Originally Posted by
bigcountry
As usual fork, as most "religious leaders" I notice they go to legalism. Most leaders just can't get away from the law. Christ warned us, Paul warns us, John warns us. I have seen it so many times with "leaders". I don't think it starts that way, but for most it ends that way.
This is by no means a legalism. It goes back to the ancient Greeks and the church dealt with issues like this from the beginning. Obligation to civil authority is acknowledged by Jesus himself in the "render unto ceasar" remark and his acknowledgment that Pilate bears a legitimate authority.
The question is really about knowing when one can disobey a law. There are instances when you can and cannot, and its vital to know the distinctions because if its done incorrectly, it leads to anarchy.
But as Jesus Christ clearly pointed out with the example of David eating the bread in the temple, its about what is in your heart.
Some serious biblical sholarship on this passage would benefit you. "What is in your heart" was not the basis for David's actions, nor for Jesus' acceptance of them. The real basis was the intent and purpose of the precept. That particular injunction was highly restricted in its scope to concerns about proper honor to God in Jewish religious ritual.
It simply isn't the case that this passage auhorizes someone to disobey a legitimate civil law. There's nothing in the passage to suggest that Jesus was giving anyone that kind of authority. There are certainly instances where civil law can be set aside, but this passage doesn't indicate that. The example is really about the role of the old law in the new covenant.
Be sure that you don't compare apples and oranges. Civil law and the Old Law are not the same thing. They're very different and the bases for setting them aside are very diferent as well. When Martin Luther King and Ghandi did it, they didn't refer back to passages like this; they referred back to precepts that were much more universal.