath commanded them to break the Sabbath!

Matthew 12:1-8
New King James Version (NKJV)

1. At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath.

Here Jesus and His disciples obviously were not staying home on the Sabbath, they were out in the countryside travelling through the grainfields. Jesus' duties to His mission were higher than His duty to the Sabbath; as Lord of the Sabbath He did not sin. He determined what was right (the priority) on the Sabbath.

And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!”

And how is this lawful if it was wrong to go out and pick up some manna on the Sabbath? Only because of the importance of their mission. And Jesus did not make a de minimus defense of their activity:

3. But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: 4. how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?

Jesus made a comparison to David and his men eating the showbread, and Jesus acknowledges that David and his men broke the law when they did so. Jesus' disciples are just as guilty or innocent as David and his men. The case is the same: mercy to the hungry overrides the keeping of the Sabbath command.

5. Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?

And here, in Jesus' own words, He says the priests in their duties profane the Sabbath, yet are innocent. Their duties are higher than their Sabbath keeping duty.

6. Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple. 7. But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8. For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

And mercy, as always, trumps sacrifice in God's hierarchical economy. And, as Lord of the Sabbath, Jesus is perfect in His judgement regarding when the Sabbath may be broken.

We see the hierarchical principle in Isaiah, where certain ceremonial duties are secondary to mercy:

Isaiah 1:10-17
New King James Version (NKJV)

10 Hear the word of the LORD,
You rulers of Sodom;
Give ear to the law of our God,
You people of Gomorrah:
11 “ To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?”
Says the LORD.

“ I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
And the fat of fed cattle.
I do not delight in the blood of bulls,
Or of lambs or goats.
12 “ When you come to appear before Me,
Who has required this from your hand,
To trample My courts?
13 Bring no more futile sacrifices;
Incense is an abomination to Me.
The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies—
I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting.
14 Your New Moons and your appointed feasts
My soul hates;
They are a trouble to Me,
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands,
I will hide My eyes from you;
Even though you make many prayers,
I will not hear.
Your hands are full of blood.
16 “ Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean;
Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes.
Cease to do evil,
17 Learn to do good;
Seek justice,
Rebuke the oppressor;
Defend the fatherless,
Plead for the widow.

[jriccitelli]

I think the wrong view is the Hypercritical view that is; Being ridiculous in our interpretation of the Sabbath.
Obviously thats what is addressed by Jesus when you read the Gospels. Jesus attacks these ridiculous notions throughout His dealings with the Jewish leaders.

Nothing seems to indicate from scripture that the Jews interpreted 'Staying in ones place' as not being able to leave ones home, because no where in the old or new do I find someone being chastised for leaving their house. They were all in the Synagogues and Temple on the Sabbaths, that’s clear. If it was wrong why wasn't it addressed earlier in the Old Testament?
It doesn't mean taking a 'Hierarchical view' (?) it means not having an unnecessary extreme interpretation of the Law.

Still none of this was missed by God when he gave the Law, God knows you have to leave your house, and that people worked in the Temple, this was not a surprise to God. God is severe, and His strictness incredible, but not ridiculous. He gave the law of the Sabbath for people to serve Him in appreciation, without being burdened, unnecessarily, and not to go about our own business, our own works, that we should have already accomplished, as He did.

[jriccitelli]

I will post my notes and thoughts on your references (although I am still looking at them).
I will grant you that; translations of words, prophecy, Jesus thoughts, and inside observations (i.e. His time had not come) are additions to the ‘observations’ you would get from the context. Yet, they all seem to me to be ‘historical information’ (not personal commentary) that are all based on good reporting, a ‘witness’ of the events as in a news report. So I still consider Johns Gospel as almost purely a ‘report of events’, and not commentary.
And I would say a judgment on the Law in 5:18, could not be Johns own comment because he is not qualified to make such a judgment (Especially concerning the Son of God). I am sure John would report such if he had heard such from a court, or Jesus Himself, but I do not see such a court or teaching anywhere else.

