Why I keep the Sabbath FYI.

[Magenta]

My dear Sister in Christ, do you really think that Jesus would contravene His own law? That would make Him a sinner just like the rest of us... think carefully about what you are saying. He was breaking the Talmud not the Torah He was perfect that is why He could die on the cross for our sins

I have already corrected your misconception of what I am saying. Do I really need to say more? I am not accusing Him of breaking the Sabbath. I said He was accused of breaking the Sabbath by legalists. They considered what He was doing to be against the law. I even gave a Scripture to show what I was talking about. Think carefully of what you are saying...

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

I have already corrected your misconception of what I am saying. Do I really need to say more? I am not accusing Him of breaking the Sabbath. I said He was accused of breaking the Sabbath by legalists. They considered what He was doing to be against the law. I even gave a Scripture to show what I was talking about. Think carefully of what you are saying...

I am glad that we agree on this

God bless

 

[P1LGR1M]

Absolutely. And the Levites did double the work on the Sabbath too. There is a difference between "working" and ministering.

I know I "work" about twice as hard at our Sabbath services as anything I do during the week.

Could you explain what the Lord means when He states...



Matthew 12

King James Version (KJV)
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.

[SUP]2 [/SUP]But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

[SUP]3 [/SUP]But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

[SUP]4 [/SUP]How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

[SUP]5 [/SUP]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?

[SUP]6 [/SUP]But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.

[SUP]7 [/SUP]But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

[SUP]8 [/SUP]For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.


Is the Lord saying the priests profaned the Sabbath or not?

What is the meaning for "I will have mercy and not sacrifice" in the context it is given, meaning, a direct address of the priests profaning the Sabbath?


God bless.

 

[Mantvydas]

It interesting that Paul wrote in second chapter in Colossians 16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

 

[TheAristocat]

Could you explain what the Lord means when He states...



Matthew 12

King James Version (KJV)
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.

[SUP]2 [/SUP]But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

[SUP]3 [/SUP]But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

[SUP]4 [/SUP]How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

[SUP]5 [/SUP]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?

[SUP]6 [/SUP]But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.

[SUP]7 [/SUP]But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

[SUP]8 [/SUP]For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.


Is the Lord saying the priests profaned the Sabbath or not?

What is the meaning for "I will have mercy and not sacrifice" in the context it is given, meaning, a direct address of the priests profaning the Sabbath?


God bless.

Let's understand a few things about the context of the passage in your post:

1. God ordered a common person executed for profaning the Sabbath.
2. In this very same age priests were obligated to carry on with their priestly duties during the Sabbath. And they went unpunished.
3. If the eighth day of a newborn male's life occurred on the Sabbath, then that newborn was to be circumcised on the Sabbath. And this was completely lawful. Jesus even said so.
4. Jesus was born "under the law".
5. Jesus could not disobey the Sabbath and still be considered guiltless.
6. Jesus seems here to refer to his disciples as being guiltless. Guiltless of what? Certainly they weren't guiltless of everything! What's the context then? Guiltless of breaking the Sabbath is the answer.
7. Profane means "to make something common".

In light of all of this, I suggest that the priests could lawfully profane (i.e. turn into a common day) the Sabbath, because their duties were anything but common. Their duties were holy duties, and they could still take place on a holy day.

In regard to the showbread, it was to be placed before God always. And I've read the story in the Old Testament that depicts the eating of it by David and his men. Here it is:

1 Samuel 21:6 So the priest gave him holy bread; for there was no bread there but the showbread which had been taken from before the Lord, in order to put hot bread in its place on the day when it was taken away.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that passage says that there was still showbread placed before God. The showbread that David and his men got was the old showbread that had already been taken away. I don't see any laws being broken here, but then again I'm no expert on God's Law. Maybe there is some law in the Old Testament that talks about the old showbread being reserved only for the priests and nobody else being allowed to eat it. But I haven't found it.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Let's understand a few things about the context of the passage in your post:

1. God ordered a common person executed for profaning the Sabbath.
2. In this very same age priests were obligated to carry on with their priestly duties during the Sabbath. And they went unpunished.
3. If the eighth day of a newborn male's life occurred on the Sabbath, then that newborn was to be circumcised on the Sabbath. And this was completely lawful. Jesus even said so.
4. Jesus was born "under the law".
5. Jesus could not disobey the Sabbath and still be considered guiltless.
6. Jesus seems here to refer to his disciples as being guiltless. Guiltless of what? Certainly they weren't guiltless of everything! What's the context then? Guiltless of breaking the Sabbath is the answer.
7. Profane means "to make something common".

