JR,
There are two ways to go about biblical studies. One is to decide in advance what one thinks ought to be taught in the Bible, and then to ignore or twist those portions of scripture that do not seem to comply with the preordained requirement. The other is to let the words of scripture speak for themselves, to assume that the authors actually knew what they wished to communicate and how to do so. When following the latter procedure, one will often be surprised to find the Bible teaching something different from what we would have wished for it to teach.
I have had to change my mind on many doctrinal points over the decades because I insisted on following the latter procedure. It seems plain that Homer and look2jesus have presented the very words of the text as their reasons for their conclusions. However, in your posts, you are not observing the words of the text. Your posts seem to indicate that we can not trust Jesus or John to say what they mean and what they want us to know. If Jesus says that the priests profane the sabbath day, you nonetheless feel justified in saying "the priests do not profane the sabbath day." Why would you say this? Apparently because it is not what you expect the Bible to say on this subject, because you have a different opinion. If John tells us that Jesus "broke the sabbath" (as he clearly does tell us), you are full of non-exegetical explanations to try to prove that John did not say it or mean it.
On this one issue, I think you have simply demonstrated the first method of doing biblical studies for those of us who have little experience with it.
Did Jesus Observe the Sabbath?
-
paulespino
- Posts: 267
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:02 am
Re: Did Jesus Observe the Sabbath?
Matthew 12:3-8
12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on a Sabbath. His1 disciples were hungry, and they began to pick heads of wheat2 and eat them. 12:2 But when the Pharisees3 saw this they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is against the law to do on the Sabbath.” 12:3 He4 said to them, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry – 12:4 how he entered the house of God and they ate5 the sacred bread,6 which was against the law7 for him or his companions to eat, but only for the priests?8 12:5 Or have you not read in the law that the priests in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are not guilty? 12:6 I9 tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 12:7 If10 you had known what this means: ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’11 you would not have condemned the innocent. 12:8 For the Son of Man is lord12 of the Sabbath.” Net Bible
I would like to make an analogy and let me know if my analogy is correct or Not correct..
Example: The law states that it is illegal to kill a dog unless self defense or providing help to a person are being practiced.
Criteria for deciding when to kill a dog:
1) You kill a dog if self defense is required.
2) You kill a dog to save the life of others.
Situation 1 :
The man killed a dog because the man was trying to save the child's life from the attacking dog. The court declared the man not guilty for killing the dog because the man was providing help to the child.
Situation 2:
The man killed the dog because he was drunk.The court declared the man guilty for killing the dog because the action of the man did not meet the law's criteria regarding killing a dog.
Verdict:
In Situation 1 the man was found not guilty but in situation 2 the man was found guilty. In Both situations the man killed the dog but with different verdict from the court.
Therefore Jesus is saying that the priests profane the Sabbath but was not guilty because the priests are doing God's work.
Killing of a dog becomes a violation of the law if it failed to meet the criteria of the law. Which is similar with the priest doing works on Sabbath day.
If the priest failed to meet the criteria of the Law of Sabbath then the priest will be violating the Sabbath Law.
According to Jesus that it is lawful to do Good on Sabbath Day which is one of the criteria when deciding whether the action made towards Sabbath Day is a violation or not.
Therefore to profane Sabbath Day is not a violation of the law because the priest's action was within the criteria.
12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on a Sabbath. His1 disciples were hungry, and they began to pick heads of wheat2 and eat them. 12:2 But when the Pharisees3 saw this they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is against the law to do on the Sabbath.” 12:3 He4 said to them, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry – 12:4 how he entered the house of God and they ate5 the sacred bread,6 which was against the law7 for him or his companions to eat, but only for the priests?8 12:5 Or have you not read in the law that the priests in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are not guilty? 12:6 I9 tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 12:7 If10 you had known what this means: ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’11 you would not have condemned the innocent. 12:8 For the Son of Man is lord12 of the Sabbath.” Net Bible
I would like to make an analogy and let me know if my analogy is correct or Not correct..
Example: The law states that it is illegal to kill a dog unless self defense or providing help to a person are being practiced.
Criteria for deciding when to kill a dog:
1) You kill a dog if self defense is required.
2) You kill a dog to save the life of others.
Situation 1 :
The man killed a dog because the man was trying to save the child's life from the attacking dog. The court declared the man not guilty for killing the dog because the man was providing help to the child.
Situation 2:
The man killed the dog because he was drunk.The court declared the man guilty for killing the dog because the action of the man did not meet the law's criteria regarding killing a dog.
Verdict:
In Situation 1 the man was found not guilty but in situation 2 the man was found guilty. In Both situations the man killed the dog but with different verdict from the court.
Therefore Jesus is saying that the priests profane the Sabbath but was not guilty because the priests are doing God's work.
Killing of a dog becomes a violation of the law if it failed to meet the criteria of the law. Which is similar with the priest doing works on Sabbath day.
If the priest failed to meet the criteria of the Law of Sabbath then the priest will be violating the Sabbath Law.
According to Jesus that it is lawful to do Good on Sabbath Day which is one of the criteria when deciding whether the action made towards Sabbath Day is a violation or not.
Therefore to profane Sabbath Day is not a violation of the law because the priest's action was within the criteria.
Last edited by paulespino on Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: Did Jesus Observe the Sabbath?
I have given scripture and reason ad infinitum', I thought this was a ‘bible’ discussion forum. I know my statements are reasonable and for the most part very conservative and in agreement with good theologians, I generally read many well respected authors some of which you have mentioned, I really enjoy my large collection of various Baker and Colin Brown dictionaries. Although I generally only have a Bible in my hand, I do not see how my points are unfounded.
I have not seen additional scripture to back up these two scriptures.
