Was Jesus a Sabbath-breaker?

For ease of formatting, and to bypass the word-limit, I'm going to lift this out of the combox and address it in a separate post:

CR:
i.) I remain convinced by Scripture and conscience that lying is always sinful, and thus is always impermissible for Christians.
ii.) Scripture does not approve of lying.
iii.) Christ didn't lie, and Christians are called to imitate Him.
iv.) Christ never broke any of God's commands, and since He was "in every respect tempted as we are, yet without sin", it's not possible for Heb. 4:15 to be true if Christians will face situations where they are forced to disobey one of God's commands (a "lesser" command) in order to obey another (a "greater" command), or else Jesus would have been faced with such a situation too.

Multiple problems:

i) A biting irony of the "absolutist" position is that absolutists are forced to concoct hairsplitting distinctions between the permissibility of deception and the impermissibility of lying. They draw makeshift distinctions between lying and deception, or between verbal and nonverbal deception. They allow for military deception. They allow for half-truths, equivocations, &c. They allow for deceptive communication so long as that's not technically "lying." 

And this, of course, depends on their stimulative definition of "lying." The Bible doesn't define lying. It never draws those finespun distinctions. Absolutists impose that on the text. 

ii) As I pointed out before, which CR ignores, Scripture sometimes presents God as a deceiver (of unbelievers). We see this in both Testaments. If Jesus is divine, then he sometimes engages in divine deception.

iii) CR is rehashing some objections that I already addressed in response to another commenter. For instance:

a) If I were Jesus, I wouldn't box myself into that predicament in the first place. If I can predestine history, I won't put myself in a bind.

But since I'm not God or God Incarnate, I must play the hand I was dealt. I'm not the dealer. I didn't shuffle the deck.

b) Likewise, if I had the miraculous powers of Jesus, there'd always be alternatives to lying since I'd be able to supernaturally override the circumstances.

c) In large part, God can be trusted to keep his promises because God has the unilateral ability to ensure their realization. Nothing and no one has the power to prevent him from doing what he said he'd do.

In addition, God is never in a position where he must choose between protecting the innocent and telling the truth.

The same, however, can't be said for feeble creatures in a fallen world.

iv) My argument was never that there are situations where we must commit a lesser wrong to avoid a greater wrong.

v) The implication of CR's position is that it would be sinful for God Incarnate to disobey any of God's laws. Likewise, he puts lesser commands and greater commands in scare quotes, as if that distinction has no basis in fact.

By that logic, it would be sinful for God Incarnate to disregard any of the ceremonial laws, even though these are not moral laws, but symbolic illustrations of holiness and unholiness.

vi) By that logic, the new covenant entices Christians to commit sin inasmuch as the new covenant abrogates many of the Mosaic laws, viz. the Mosaic cultus (priesthood and sacrifice), purity codes. 

vii) To assert that it's always sinful to break a law of God begs the question. To assert that Christ never broke a law of God begs the question.

Moreover, it's demonstrable that Jesus sometimes violated the purity codes by fraternizing with ritually impure persons. 

viii) But let's focus on the Sabbath. In Jn 5:17-18, Jesus admits that he works on the Sabbath, in direct contravention to what the Mosaic law prohibits. He justifies that on the grounds that God works on the Sabbath–and by implication–that he is divine. A spine-tingling comparison for a Jewish audience. 

According to Jn 5:17-18, Jesus breaks the Sabbath all the time. Not just in exceptional circumstances, but in his divine capacity (e.g. ordinary providence). Jn 9 is another Johannine healing on the Sabbath. 

ix) In the synoptic Gospels (Mt 12: 1-14; Mk 2:23-28; 3:1-6; Lk 6:1-11; 13:10-17; 14:1-6), the argument isn't predicated on the necessary assumption that Jesus and his disciples actually are Sabbath-breakers. Rather, the argument is that even if they were Sabbath-breakers, their infraction would be justifiable under the circumstances. 

x) Jesus doesn't accuse the Pharisees of misinterpreting the Sabbath prohibition. He doesn't deny their allegation that he was working on the Sabbath or breaking the command.  Jesus pleads no contest. He grants the allegation for the sake of argument. Whether or not he was guilty as charged misses the point. 

Rather, he accuses them of failing to distinguish between lesser and greater obligations. Even if he was guilty as charged, his behavior was justified by a higher duty. 

Jesus doesn't correct their interpretation of the Sabbath command. Rather, he corrects their flat view of legal and moral obligations. All obligations aren't equally obligatory. For instance, ethical obligations outrank ritual obligations. 

xi) He deploys a fortiori arguments. For instance, he says David's soldiers broke the Levitical law by consuming the showbread, which was reserved for priests. Yet he says that was warranted under the circumstances.

By analogy, his disciples are at liberty to glean the fields on the Sabbath. Although gleaning the fields was permissible on most days, doing so on the Sabbath would conflict with the prohibition against Sabbath labor.

Keep in mind that the disciples weren't starving to death. They were simply hungry. But this wasn't a work of "necessity." They could forgo food for a day.

xii) Moreover, he cites Hos 6:6 to underscore the principle that higher obligations override lower obligations in case of conflict. 

xiii) Furthermore, he appeals to his divine authority as Lord of the Sabbath to suspend that command–in another hair-raising claim for a Jewish audience.

xiv) Likewise, he reasons, a fortiori, that if the temple (tabernacle) is greater than the Sabbath, then he is greater than the temple (tabernacle). If it was permissible for priests to work on the Sabbath, in violation of the general prohibition, it's permissible for him to work on the Sabbath–inasmuch as he is greater than the temple and the Sabbath alike. 

xv) In another a fortiori argument, he says that if it's permissible to aid livestock on the Sabbath, it is all the more permissible to aid the sick. In case of conflict, higher obligations supersede lower obligations. 

This is despite the fact that the sick could wait another day. It isn't necessary to heal them on the Sabbath. Many were sick for years. One more day wouldn't be a big deal. 

The livestock weren't in mortal danger. The patients weren't in mortal danger. But mercy takes precedence.