**
The Sanhedrin did not follow their typical practice in the trial(s) of Jesus, yes. There have been several outstanding books and pamphlets written to illustrate where typical practice was abrogated to rush the death of the Messiah. Fortunately as was recorded, it was also expedient to kill one to save the nation.
There is far too much that the Sanhedrin had to abrogate, in broad daylight, in the public, when the Temple was filled to capacity (perhaps it was only more full on Yom Kippur) than even makes sense. I'm far more willing to believe that the trial and the subsequent crucifixion never actually happened, and if it DID, then it certainly didn't happen the way it was depicted in any of the four gospels.
I agree there is much in the Hebrew text that can only be deciphered with gematria.
Um, no. Nothing is "deciphered" by Gematria, but points of interest. Most of what is deciphered comes from words that seem irrelevant, words that are missing, words that are repeated... And stories and commandments that have Oral Tradition about them, hence in the Gemara.
We know most Christians take both texts at face value only without looking for hints, codes, allusions, midrash, etc. I'm saying the very wondrous raptures of heaven will open to you when you apply good practices on both the OT and NT texts.
Interesting.
Yes, the Pharisees who had been teaching the law as well as adding to the law for a while disagreed with Jesus. As I wrote, most of their disagreements had nothing to do with the law but with their additions--such as when they challenged Him as to why His talmidim ate before washing their hands. There is no such hand washing in the 613.
You are right, but there is a time, a place, and an appropriate fashion to deal with everything. Yes, the Rabbis made it a new tradition. It was in support of what the Cohanim had to do when they ate bread that DID require washing. Further, more explanation on the how and why it was a good idea is a conversation for another time.
Further, it wasn't created in order to complicate the lives of the Jews, as is often depicted by Jesus' "conflicts" with the Rabbis. However, the Rabbis were given permission BY GOD to introduce such things (in Deuteronomy, not in that precise moment), as long as they didn't change the actual law. Adding a ceremonial washing of hands before eating bread was logical. (Again, for another time.)
In that story, Jesus' objection simply refuted the authority that they had to make such a ruling. There is a right way to do things, and there is a wrong way to do things. The way that Jesus answered them... is a model for the WRONG way to go about arguing with the Rabbis.
Jesus answered them from a portion with David taking the show bread during a time of need--that is, He answered them from the Hebrew texts (as always) to reprove them for adding inappropriate Talmudic practice...
Again, right way, wrong way. Further, there is the way to participate in an argument.
That precise argument happened after Jesus' disciples picked grain on Shabbat. This prohibition wasn't invented by the Rabbis. (Perhaps a prohibition against touching the sickle might have been, but the actual picking of grain is forbidden in the Laws of Shabbat, as described in Mesechet Shabbat.) The right way to argue would have been to explain a) they had a valid reason for going against the law. For example, they were starving, and no one would lend a hand or a place at their table. That would have been a much BIGGER problem, and a mark against the community. Or, b) an explanation for why what they were doing was NOT going against the law.
Instead, Jesus threw up a strawman. Different prohibitions have different reasons, and different conditions for setting them aside if necessary. For a non-Cohen to eat the Shewbread because he was running for his life and the Cohanim present didn't have a different food source has NOTHING to do with the laws of Shabbat.
Being in a field on Shabbat means several things. 1) The group (ie. Jesus and his disciples) were apart from the community on Shabbat. Why? It is common, on Shabbat, for people to bring guests home for a meal. Were they so worried that the entire community they were closest to (including whoever owned the field) were so against them that they couldn't be bothered to inquire?
2) Just about any law concerning Shabbat can be broken in order to save a life. If the students were that desperate, why didn't Jesus simply say so?
Instead, it was clear (at least, from the text) that Jesus was simply refuting the authority of the Rabbis, rather than actively engaging in a meaningful discussion.