What can be more reasonable, than asking for additional scripture to back up these verses?
Jesus Himself asks them to look to scripture. You have to admit Jesus speaks in very broad, lofty, spiritual terms at times, a lot of the time in fact. He answers with questions and high brow, He is practically sarcastic towards the religious leaders, his speech tests them and trys them. He is concealing himself while at the same time revealing Himself. His speech is filled with prophecy, predictions and judgments not to mention parables and hyperbole.
We ‘could’ just take His answer to the Pharisees as if he is talking plainly to the disciples, but since this saying does not jive for a number of other reasons we are on good grounds to consider that Jesus was testing them while speaking, this seems very plausible since Jesus was in this moment in His ministry speaking in many of the ways I just noted above.
As I said before Jesus answers at another time in a similar situation to the same objections with a statement that;
“He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)”
Jesus was not declaring that God really meant they were Gods, and Jesus was not declaring to the Pharisees that He also was a phony as were the priests in Psalm 82:6. (It was the Pharisees that had made themselves out to be gods by judging Him)
These verses in Psalm 82 are really revealing; “God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers. 2 How long will you judge unjustly And show partiality to the wicked?...5 They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness.
Surely these priests are as the Pharisees who ‘judge unjustly, show partiality, do not know nor do they understand’. I think this could be said for the Pharisees in 5:16.
And the words of John 5:18 could ‘easily’ be the statements of the Pharisees since this is what the Pharisees and leaders have been saying themselves, and because of Johns reporting style. The statement “but also was calling God His own Father” has the sound a of an accusation, like John is quoting someone else’s statement, Jesus wouldn’t state the words in that order.
I have always held to the view that Jesus was sinless, and that Jesus fulfilled the Law, so, for me to accept that Jesus broke the Law but did not sin would require a good case.
It seems misunderstood that Jesus broke the Law because He was not under the Law, or that He was under grace. I hold that He was born to fulfill the Law;
“So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world.4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons” (Galatians 4:3-4)
I hold that Jesus taught and kept the Law that we could not. Jesus sermon on the mount certainly comes from the Old Testament, and continues to expound on the Law, even to the point of saying in 5:48; “Be perfect even as your heavenly Father is perfect”, and then; "Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand” (7:26)
Q. If Jesus did not keep the Law, how could He even speak of keeping the Law?
I think I asked some fair questions;
Q. Where is there a Mosaic law against eating in a field?
Q. They were not preparing a meal, or gathering, they were eating as they went along, what Mosaic law was being broken?
Q. Where is it written that healing was work on the Sabbath?
Q. And if John is saying Jesus broke the Law;
Where ‘else’ is it written where Jesus broke, or violated the Law?
Q. How can healing be wrong, if Jesus plainly states that it is ‘lawful’ to do good on the Sabbath?
Q. He is also ‘Lord of all The Commandments’ so being Lord does not mean He breaks them. He is “Lord of not lying’ can He thus lie?
Q. He is ‘Lord over not committing adultery’ can He thus commit adultery?
Q. We are to be perfect as He is Perfect, what model is God if Jesus breaks the Law?
Q. If Jesus truly is breaking the Mosaic Law, well God can do anything He wants true, but how could He thus judge?
Q. How would a person fulfill the Law? By breaking it?
Q. What point is there in having even a small letter of the Law if the Law wasn’t going to be kept or fulfilled?
Q. How could Jesus say; “Which of you convicts me of sin?” if He is really breaking the Sabbath?
Q. How do you reconcile the claim that Jesus broke the Sabbath with;
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20 "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:17-20)
Q. Which of the other Laws did Jesus break?
Q. Why did Jesus continue to observe the other Laws, and offerings to the priests, temple tax, other festivals and observances, etc.?
Q. There are hundreds of singular verses in the bible that have to jive with other Scriptures to be reasonable, why are these two the exception for you?
I have not seen additional scripture to back up these two scriptures.
What can be more reasonable, than asking for additional scripture to back up these verses?
Jesus Himself asks them to look to scripture. You have to admit Jesus speaks in very broad, lofty, spiritual terms at times, a lot of the time in fact. He answers with questions and high brow, He is practically sarcastic towards the religious leaders, his speech tests them and trys them. He is concealing himself while at the same time revealing Himself. His speech is filled with prophecy, predictions and judgments not to mention parables and hyperbole.
We ‘could’ just take His answer to the Pharisees as if he is talking plainly to the disciples, but since this saying does not jive for a number of other reasons we are on good grounds to consider that Jesus was testing them while speaking, this seems very plausible since Jesus was in this moment in His ministry speaking in many of the ways I just noted above.
As I said before Jesus answers at another time in a similar situation to the same objections with a statement that;
“He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)”
Jesus was not declaring that God really meant they were Gods, and Jesus was not declaring to the Pharisees that He also was a phony as were the priests in Psalm 82:6. (It was the Pharisees that had made themselves out to be gods by judging Him)
These verses in Psalm 82 are really revealing; “God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers. 2 How long will you judge unjustly And show partiality to the wicked?...5 They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness.
Surely these priests are as the Pharisees who ‘judge unjustly, show partiality, do not know nor do they understand’. I think this could be said for the Pharisees in 5:16.
And the words of John 5:18 could ‘easily’ be the statements of the Pharisees since this is what the Pharisees and leaders have been saying themselves, and because of Johns reporting style. The statement “but also was calling God His own Father” has the sound a of an accusation, like John is quoting someone else’s statement, Jesus wouldn’t state the words in that order.
I have always held to the view that Jesus was sinless, and that Jesus fulfilled the Law, so, for me to accept that Jesus broke the Law but did not sin would require a good case.
