Limewater wrote:So where is work defined? Where in scripture can you show me that feeding yourself violates the letter of the law here? More clearly, can you show the distinction in the law between pulling food from a plan versus pulling food from a dish?
You're right, Christ does say in that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. Can you show me where Christ violated the letter of the law by healing someone on the sabbath? It's pretty clear that many people considered him to be violating the law, but I don't see a purely scriptural justification for that.
That's the very issue of placing the letter of the law over the intent. If the law says "do no work" and doesn't define work, we're left only to go with the common definition. In this case, the general idea that "work" is any expenditure of effort in order to get something done was the same for the Pharisees as the English word "work" is generally used by people today. It's not insignificant that Jesus
does not refute this concept of what constitutes work. Instead, he illustrates instances where work is justified even on the Sabbath, and cites other laws as having more weight than the command to "do no work."
One could make a better argument against the "spirit of the law" interpretation based on Jesus' prioritizing of some laws above others than by arguing the definition of work. Even then, this requires some reading between the lines, since apart from the examples cited by Jesus, we aren't given priority levels for every commandment. Some thought and common sense is required, and I think that's partly the point of these stories.
In any case, the point is that feeding yourself or doing good toward others
does not violate the law--if one considers the context and uses some sense. That's the difference between doing what the law says from a completely literal reading, and doing what the law is obviously supposed to actually mean.