First, you have not really answered the questions posed.

Secondly, could you show me where you derive the definition for profane that you give here which you base your reasoning on?

In light of all of this, I suggest that the priests could lawfully profane (i.e. turn into a common day) the Sabbath, because their duties were anything but common. Their duties were holy duties, and they could still take place on a holy day.

Lawful profaning, that is a new concept for me.

Please answer the questions. Both work together.

In regard to the showbread, it was to be placed before God always. And I've read the story in the Old Testament that depicts the eating of it by David and his men. Here it is:

1 Samuel 21:6 So the priest gave him holy bread; for there was no bread there but the showbread which had been taken from before the Lord, in order to put hot bread in its place on the day when it was taken away.

This is actually in the quote I gave, lol.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that passage says that there was still showbread placed before God. The showbread that David and his men got was the old showbread that had already been taken away. I don't see any laws being broken here, but then again I'm no expert on God's Law. Maybe there is some law in the Old Testament that talks about the old showbread being reserved only for the priests and nobody else being allowed to eat it. But I haven't found it.

Okay...you are wrong.

I don't see any laws being broken here

Christ did, and pointed it out:


Matthew 12

King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]4 [/SUP]How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?


Now back up and try to address the questions again, please.


God bless.

 

[TheAristocat]

This will be my last response.

First, you have not really answered the questions posed.

Secondly, could you show me where you derive the definition for profane that you give here which you base your reasoning on?

Certainly you've heard of profane used to describe things other than that which is evil? The word (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G953&t=KJV) used for profane in the Greek meant profane or desecrate.

But that doesn't really tell us anything since we're trying to understand what profane means. So I looked up the root word for this Greek word (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G952&t=KJV) to see how it evolved, and that root word meant: accessible, lawful to be trodden (of places), profane, unhallowed, common, public place. And then it goes on to describe when that word is used of people instead of things, and that's when it becomes ungodly. But the Sabbath is not a person. It is a thing. So this would likely fall under one of the definitions of being rendered common or unhallowed. But certainly you wouldn't argue that unhallowed would be a good definition? The priests' duties were holy, because they were given by a holy God. How could they render the Sabbath unhallowed by performing holy duties on it? Was Jesus' healing on the Sabbath unholy?

So in short, I have seen the word profane used in English to mean something that is common or ordinary. You can find this usage in poetry or prose. And you can find this definition for the word in a dictionary. I'm sure you can use a dictionary as well as I can. Look it up for yourself. I did. Also, the priests cannot profane the Sabbath in an unholy way by performing their sacred duties (demanded by a holy God) on the Sabbath. So what is the logical conclusion? The one I've already given: that is, the Sabbath is a common or profane day to them, because they have an uncommon, sacred calling.

Christ did, and pointed it out:

I believe you missed my point. I was saying that there was no law of God's Law broken, because I found no law in the Old Testament that would prevent the priests from giving the showbread to David and his men. In fact if you read the entire chapter, you see that the priest only gives this holy bread to David and his men after he makes sure that they have abstained from sex and are therefore ceremonially clean. So there was no Old Testament law broken in this act. Or at least I'm not able to find one. Maybe there was a law of Man's broken. But that is irrelevant to Jesus' holy character and the holy nature of the Sabbath.

 

[P1LGR1M]

This will be my last response.



Certainly you've heard of profane used to describe things other than that which is evil? The word (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G953&t=KJV) used for profane in the Greek meant profane or desecrate.

But that doesn't really tell us anything since we're trying to understand what profane means. So I looked up the root word for this Greek word (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G952&t=KJV) to see how it evolved, and that root word meant: accessible, lawful to be trodden (of places), profane, unhallowed, common, public place. And then it goes on to describe when that word is used of people instead of things, and that's when it becomes ungodly. But the Sabbath is not a person. It is a thing. So this would likely fall under one of the definitions of being rendered common or unhallowed. But certainly you wouldn't argue that unhallowed would be a good definition? The priests' duties were holy, because they were given by a holy God. How could they render the Sabbath unhallowed by performing holy duties on it? Was Jesus' healing on the Sabbath unholy?