It seems misunderstood that Jesus broke the Law because He was not under the Law, or that He was under grace. I hold that He was born to fulfill the Law;
“So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world.4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons” (Galatians 4:3-4)
I hold that Jesus taught and kept the Law that we could not. Jesus sermon on the mount certainly comes from the Old Testament, and continues to expound on the Law, even to the point of saying in 5:48; “Be perfect even as your heavenly Father is perfect”, and then; "Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand” (7:26)
Q. If Jesus did not keep the Law, how could He even speak of keeping the Law?
I think I asked some fair questions;
Q. Where is there a Mosaic law against eating in a field?
Q. They were not preparing a meal, or gathering, they were eating as they went along, what Mosaic law was being broken?
Q. Where is it written that healing was work on the Sabbath?
Q. And if John is saying Jesus broke the Law;
Where ‘else’ is it written where Jesus broke, or violated the Law?
Q. How can healing be wrong, if Jesus plainly states that it is ‘lawful’ to do good on the Sabbath?
Q. He is also ‘Lord of all The Commandments’ so being Lord does not mean He breaks them. He is “Lord of not lying’ can He thus lie?
Q. He is ‘Lord over not committing adultery’ can He thus commit adultery?
Q. We are to be perfect as He is Perfect, what model is God if Jesus breaks the Law?
Q. If Jesus truly is breaking the Mosaic Law, well God can do anything He wants true, but how could He thus judge?
Q. How would a person fulfill the Law? By breaking it?
Q. What point is there in having even a small letter of the Law if the Law wasn’t going to be kept or fulfilled?
Q. How could Jesus say; “Which of you convicts me of sin?” if He is really breaking the Sabbath?
Q. How do you reconcile the claim that Jesus broke the Sabbath with;
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20 "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:17-20)
Q. Which of the other Laws did Jesus break?
Q. Why did Jesus continue to observe the other Laws, and offerings to the priests, temple tax, other festivals and observances, etc.?
Q. There are hundreds of singular verses in the bible that have to jive with other Scriptures to be reasonable, why are these two the exception for you?
Re: Did Jesus Observe the Sabbath?
I have always held to the view that Jesus was sinless, and that Jesus fulfilled the Law, so, for me to accept that Jesus broke the Law but did not sin would require a good case.
"The law" re the Sabbath was a ritual law not a moral law and Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath meaning he was Lording over it or above it and not subject to it. Rather it was subject to him and to us he said "the Sabbath was made for man" changing the position of a ritual law over us to being for us. Additionally i previously quoted Jesus saying it was "lawful to do good" on the Sabbath which clearly changes the meaning of the Sabbath because to "do good" is working. "Doing good" covers an immense amount of activities not just healing most of which violate "cease from your works" the original Sabbath command.
"The law" re the Sabbath was a ritual law not a moral law and Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath meaning he was Lording over it or above it and not subject to it. Rather it was subject to him and to us he said "the Sabbath was made for man" changing the position of a ritual law over us to being for us. Additionally i previously quoted Jesus saying it was "lawful to do good" on the Sabbath which clearly changes the meaning of the Sabbath because to "do good" is working. "Doing good" covers an immense amount of activities not just healing most of which violate "cease from your works" the original Sabbath command.
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: Did Jesus Observe the Sabbath?
None the less it is a Law that had to be kept, punishable by death.
Jesus still observed other ritual Laws too, as all Jews were supposed to do as keeping the Law.
Are you saying that doing good was not allowable on the Sabbath?
Could you give some instances of doing good that a Jew might observe so he will know when he is breaking the law, oh never mind they already have a couple books of laws on what not to do on the Sabbath, maybe you could tell me some of your favorites. (I am not being funny I am making a point)
7150, Think about it, healing is a work?
One thing that some people may overlook is that men and women, who work with their hands and bodies, consider a day off as not only rest for their bodies but healing for their bodies. I know people that work construction often look forward to having a day off to heal a wound, pull, burn, muscle, I guess it is a blessing not to experience this but my hands and especially my fingers are often cut and cracked so I look forward to a day off, or so, to heal.
(Often in sports it’s the same, In fact we considered the SF Niners would have a slight advantage because of their having a Sunday off, to heal, Note; they won)
This is something the Pharisees may have missed, that is work! They went around accusing others of work, and yet probably never lifted a finger to help anyone. Certainly some people knew that healing had always happened on the Sabbath, that is what happens when you take a day of rest. Were some breaking the Sabbath simply because their body was healing?!
This is ridiculous of course healing is not breaking the Sabbath, having it done miraculously is super incredible but still it is only healing! If Jesus went around giving them ‘rest’ with a snap of his fingers would that have been breaking the Sabbath?!
So I ask you which is easier; “To say take up your mat and walk, or to say your sins are forgiven?”
Jesus still observed other ritual Laws too, as all Jews were supposed to do as keeping the Law.
Are you saying that doing good was not allowable on the Sabbath?
Could you give some instances of doing good that a Jew might observe so he will know when he is breaking the law, oh never mind they already have a couple books of laws on what not to do on the Sabbath, maybe you could tell me some of your favorites. (I am not being funny I am making a point)
7150, Think about it, healing is a work?
One thing that some people may overlook is that men and women, who work with their hands and bodies, consider a day off as not only rest for their bodies but healing for their bodies. I know people that work construction often look forward to having a day off to heal a wound, pull, burn, muscle, I guess it is a blessing not to experience this but my hands and especially my fingers are often cut and cracked so I look forward to a day off, or so, to heal.
(Often in sports it’s the same, In fact we considered the SF Niners would have a slight advantage because of their having a Sunday off, to heal, Note; they won)
This is something the Pharisees may have missed, that is work! They went around accusing others of work, and yet probably never lifted a finger to help anyone. Certainly some people knew that healing had always happened on the Sabbath, that is what happens when you take a day of rest. Were some breaking the Sabbath simply because their body was healing?!