I consider Johns notes on prophetic fulfilment as being included as ‘historical reference’ as in John 1:23 “He said, "I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way of the Lord,' as Isaiah the prophet said."
I think John includes these as references, and not commentary.

My notes so far have ‘r’ for simply ‘reporting’ and ‘p’ for prophecy.
1:28, historical reporting, ‘r’
38, translation of a word? r
39, he said r
41, transl of word?
42; transl of word
2:9, narrative r
11, reporting r
17, His disciples remembered, Prophecy ‘p’
21-22, “ p
24-25; Jesus thoughts (known to disciples) r
3:24; historical observation r
4:2, educated observation
8, r
9, local fact r
44, Jesus saying
54; r
5:2-3a, historical info r
16, r
18; r
6:6, Jesus thoughts (known to disciples) r
59, n
64, Jt j
71; j
7:5, r Familiar observation
30, hour
39; com
8:6, r
20, r hour
27; Maybe commentary...?
9:14, r
22; r
10:6; r Jesus explains in next verse
11:2, r
51-52; p
12:6, judas
16, p
33, p
37-43; p ot
13:1-3, comment / onhour
11; p judas reason
18:2, firsthand knowledge, reporting
9, p
14, p r
32; p
19:24, p
28, p
31, narrative r
35-37; eyewitness account of death, and p
20:9, p
30-31; Is not a commentary on Jesus but an
21:12, reason, from being disciple
14, r
19, p
23-25 p com

[jriccitelli]

Reporting of events would not include, in my opinion, a technical judgment on a law.
Nor a personal opinion, or a religious, political, or philosophical viewpoint, but a report; a witness of an event would include all details that may be applicable without being biased towards one view or another. This seems to be the style that John, Matthew, Mark and Luke write in for the main body of their Gospel material. Personal religious biases are left to the side for the most part in the main body of writings. As far as John 5:18 is concerned; making a final call on a judicial matter would generally be left to a judge and court, if John heard Jesus make this judgment on His own actions of healing, and said to them 'I have broken the Sabbath, for whatever reasons', then John could presume to write inequitably that Jesus broke the Sabbath by healing. But we have no evidence of Jesus ever teaching that He could break the Sabbath, or the Law, in fact we have everything to the contrary, that is that He kept the Law.

This is the concept of a witness, a testimony, it is simply an unbiased account of the event without personal slant or judgments, and then after hearing, 'the listener' makes the judgments for themselves, to take it or leave it.
John is the greatest example of this, he was not only the closest with Jesus (Even to know Jesus thoughts on some things) but John used the words witness and testimony (Martyr) more than any other biblical writer. It is a writing style based centrally on reporting the facts, and true witnessing is revered in its best form to be free of judgment.

If a good reporter, of any time, includes his own judgments it would taint the whole report, commentary can be added at the beginning or end.
Note how John starts His Report, of John the Baptist, in John 1:19;
"This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?"
Note the use of the word witness, testimony, beheld;
“He came as a witness, to testify about the Light” (1:7) “and we beheld His glory” (1:14) “John testified about Him and cried out” (1:15) John testified saying, "I have seen the Spirit descending… (1:32) "I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God." (1:34)

And note the same style of writting in 1 John 1:1;
“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life… we have seen and testify... 3 what we have seen and heard… 5 This is the message we have heard from Him”

'If' this conclusion that 'Jesus was breaking the Law' was revealed to John by a court, or judge, or maybe by Jesus, I would accept it. But, I do not read anywhere of any such statement in the Bible.
And again the writer John notes in his 1st epistle that we should act as Jesus acts, do what Jesus did, and to do otherwise is ‘lawlessness’, and not in a good way.
"And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.5 You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin" (1John 3:4-5)