So in short, I have seen the word profane used in English to mean something that is common or ordinary. You can find this usage in poetry or prose. And you can find this definition for the word in a dictionary. I'm sure you can use a dictionary as well as I can. Look it up for yourself. I did. Also, the priests cannot profane the Sabbath in an unholy way by performing their sacred duties (demanded by a holy God) on the Sabbath. So what is the logical conclusion? The one I've already given: that is, the Sabbath is a common or profane day to them, because they have an uncommon, sacred calling.




I believe you missed my point. I was saying that there was no law of God's Law broken, because I found no law in the Old Testament that would prevent the priests from giving the showbread to David and his men. In fact if you read the entire chapter, you see that the priest only gives this holy bread to David and his men after he makes sure that they have abstained from sex and are therefore ceremonially clean. So there was no Old Testament law broken in this act. Or at least I'm not able to find one. Maybe there was a law of Man's broken. But that is irrelevant to Jesus' holy character and the holy nature of the Sabbath.

You still have not addressed the questions.

I was saying that there was no law of God's Law broken, because I found no law in the Old Testament that would prevent the priests from giving the showbread to David and his men

So because you haven't personally been able to find in the Law that the showbread was for the priests only this negates Christ's own statement (which is what you are doing)?

Here it is again:


Matthew 12

King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]4 [/SUP]How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?



Matthew 12

King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]4 [/SUP]How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?



Matthew 12

King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]4 [/SUP]How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

Also, the priests cannot profane the Sabbath in an unholy way by performing their sacred duties (demanded by a holy God) on the Sabbath.

Matthew 12

King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]5 [/SUP]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?



Do you really see your commentary equating to what Christ is stating?


God bless.

 

[KohenMatt]

This will be my last response.



Certainly you've heard of profane used to describe things other than that which is evil? The word (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G953&t=KJV) used for profane in the Greek meant profane or desecrate.

But that doesn't really tell us anything since we're trying to understand what profane means. So I looked up the root word for this Greek word (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G952&t=KJV) to see how it evolved, and that root word meant: accessible, lawful to be trodden (of places), profane, unhallowed, common, public place. And then it goes on to describe when that word is used of people instead of things, and that's when it becomes ungodly. But the Sabbath is not a person. It is a thing. So this would likely fall under one of the definitions of being rendered common or unhallowed. But certainly you wouldn't argue that unhallowed would be a good definition? The priests' duties were holy, because they were given by a holy God. How could they render the Sabbath unhallowed by performing holy duties on it? Was Jesus' healing on the Sabbath unholy?

So in short, I have seen the word profane used in English to mean something that is common or ordinary. You can find this usage in poetry or prose. And you can find this definition for the word in a dictionary. I'm sure you can use a dictionary as well as I can. Look it up for yourself. I did. Also, the priests cannot profane the Sabbath in an unholy way by performing their sacred duties (demanded by a holy God) on the Sabbath. So what is the logical conclusion? The one I've already given: that is, the Sabbath is a common or profane day to them, because they have an uncommon, sacred calling.




I believe you missed my point. I was saying that there was no law of God's Law broken, because I found no law in the Old Testament that would prevent the priests from giving the showbread to David and his men. In fact if you read the entire chapter, you see that the priest only gives this holy bread to David and his men after he makes sure that they have abstained from sex and are therefore ceremonially clean. So there was no Old Testament law broken in this act. Or at least I'm not able to find one. Maybe there was a law of Man's broken. But that is irrelevant to Jesus' holy character and the holy nature of the Sabbath.

Excellent points. Jesus' words and actions here cannot be properly understood without understanding the roles and responsibilities of the Levites. Jesus was not coming against the Law nor His actions against it. He was coming against the Pharisees misunderstanding of it. The Pharisees were focusing on the letter of the Law as opposed to the Spirit.

 

[Magenta]

It interesting that Paul wrote in second chapter in Colossians 16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

That is true. The reality is found in Christ

 

[P1LGR1M]

Excellent points. Jesus' words and actions here cannot be properly understood without understanding the roles and responsibilities of the Levites. Jesus was not coming against the Law nor His actions against it. He was coming against the Pharisees misunderstanding of it. The Pharisees were focusing on the letter of the Law as opposed to the Spirit.

So you agree with the assertions I dealt with in regards to his statements?

Christ is not stating the priests profaned the Sabbath? He is not stating that the Shewbread was for the priests only? That David and those who were with him violated the Law by eating of it?


God bless.

 

[KohenMatt]

That is true. The reality is found in Christ

I'm not sure if you would take this particular stance, but regardless.....