This is ridiculous of course healing is not breaking the Sabbath, having it done miraculously is super incredible but still it is only healing! If Jesus went around giving them ‘rest’ with a snap of his fingers would that have been breaking the Sabbath?!
So I ask you which is easier; “To say take up your mat and walk, or to say your sins are forgiven?”
Re: Did Jesus Observe the Sabbath?
None the less it is a Law that had to be kept, punishable by death.
Jesus still observed other ritual Laws too, as all Jews were supposed to do as keeping the Law.
Are you saying that doing good was not allowable on the Sabbath?
Could you give some instances of doing good that a Jew might observe so he will know when he is breaking the law, oh never mind they already have a couple books of laws on what not to do on the Sabbath, maybe you could tell me some of your favorites. (I am not being funny I am making a point)
Whether Jesus observed other ritual laws would be at his discretion as he was not under the ritual laws. The point of the ritual laws was to point to him not the other way around.
Yes "doing good" was not allowable on the Sabbath , there was one command "cease from your works." The command did not say "cease from your bad works" it simply was a blanket command to rest. "Doing good" includes countless things not allowed on the Sabbath as commanded by Moses, not just how the Pharisees interpreted it, but as commanded by Moses given by God to him.
Jesus still observed other ritual Laws too, as all Jews were supposed to do as keeping the Law.
Are you saying that doing good was not allowable on the Sabbath?
Could you give some instances of doing good that a Jew might observe so he will know when he is breaking the law, oh never mind they already have a couple books of laws on what not to do on the Sabbath, maybe you could tell me some of your favorites. (I am not being funny I am making a point)
Whether Jesus observed other ritual laws would be at his discretion as he was not under the ritual laws. The point of the ritual laws was to point to him not the other way around.
Yes "doing good" was not allowable on the Sabbath , there was one command "cease from your works." The command did not say "cease from your bad works" it simply was a blanket command to rest. "Doing good" includes countless things not allowed on the Sabbath as commanded by Moses, not just how the Pharisees interpreted it, but as commanded by Moses given by God to him.
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: Did Jesus Observe the Sabbath?
You may have misunderstood when I said a couple books of laws have been written on what not to do on the Sabbath.
I meant the Mishnah and the Talmud, the commandments concerning work on the Sabbath are not ‘countless’ but could probably be contained in about two chapters (Ex.16 being one) (‘All’ The commandments themselves seem to be 613) where the Rabbinic laws consume numerous books, that is what I meant by picking your favorites.
I don’t have time for more, but I included a few I like, you can find more in the online Mishna under the chapter Moed.
I do not consider all these to be exactly what Jesus was faced with, since most of it was oral tradition and of various compiling, yet It may very well be simular to the Rabbinical laws at the time;
"For the reason that two different joys must not be comingled." Rabba bar Huna said: "For the reason that the enjoyment of the festival is neglected on account of the enjoyment over his wife." Said Abayi to R. Joseph: The statement of Rabba bar Huna was originally made by Rabh, as R. Daniel bar Ktina said in the name of Rabh: Whence do we deduce that it is not permitted to espouse wives on the middle days? For it is written [Deut. xvi. 14]: "And thou shalt rejoice on thy feast." Over thy feast thou shalt rejoice, but not over thy wife. Ula said: "The reason is: Because there would be too much trouble." R. Itz'hak of Naf'ha said: "The reason is, in order not to restrict reproduction (for every one will postpone his marriage until the festival).
The rabbis taught: Cattle must not be brought into the field for the purpose of manuring, either on Sabbath days, feast days, or middle days. But if they come there of themselves it is permitted. And no assistance may be afforded to those in charge, neither a watchman assigned them to watch their sheep. But the case is different if they are hired by the week, month, year, or for a period of seven years. Rabbi, however, says: "On Sabbath days it may be done without compensation; on feasts days, for food only; and on the middle days, even for compensation." Said R. Joseph: "The Halakha prevails as Rabbi decreed."
MISHNA: The same is the case when one whose wine is in the press-pit and a death occurred in his family or another accident happened; or if he had been disappointed, he may pour the wine into casks, cooper, and bung them up in the usual manner. Such is the dictum of R. Jose. But R. Jehudah said: "He must only cover the pit with boards, so that the wine may not grow sour.
GEMARA: Said R. Itz'hak bar Abba: "The Tana who holds that on the middle days it must not be done in the usual manner, does not accord with R. Jose." Said R. Joseph: "The Halakha, however, prevails as decreed by R. Jose." A question was propounded to Na'hman bar Itz'hak: "Is it permitted to bung up a beer barrel on the middle days?" He answered: "Sinai (R. Joseph) had already stated that the Halakha prevails as decreed by R. Jose." But R. Jose's statement relates only to wine, but not to beer? What was the reason for wine--because there is a great loss? The same is the case with beer. R. Hama bar Guriah said in the name of Rabh: The laws regarding the middle days are distinct from each other and cannot be compared for the purpose of inference. As Samuel said: "A jug may, but a barrel may not be covered with tar." R. Dimi of Nehardea holds the reverse. The one considers the loss involved; the other, the trouble with which it is accompanied.
Tract; Moed Katan (Minor Festivals) Chap.1 Regulations concerning labor and marriage in the intermediate days.
(Bablyonian Talmud, Book 4: Tracts Pesachim, Yomah and Hagiga)
I do not think Jesus went around painting fences or fixing broken chairs on the Sabbath, anyone who normally works would quickly recognize the difference between work and resting, as when a friend asks me to fix a car or a chair on my needed day off, I have a built in discernment that tells me that if I am picking up my tools or pushing a dolly (Or shopping cart for that matter) I am not resting like I promised myself.
