Jesus did not break the Sabbath commandment

To establish if Jesus broke the Sabbath, we must establish the following 4 facts: 1. What did Jesus do? 2. What did the Sabbath law state? 3. Who had the authority to define the Sabbath law and to execute judgement? 4. Did Jesus give a valid defense? Issue 1: What did Jesus do? According to Matthew, Jesus, on the Sabbath, plucked "corn": "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." (Matthew 12:1) The Greek word used is stachys which means "an ear of corn or of growing grain" (Strong's Concordance, G4719) So it is clear that Jesus plucked a type of plant. Issue 2. What did the Sabbath law state? The law is as follows: "But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:" (Exodus 20:10) In Numbers, a man was killed to plucking "sticks", as it constituted "work". "And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp." (Numbers 15:32-35) A "stick", in Hebrew, is an ets which is defined as "tree, wood, timber, stock, plank, stalk, stick, gallows". (Strong's Concordance H6086). The question then is whether an ets ("stick") can be considered a stachys ("ear of corn"). The Pro will no doubt argue that a stick isn't an ear of corn, and this is true in terms of English, but corn and wheat both have stalks: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... However, neither I nor the Pro have any Biblical authority whatsoever to interpret the Torah. The best we can do is define the words properly, and that is it. Yet the Torah does tell us who indeed can and must interpret it, and it tells us clearly how binding their decision is. Which brings me to my next point: Issue 3. Who had the authority to define the Sabbath law and to execute judgement? In Deuteronomy we read: "If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose; and thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously." (Deuteronomy 17:8-13) In this passage, we find the following: a. Controversies of interpreting the Torah are to be taken to the priests and the judges (shas). (Deuteronomy 17:7-9) b. Their ruling is absolutely binding. (Deuteronomy 17:10-11) c. If anyone does not follow their ruling, they are to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 17:12) Jesus himself acknowledges that the priests and judges of his time, although hypocrites, had the authority to interpret and enforce the written Torah. "Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." (Matthews 23:1-3) Therefore, if the priests and judges of Israel determine that an ear of corn or wheat ( stachys ) is defined as an ets , and if they define plucking them as "work", then according to God himself, Jesus must have broke the Sabbath. As you will note, in the account of Numbers, Moses makes the decision of interpreting the Torah. If Moses is absent, then the Levites and Judges take his seat, according to Deuteronomy 17:8-13. Jesus makes clear that the Pharisees, at the very least, qualify as judges, saying that "whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do". Thus, if they bid you observe not to pluck stachys on the Sabbath, you must do it, or perish. He tells the people "whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do", but if he does not also follow his commands to others, he is as hypocritcal as they are. Tell me, Pro, if this is not the truth. Answer it clearly, decisively, without chickening out or waffling. Therefore, the priests and judges decide what ets means. If they say stachys qualifies as an ets , the Tanakh gives them that authority --- and, if the Tanakh is inspired by God, God gives them that authority. In summation, Jesus disobeyed the Judges of Israel and was openly rebellious to the authority that God gave them. Therefore, since Jesus violated the commands of the Pharisaic priests and judges of his day --- an authority which, once established, is never annulled by any passage in the Torah itself, no matter how "hypocritical" a peasant may judge them --- Jesus deserved death by stoning. Issue 4. Did Jesus give a valid defense? Now, let us look at Jesus' defence: "But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 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? 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? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day." (Matthew 12:3-8) I will refute these point by point: a. If David's eating of the shewbread broke the Torah, then by referring to David's eating of the shewbread as an example, Jesus is using a Torah-breaker (albeit an admired one) to justify his own breaking of the Torah, and thereby admitting he broke the Torah. (1 Samuel 21:1-5) But according to the Torah, even if King David breaks the Torah, it does not make breaking the Torah a right thing for anyone to do. In fact, David more grievously broke the Torah in the story of Uriah the Hittite, and the child that was born of his iniquity was murdered by God. (2 Samuel 11-12) To use David to justify his Torah breaking shows the fallibility of Jesus, for David is by no means an example of a man who always kept the Torah. b. Jesus then argues that since the priests work in the Temple on the Sabbath day, they thereby profane it. However, if the priests (Levites) themselves are the judges of what is and is not lawful to do on the Sabbath day, they cannot possibly profane it. Jesus demonstrates his lack of knowledge of Israelite jurisprudence when it comes to the issue of lawful legal authority. But, again, he is using an example of the priests "profaning" or "desecrating" (bebeloo, G953 Strong's Concordance), Jesus is admitting that he is "profaning" and "desecrating" the Sabbath. NOTE THAT JESUS NOWHERE ARGUES IN THIS PASSAGE THAT STACHYS IS NOT AN ETS, NOR DOES HE ARGUE THAT PLUCKING THEM IS NOT WORK. He merely justifies them by David's lawlessness and the supposed lawlessness of the Sabbath-profaning priests (who, according to God, have the authority to decide what is "work" or not in the Torah). c. Jesus then claims its all good because he's all God. However, God is neither a man nor the Son of Man, as clearly expressed in the Torah itself: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man (Ben 'Adam), that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" (Numbers 23:19) Thus if God is not a Ben 'Adam, and Jesus says Ben 'Adam is the Lord of the Sabbath, Jesus is directly contradicting the Bible which says the one who is not a man (iysh) nor the Son of Man (Ben 'Adam) is LORD OF ALL: "The LORD hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all." (Psalms 103:19) "For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:" (Deuteronomy 10:17) "For the LORD most high is terrible; he is a great King over all the earth." (Psalms 47:2) If the Lord's kingdom "ruleth over all", and if the Sabbath is part of "all" (which it must be), then the Lord, who is not the Son of Man, is alone Lord of the Sabbath, refuting Jesus entirely. Chapter 5. Conclusion I have numbered all my rebuttals by number, and listed by letter important sub points. I ask that the Pro follow this format in his rebuttals, so as not to gloss over anything. If the Pro does not address a point, it can be safely assumed that his argument is insufficient. In order to counter my rebuttals, the Pro has 3 tasks: a. To show, via the Torah itself, that the priests and judges of Jesus' time had no authority to interpret or execute the laws of the Torah b. To harmonize this lack of authority with Jesus' clear statement to his followers to do everything they said --- albeit without their own hypocrisy c. That Jesus' arguments in any way imply that he didn't actually break the Sabbath If the Pro cannot do this, he has failed.