I've heard the argument before that these commands and instructions in the Law are a shadow (which they are), so therefore they are null and void. I disagree in that even though they are shadows that point to a greater reality, the shadow is still real, the reality of a shadow is that it does exist as a physical sign. But the proper priority needs to be understood.

 

[Magenta]

I'm not sure if you would take this particular stance, but regardless.....

I've heard the argument before that these commands and instructions in the Law are a shadow (which they are), so therefore they are null and void. I disagree in that even though they are shadows that point to a greater reality, the shadow is still real, the reality of a shadow is that it does exist as a physical sign. But the proper priority needs to be understood.

I understand that we have been freed from the curse of the law, through the grace we have been gifted from God through faith in Jesus Christ... and as Paul said:

... having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against
us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.

And also as Paul said:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us,
for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole."

For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh,in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

 

[KohenMatt]

I understand that we have been freed from the curse of the law, through the grace we have been gifted from God through faith in Jesus Christ... and as Paul said:

... having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against
us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.

And also as Paul said:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us,
for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole."

For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh,in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

You brought up an EXCELLENT point that get's overlooked so much. The difference between the Law and the CURSE of the Law. He redeemed us from the punishment (curse) that comes from disobedience. But he didn't do away with the Law itself.

 

[Magenta]

You brought up an EXCELLENT point that get's overlooked so much. The difference between the Law and the CURSE of the Law. He redeemed us from the punishment (curse) that comes from disobedience. But he didn't do away with the Law itself.

I agree. The law is still in effect for judging those under the law.

... there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus...

 

[TheAristocat]

Excellent points. Jesus' words and actions here cannot be properly understood without understanding the roles and responsibilities of the Levites. Jesus was not coming against the Law nor His actions against it. He was coming against the Pharisees misunderstanding of it. The Pharisees were focusing on the letter of the Law as opposed to the Spirit.

When I said that I would not respond any more, I meant I would not respond to Mr. Pilgrim. I understand his beliefs are different from mine. I only leave my comments as food for thought and leave it at that.

But thank you, Kohen. Jesus was not coming against the Law nor His actions against it. Correct. My point is that Jesus was correcting the Pharisees' misinterpretation of God's Law and that he was saying that what David did broke the law of Israel - not the Law of God (as seen in the Old Testament).

The law of Israel is something different from the Law of God. The Law of God is found in the first five books of the Bible. The law of Israel was added after. So I believe that neither David nor Jesus broke the letter or the spirit of God's Law. But David probably broke the letter of Israel's law according to the legal principles of 30 CE. However he was around during the time of 1000 BCE and he only had God's Law to go on, and he did not break the letter of that Law. And that's all that matters. Jesus is just correcting the Pharisees' silly notion of God's Law.

If someone wanted to correct me and say that David broke God's Law as outlined in the Old Testament, then they'd need to research the Old Testament and find the law that was broken in order to back up their claim. I simply believe that Jesus is referring to another law as being broken (probably some legal principles of Men that came after Old Testament Law and were built on that Law but were not that Law).

 

[Magenta]

When I said that I would not respond any more, I meant I would not respond to Mr. Pilgrim. I understand his beliefs are different from mine. I only leave my comments as food for thought and leave it at that.

But thank you, Kohen. Jesus was not coming against the Law nor His actions against it. Correct. My point is that Jesus was correcting the Pharisees' misinterpretation of God's Law and that he was saying that what David did broke the law of Israel - not the Law of God (as seen in the Old Testament).

The law of Israel is something different from the Law of God. The Law of God is found in the first five books of the Bible. The law of Israel was added after. So I believe that neither David nor Jesus broke the letter or the spirit of God's Law. But David probably broke the letter of Israel's law according to the legal principles of 30 CE. However he was around during the time of 1000 BCE and he only had God's Law to go on, and he did not break the letter of that Law. And that's all that matters. Jesus is just correcting the Pharisees' silly notion of God's Law.

If someone wanted to correct me and say that David broke God's Law as outlined in the Old Testament, then they'd need to research the Old Testament and find the law that was broken in order to back up their claim. I simply believe that Jesus is referring to another law as being broken (probably some legal principles of Men that came after Old Testament Law and were built on that Law but were not that Law).

David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." Nathan replied,
"The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die."

They are in agreement that David sinned.

 

[TheAristocat]

David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." Nathan replied,
"The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die."

They are in agreement that David sinned.