The only charge they had against Jesus for breaking the sabbath was healing. (His disciples ate the grain in the field)
Q. Where is it written 'you cannot heal' on the Sabbath?
Q. What 'other' Law did Jesus break?
Q. What did Jesus mean by the phrase; ‘…It is lawful’, what law is He referring to?
Q. Ritual or not, why did Jesus have John the Baptist baptise Him?
Steve I was hoping you were going to answer the question;
"So I ask you which is easier; To say take up your mat and walk, or to say your sins are forgiven?”
Otherwise it is nice to see you back, what happened to Paidion?
I meant the Mishnah and the Talmud, the commandments concerning work on the Sabbath are not ‘countless’ but could probably be contained in about two chapters (Ex.16 being one) (‘All’ The commandments themselves seem to be 613) where the Rabbinic laws consume numerous books, that is what I meant by picking your favorites.
I don’t have time for more, but I included a few I like, you can find more in the online Mishna under the chapter Moed.
I do not consider all these to be exactly what Jesus was faced with, since most of it was oral tradition and of various compiling, yet It may very well be simular to the Rabbinical laws at the time;
"For the reason that two different joys must not be comingled." Rabba bar Huna said: "For the reason that the enjoyment of the festival is neglected on account of the enjoyment over his wife." Said Abayi to R. Joseph: The statement of Rabba bar Huna was originally made by Rabh, as R. Daniel bar Ktina said in the name of Rabh: Whence do we deduce that it is not permitted to espouse wives on the middle days? For it is written [Deut. xvi. 14]: "And thou shalt rejoice on thy feast." Over thy feast thou shalt rejoice, but not over thy wife. Ula said: "The reason is: Because there would be too much trouble." R. Itz'hak of Naf'ha said: "The reason is, in order not to restrict reproduction (for every one will postpone his marriage until the festival).
The rabbis taught: Cattle must not be brought into the field for the purpose of manuring, either on Sabbath days, feast days, or middle days. But if they come there of themselves it is permitted. And no assistance may be afforded to those in charge, neither a watchman assigned them to watch their sheep. But the case is different if they are hired by the week, month, year, or for a period of seven years. Rabbi, however, says: "On Sabbath days it may be done without compensation; on feasts days, for food only; and on the middle days, even for compensation." Said R. Joseph: "The Halakha prevails as Rabbi decreed."
MISHNA: The same is the case when one whose wine is in the press-pit and a death occurred in his family or another accident happened; or if he had been disappointed, he may pour the wine into casks, cooper, and bung them up in the usual manner. Such is the dictum of R. Jose. But R. Jehudah said: "He must only cover the pit with boards, so that the wine may not grow sour.
GEMARA: Said R. Itz'hak bar Abba: "The Tana who holds that on the middle days it must not be done in the usual manner, does not accord with R. Jose." Said R. Joseph: "The Halakha, however, prevails as decreed by R. Jose." A question was propounded to Na'hman bar Itz'hak: "Is it permitted to bung up a beer barrel on the middle days?" He answered: "Sinai (R. Joseph) had already stated that the Halakha prevails as decreed by R. Jose." But R. Jose's statement relates only to wine, but not to beer? What was the reason for wine--because there is a great loss? The same is the case with beer. R. Hama bar Guriah said in the name of Rabh: The laws regarding the middle days are distinct from each other and cannot be compared for the purpose of inference. As Samuel said: "A jug may, but a barrel may not be covered with tar." R. Dimi of Nehardea holds the reverse. The one considers the loss involved; the other, the trouble with which it is accompanied.
Tract; Moed Katan (Minor Festivals) Chap.1 Regulations concerning labor and marriage in the intermediate days.
(Bablyonian Talmud, Book 4: Tracts Pesachim, Yomah and Hagiga)
I do not think Jesus went around painting fences or fixing broken chairs on the Sabbath, anyone who normally works would quickly recognize the difference between work and resting, as when a friend asks me to fix a car or a chair on my needed day off, I have a built in discernment that tells me that if I am picking up my tools or pushing a dolly (Or shopping cart for that matter) I am not resting like I promised myself.
The only charge they had against Jesus for breaking the sabbath was healing. (His disciples ate the grain in the field)
Q. Where is it written 'you cannot heal' on the Sabbath?
Q. What 'other' Law did Jesus break?
Q. What did Jesus mean by the phrase; ‘…It is lawful’, what law is He referring to?
Q. Ritual or not, why did Jesus have John the Baptist baptise Him?
Steve I was hoping you were going to answer the question;
"So I ask you which is easier; To say take up your mat and walk, or to say your sins are forgiven?”
Otherwise it is nice to see you back, what happened to Paidion?
-
look2jesus
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:18 pm
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
Re: Did Jesus Observe the Sabbath?
jriccitelli,
Though you wrote a lot more that needs to be responded to I wanted to at least give you my answers to the list of questions you submitted. Your questions are in red. I grouped some of them together as they seemed to me to be closely related.
Q. If Jesus did not keep the Law, how could He even speak of keeping the Law?
A. Jesus did keep the Law in every respect that it was necessary for Him to do so. When we consider the instance of His violating the Sabbath ordinance, He is quite clear (in my opinion) as to why it isn't necessary for Him to keep every aspect of the Law. If you fail to allow for a somewhat nuanced understanding of what Jesus was doing here and the purpose for it, you will continue to struggle with this concept or, perhaps, even see it as contradictory. But it isn't necessary to see it that way.