[look2jesus]

jriccitelli,

The Gospel of John is John's witness to the ministry of Jesus, I agree. Apparently, it was written long after the events that John wrote about. When I mentioned "parenthetical statements" and "explanatory commentary" I meant exactly what you described as, "translations of words, prophecy, Jesus thoughts, and inside observations…additions to the ‘observations’ you would get from the context…‘historical information’ (not personal commentary) that are all based on good reporting, a ‘witness’ of the events as in a news report." I didn't, at all, mean John's personal opinions. I consider what John wrote as factual (true) in every instance. Because John wrote much later than the events recorded, I believe he was able to fill in some of the gaps that would not have been immediately obvious (to him or others), and you can see this phenomenon in many places. As an Apostle, I also believe that he received, through various means (some natural, some supernatural), knowledge of events that were not available to the average person. But the main thing to note is that when John makes a statement, it is a fact and not opinion. Unless, of course, he is telling us that it is opinion, for example, when he supposes how many books could possibly be written about the works of Jesus.

This brings me back to our disagreement regarding John 5:18. First of all, I will show three examples where Jesus makes inflammatory statements or performs inflammatory actions and John immediately adds, for the reader's benefit, almost as a parenthesis, explanatory information that he was privy to in a way in which a pattern can be seen and which, I would argue, supports my claim.

John 7:28-30

Then Jesus cried out, as He taught in the temple, saying, "You both know Me, and you know where I am from; and I have not come of Myself, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know. But I know Him, for I am from Him, and He sent Me."

(Therefore they sought to take Him; but no one laid a hand on Him, because His hour had not yet come.)

The added information here reveals the actual intent of the Jews, and facts related to those intentions. Especially note the "therefore" and the "because" statements. The "therefore" has to do with their intentions (the 'unseen' motivations of their hearts). The "because" is John's statement of fact related to it.

John 5:14-16

Afterward Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, "See, you have been made well. Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you." The man departed and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well.

(For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath.)

The added information here, once again, reveals the intent of the Jews and includes facts related to their intentions. The "therefore" (in this case "For this reason") again, has to do with intentions (which are not always visible, or certain to us) and the "because" is John's statement of fact related to it.

John 5:17-18

But Jesus answered them, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working."

(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.)

Again, the added information reveals the intentions of the Jews and additional facts related to those intentions. The "therefore", once again, speaks to the Jews inward motivations. The "because", once again, is John's statement of fact related to their intentions.

In both the "therefore" statements and the "because" statements John is stating factual information, but whereas in the "therefore" statements the facts can be (and are) influenced by hypocrisy, jealousy, misunderstanding, and emotional subjectivity--being strictly related to the nature of the subjects of the statements, i.e., the Jewish leaders--the "because" statements do not suffer from these influences, strictly belonging to John himself. And specifically, in John 5:18, if John instead had said something like, "because not only had they accused Him of breaking the Sabbath but also understood Him as saying that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God" you would be correct, at least in this case, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. But what John said was "He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

Considering all this, together with the fact that nowhere does Jesus defend Himself against these accusations, except to claim that He is Lord of the Sabbath; that He is greater than the Temple; that as God's equal He has every right to work on the Sabbath just as His Father does; and to point out the Jewish leader's hypocrisy (which, by the way, in no way demonstrates His own innocence in the matter), together with the fact that Jesus not only did not deny working on the Sabbath but positively affirmed it, and that He demonstrated that profaning the Sabbath (as in the case of the priests) did not equate automatically with breaking God's Law or the Law of Moses, i.e., committing sin--I have to conclude that you are simply mistaken in this area and that no amount of reasoning with you, on my part, will be able to persuade you differently, notwithstanding any of the arguments that you have, thus far, put forth. I hope you don't take this last statement as any kind of a slight on you, it's just that I've exhausted all of my arguments on this matter, and as reasonable as they seem to me, they're just not convincing enough, I suppose. But I do love all my brothers and sisters in Christ, recognizing that I fall short in my own understanding many times, I'm sure. So, God bless you brother.

l2j