Yes, Magenta. David did break the Law of God by sleeping with Bathsheba and having Uriah murdered. But I'm not seeing that he broke the Law of God when it came to eating showbread that was offered him by the priests. Before the priests offered David the showbread they even made sure that he was ceremonially clean, because they were still trying to avoid breaking the Law of God.

And if they thought that it would not be breaking God's Law to offer holy bread to David (if they were ceremonially clean), then they probably didn't think it would be breaking God's Law to offer holy bread to David in the first place. I'll give you the summary of the situation:

1. David is hungry.
2. The priests are willing to give David the holy showbread.
3. But the priests want to first confirm that David is ceremonially clean before they give him holy showbread, otherwise they might be breaking the law.
4. David is ceremonially clean.
5. The priests reason that no law is being broken (in terms of the legal principles of 1000 BCE), so they give David the holy showbread. He can eat it.
6. The conclusion? No law was broken according to the legal principles of 1000 BCE. Therefore the breaking of the law that Jesus was speaking of is the breaking of the law that was in place during 30 CE - 1030 years later. Therefore Jesus' commentary was a criticism of the law of Man during 30 CE and not the Law of God during 1000 BCE.

 

[Magenta]

Yes, Magenta. David did break the Law of God by sleeping with Bathsheba and having Uriah murdered. But I'm not seeing that he broke the Law of God when it came to eating showbread that was offered him by the priests. Before the priests offered David the showbread they even made sure that he was ceremonially clean, because they were still trying to avoid breaking the Law of God.

And if they thought that it would not be breaking God's Law to offer holy bread to David (if they were ceremonially clean), then they probably didn't think it would be breaking God's Law to offer holy bread to David in the first place. I'll give you the summary of the situation:

1. David is hungry.
2. The priests are willing to give David the holy showbread.
3. But the priests want to first confirm that David is ceremonially clean before they give him holy showbread, otherwise they might be breaking the law.
4. David is ceremonially clean.
5. The priests reason that no law is being broken (in terms of the legal principles of 1000 BCE), so they give David the holy showbread. He can eat it.

My apologies; I did not read all the previous posts... thank you for clarifying

 

[gotime]

The talk on shew bread is a wonderful example Jesus gives that the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath.

Jesus is here illustrating the difference between the true meaning of the Sabbath law and the legalistic observance of it.

The Jews in the past had broken the Sabbath and had been rebuked by the Prophets as it is written:

Jer 17:21 Thus saith the LORD; Take heed to yourselves, and bear no burden on the sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem;
Jer 17:22 Neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the sabbath day, neither do ye any work, but hallow ye the sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers.


and again:

Neh 13:15 In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine presses on the sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the sabbath day: and I testified against them in the day wherein they sold victuals.

They had been warned and rebuked by God and thus they came back to the Sabbath but had begun to tie traditions to the law of the Sabbath that did not come from God. They would take things like the man who picked up sticks and use that to suggest any sort of labor was wrong on the Sabbath. Same thing none Sabbath keepers try to force on Sabbath keepers. The very same legalistic mind set.

But Jesus reminded them about David how he did break the law of God as the shew bread was only for the priests. and also the priest who worked on the Sabbath yet were guiltless because it was the work of God.

The teachers of the law had reduced the Sabbath to a burden against men. In fact what they are accusing Jesus of here is false because the law allows the picking of grain by the hungry. but according to their legalistic traditions they saw it as working on the Sabbath which it was not.

Jesus says this:

Mat 12:7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

Salvation was the main theme of God and thus also of the Sabbath. Shall we not heal on the Sabbath? or eat if one is starving? Notice Jesus does not do away with the Sabbath but rather says:

Mar 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

It is a gift not a restriction. The teachers of the law made it a restriction a bunch of do's and don'ts. they misused the law to make a yoke of oppression. But then Jesus gives His authority and says:

Mar 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

I made it, and I desire mercy not sacrifice. The pharisees had made the law like some kind of penance act. The Sabbath is not penance it is a gift to man. Thus Jesus said:

Mat 12:12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.

Notice it is "lawful" Jesus is not saying break the Sabbath to do good, he is saying that the 4th commandment always allowed good to be done. So when anyone tries to make the Sabbath a burden just like the pharisees did by misusing examples from the law in order to make the Sabbath a burden then they are committing exactly the same error that the teachers of the law did.

Please remember this the next time you go and say silly things to Sabbath keepers to try prove them wrong by using the law as they falsely did.