Q. Where is there a Mosaic law against eating in a field?
A. There was no law against eating in a field. There was, however, a general understanding that harvesting grain was forbidden on the Sabbath, something that the disciples did, as Steve had pointed out, on a miniscule level. However, when the Pharisees accused the disciples of doing what was not lawful, Jesus did not point out that they were mistaken in the belief that this was forbidden (in other words, He didn't deny it), which He might easily have done if this were the case. Instead, He demonstrated to them that the Sabbath, and other ritual laws could be broken at times, without incurring the guilt of sin--thus His reference to what David had done concerning the Showbread, and the reference to the profaning or desecration of the Sabbath by the priests in their activities (cf. also His comments elsewhere concerning circumcision on the Sabbath).
In the case of David and the Showbread, you are forced by your view to the understanding that David must have sinned in this instance because he broke the Law, but you are mistaken here, as well. David did indeed break the command concerning the Showbread but he didn't commit sin in this act. The reason we know this is, Jesus uses David's example to prove to the Pharisees that the disciples were "guiltless" even though, by all appearances, they had broken the Sabbath regulations (Mt. 12:7), just as David had violated the Showbread regulations without guilt.
Q. They were not preparing a meal, or gathering, they were eating as they went along, what Mosaic law was being broken?
A. Actually, the text says, "His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat." So it is incorrect to say that they were not gathering.
Q. Where is it written that healing was a work on the Sabbath?
A. Jesus said it. As I tried to point out to you earlier, in John 7:21-23, Jesus said, "I did one work, and you all marvel. Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath?" The "one work" that Jesus mentions here, is a reference to the healing He performed in John 5. Another less direct statement, but indisputable in it's context, is in John 5 itself, when Jesus responds to the Jews accusations of Sabbath breaking with the explanation, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working."
Q. And if John is saying Jesus broke the Law; Where 'else' is it written where Jesus broke, or violated the Law?
A. There is no onus on anyone to show where else it may be written that Jesus broke the Law. Even if you could demonstrate that there are no other places in Scripture where this is stated (which you cannot) it would have no force, whatsoever, either for your argument or against mine--to point out that it is not written anywhere else as a means of trying to refute the truth of what IS written here is fallacious, it simply has no bearing. However, I will give one additional reference, though there are others: Luke 13:10-16.
The onus is actually on you to demonstrate clearly, in the light of the Scriptural evidence against you, that healing is not a work, even though Jesus said it was; that the priest's activity on the Sabbath is not a desecration of the Sabbath, or a breaking of the Law (yet without sin), even though Jesus affirmed this also; that circumcision on the Sabbath is not a breaking of the law (yet without sin); and that David committed a sin by breaking the regulations concerning the Showbread. Please demonstrate these things from the Scripture.
Q. How can healing be wrong, if Jesus plainly states that it is 'lawful' to do good on the Sabbath?
A. It's not wrong for Jesus to heal on the Sabbath. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath.
Q. He is also 'Lord of all the Commandments' so being Lord does not mean He breaks them. He is 'Lord of not lying' can He thus lie?
Q. He is 'Lord over not committing adultery' can He thus commit adultery?
A. Please show me where it is written that Jesus is "Lord of all the commandments" in the way that He spoke of being Lord of the Sabbath.
Q. We are to be perfect as He is perfect, what model is God if Jesus breaks the Law?
Q. If Jesus truly is breaking the Mosaic Law, well God can do anything he wants true, but how could He thus judge?
Q. How would a person fulfill the Law? By breaking it?
Q. What point is there in having even a small letter of the Law if the Law wasn't going to be kept of fulfilled?
A. Obviously, breaking the Sabbath for the Lord of the Sabbath doesn't constitute breaking the Law. Especially if you consider that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Sabbath. Jesus was born under the Law, but as the Lord of the Sabbath He had every right to effect a change in it's governance.
Q. How could Jesus say; "Which of you convicts me of sin?" if He is really breaking the Sabbath?
A. Because, as has already been pointed out, breaking the Sabbath does not always constitute a sin. Jesus is one of those examples. The priests are another.
Q. How do you reconcile the claim that Jesus broke the Sabbath with; Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. "For truly I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-20)
A. I will take a stab at this and suggest that perhaps the Sabbath Law was being fulfilled (accomplished) in the life and ministry of Christ. But the truth is, it does need to be reconciled because John did make that claim as an inspired apostle. It cannot be reconciled by claiming that John didn't say it or by ignoring that he said it.
Q. Which of the other Laws did Jesus break?
A. None that I am aware of. How is that even relevant?
Why did Jesus continue to observe the other Laws, and offerings to the priests, temple tax, other festivals and observances, etc.?
A. I believe that Jesus did whatever His Father had commanded.
Q. There are hundreds of singular verses in the bible that have to jive with other Scriptures to be reasonable, why are these two the exception for you?
A. These two jive perfectly well, notwithstanding any argument or scripture you've presented thus far to the contrary.
l2j
Though you wrote a lot more that needs to be responded to I wanted to at least give you my answers to the list of questions you submitted. Your questions are in red. I grouped some of them together as they seemed to me to be closely related.
Q. If Jesus did not keep the Law, how could He even speak of keeping the Law?
A. Jesus did keep the Law in every respect that it was necessary for Him to do so. When we consider the instance of His violating the Sabbath ordinance, He is quite clear (in my opinion) as to why it isn't necessary for Him to keep every aspect of the Law. If you fail to allow for a somewhat nuanced understanding of what Jesus was doing here and the purpose for it, you will continue to struggle with this concept or, perhaps, even see it as contradictory. But it isn't necessary to see it that way.
Q. Where is there a Mosaic law against eating in a field?
A. There was no law against eating in a field. There was, however, a general understanding that harvesting grain was forbidden on the Sabbath, something that the disciples did, as Steve had pointed out, on a miniscule level. However, when the Pharisees accused the disciples of doing what was not lawful, Jesus did not point out that they were mistaken in the belief that this was forbidden (in other words, He didn't deny it), which He might easily have done if this were the case. Instead, He demonstrated to them that the Sabbath, and other ritual laws could be broken at times, without incurring the guilt of sin--thus His reference to what David had done concerning the Showbread, and the reference to the profaning or desecration of the Sabbath by the priests in their activities (cf. also His comments elsewhere concerning circumcision on the Sabbath).
In the case of David and the Showbread, you are forced by your view to the understanding that David must have sinned in this instance because he broke the Law, but you are mistaken here, as well. David did indeed break the command concerning the Showbread but he didn't commit sin in this act. The reason we know this is, Jesus uses David's example to prove to the Pharisees that the disciples were "guiltless" even though, by all appearances, they had broken the Sabbath regulations (Mt. 12:7), just as David had violated the Showbread regulations without guilt.
Q. They were not preparing a meal, or gathering, they were eating as they went along, what Mosaic law was being broken?
A. Actually, the text says, "His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat." So it is incorrect to say that they were not gathering.
Q. Where is it written that healing was a work on the Sabbath?
A. Jesus said it. As I tried to point out to you earlier, in John 7:21-23, Jesus said, "I did one work, and you all marvel. Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath?" The "one work" that Jesus mentions here, is a reference to the healing He performed in John 5. Another less direct statement, but indisputable in it's context, is in John 5 itself, when Jesus responds to the Jews accusations of Sabbath breaking with the explanation, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working."
Q. And if John is saying Jesus broke the Law; Where 'else' is it written where Jesus broke, or violated the Law?
A. There is no onus on anyone to show where else it may be written that Jesus broke the Law. Even if you could demonstrate that there are no other places in Scripture where this is stated (which you cannot) it would have no force, whatsoever, either for your argument or against mine--to point out that it is not written anywhere else as a means of trying to refute the truth of what IS written here is fallacious, it simply has no bearing. However, I will give one additional reference, though there are others: Luke 13:10-16.
The onus is actually on you to demonstrate clearly, in the light of the Scriptural evidence against you, that healing is not a work, even though Jesus said it was; that the priest's activity on the Sabbath is not a desecration of the Sabbath, or a breaking of the Law (yet without sin), even though Jesus affirmed this also; that circumcision on the Sabbath is not a breaking of the law (yet without sin); and that David committed a sin by breaking the regulations concerning the Showbread. Please demonstrate these things from the Scripture.
Q. How can healing be wrong, if Jesus plainly states that it is 'lawful' to do good on the Sabbath?
A. It's not wrong for Jesus to heal on the Sabbath. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath.
Q. He is also 'Lord of all the Commandments' so being Lord does not mean He breaks them. He is 'Lord of not lying' can He thus lie?
Q. He is 'Lord over not committing adultery' can He thus commit adultery?
A. Please show me where it is written that Jesus is "Lord of all the commandments" in the way that He spoke of being Lord of the Sabbath.
Q. We are to be perfect as He is perfect, what model is God if Jesus breaks the Law?
Q. If Jesus truly is breaking the Mosaic Law, well God can do anything he wants true, but how could He thus judge?
Q. How would a person fulfill the Law? By breaking it?
Q. What point is there in having even a small letter of the Law if the Law wasn't going to be kept of fulfilled?
A. Obviously, breaking the Sabbath for the Lord of the Sabbath doesn't constitute breaking the Law. Especially if you consider that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Sabbath. Jesus was born under the Law, but as the Lord of the Sabbath He had every right to effect a change in it's governance.
Q. How could Jesus say; "Which of you convicts me of sin?" if He is really breaking the Sabbath?
A. Because, as has already been pointed out, breaking the Sabbath does not always constitute a sin. Jesus is one of those examples. The priests are another.
Q. How do you reconcile the claim that Jesus broke the Sabbath with; Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. "For truly I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-20)
A. I will take a stab at this and suggest that perhaps the Sabbath Law was being fulfilled (accomplished) in the life and ministry of Christ. But the truth is, it does need to be reconciled because John did make that claim as an inspired apostle. It cannot be reconciled by claiming that John didn't say it or by ignoring that he said it.
Q. Which of the other Laws did Jesus break?
A. None that I am aware of. How is that even relevant?
Why did Jesus continue to observe the other Laws, and offerings to the priests, temple tax, other festivals and observances, etc.?
A. I believe that Jesus did whatever His Father had commanded.
Q. There are hundreds of singular verses in the bible that have to jive with other Scriptures to be reasonable, why are these two the exception for you?
A. These two jive perfectly well, notwithstanding any argument or scripture you've presented thus far to the contrary.
l2j
And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowlege and discernment...Philippians 1:9 ESV
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: Did Jesus Observe the Sabbath?
Shabbat shalom!
And thanks for your answers.
Before we go any further it seems that you all are building your case on only two verses. John 5:18 and Matt 12:5
Since John 5:18 is pivotal to this whole argument, I will give you more reasons to rethink this verse;
Here is a question; is this statement below in Mark 27:32 made by someone else, or is this statement the authors (Mark or Peter) own comment?
"They began reasoning among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say, 'Then why did you not believe him?' 32 "But shall we say, 'From men'?"--they were afraid of the people, for everyone considered John to have been a real prophet.33 Answering Jesus, they said, "We do not know." And Jesus said to them, "Nor will I tell you by what authority I do these things" (Mark 27:31-33)
"And they began reasoning among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say to us, 'Then why did you not believe him?' 26 "But if we say, 'From men,' we fear the people; for they all regard John as a prophet."27 And answering Jesus, they said, "We do not know." He also said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things" (Matt 21:25-26)
If we only had Marks Gospel we might conclude that it was Marks own comment, since it reads ‘they’ were afraid of the people, yet in Matt it says “We fear the people”
So which is it?
Here is another question; who is it that said; "He will come and destroy these vine-growers and will give the vineyard to others."?
""But when the vine-growers saw him, they reasoned with one another, saying, 'This is the heir; let us kill him so that the inheritance will be ours.'15 "So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What, then, will the owner of the vineyard do to them?16 "He will come and destroy these vine-growers and will give the vineyard to others." When they heard it, they said, "May it never be!" (Luke 20:14-16)
It would seem to be Jesus, but this is hard to jive with Matt 21;
"But when the vine-growers saw the son, they said among themselves, 'This is the heir; come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.'39 "They took him, and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.40 "Therefore when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-growers?"41 They said to Him, "He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and will rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons" (Matt 21:38-41)
It would be hard to simply say this was Jesus (Even though Mark and Luke have it in red letters) because in the Matt account Jesus had put it to the Pharisees as a question, and it is recorded as their saying it.
Another question! The opening statement of prophecy in Mark 1:1-3; is this Marks comment about John the Baptist, or did John the Baptist say this of himself?
“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: "Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You, Who will prepare Your way;3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make ready the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight” (Mark 1:1-3)
(Matthew and Luke make their comments concerning John the Baptist also as follows;)
"For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet when he said, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make ready the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight!” (Matt 3:3)
"And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins;4 as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make ready the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight" (Luke 3:3-4)
(If we didn’t have Johns Gospel we would assume that it was the writers insertion or opinion of the fulfilled prophecy, but John writes that John the Baptist said it;)
"Then they said to him, "Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?" 23 He said, "I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way of the Lord,' as Isaiah the prophet said." (John 1:22-23)
(So although it ‘seems’ clear, it is not good to make a quick judgment if we have other reasons to be ‘cautious’ as to whose statement is actually being recorded. This is why it is hard to determine if this was Johns own conclusion, or whether John heard it from someone else)
So it could be either;
A. Johns comment,
B. The statement of the Pharisees
C. Jesus own statement or teaching.
The problem with C is that do not have a statement or teaching anywhere that Jesus said this statement about Himself either, Jesus does not ‘say’ he breaks the Law.
There is no problem with B for the Religious leaders, with whom Jesus is in constant disagreement with, make this statement many times.
The first problem with A is B and C. Also it is out of character for John to make a statement like this on his own since John is generally just reporting, as a witness (As I noted, and have other verses for evidence), and thirdly a judgment on the Son of God concerning the Law, without conformation from His Lord, is no small matter for a fisherman, especially as John knew; This is the Son of God.
There is a good reason to why the Gospels are unique from the epistles; the Gospels are likely the same sermons that the apostles repeated from place to place, it is that the Gospels seem to be witnesses to the events rather than revelation. The listener could not argue with the author and say; 'these are your ideas why should we believe you?' They could say; 'Look we are only witnesses to these events, there are others too, we are only reporting what we have seen and heard'
This does seem to be the principle behind the idea of the Gospels.
And thanks for your answers.
Before we go any further it seems that you all are building your case on only two verses. John 5:18 and Matt 12:5
Since John 5:18 is pivotal to this whole argument, I will give you more reasons to rethink this verse;
Here is a question; is this statement below in Mark 27:32 made by someone else, or is this statement the authors (Mark or Peter) own comment?
"They began reasoning among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say, 'Then why did you not believe him?' 32 "But shall we say, 'From men'?"--they were afraid of the people, for everyone considered John to have been a real prophet.33 Answering Jesus, they said, "We do not know." And Jesus said to them, "Nor will I tell you by what authority I do these things" (Mark 27:31-33)
"And they began reasoning among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say to us, 'Then why did you not believe him?' 26 "But if we say, 'From men,' we fear the people; for they all regard John as a prophet."27 And answering Jesus, they said, "We do not know." He also said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things" (Matt 21:25-26)
If we only had Marks Gospel we might conclude that it was Marks own comment, since it reads ‘they’ were afraid of the people, yet in Matt it says “We fear the people”
So which is it?
Here is another question; who is it that said; "He will come and destroy these vine-growers and will give the vineyard to others."?
""But when the vine-growers saw him, they reasoned with one another, saying, 'This is the heir; let us kill him so that the inheritance will be ours.'15 "So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What, then, will the owner of the vineyard do to them?16 "He will come and destroy these vine-growers and will give the vineyard to others." When they heard it, they said, "May it never be!" (Luke 20:14-16)
It would seem to be Jesus, but this is hard to jive with Matt 21;
"But when the vine-growers saw the son, they said among themselves, 'This is the heir; come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.'39 "They took him, and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.40 "Therefore when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-growers?"41 They said to Him, "He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and will rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons" (Matt 21:38-41)
It would be hard to simply say this was Jesus (Even though Mark and Luke have it in red letters) because in the Matt account Jesus had put it to the Pharisees as a question, and it is recorded as their saying it.
Another question! The opening statement of prophecy in Mark 1:1-3; is this Marks comment about John the Baptist, or did John the Baptist say this of himself?
“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: "Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You, Who will prepare Your way;3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make ready the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight” (Mark 1:1-3)
(Matthew and Luke make their comments concerning John the Baptist also as follows;)
"For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet when he said, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make ready the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight!” (Matt 3:3)
"And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins;4 as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make ready the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight" (Luke 3:3-4)
(If we didn’t have Johns Gospel we would assume that it was the writers insertion or opinion of the fulfilled prophecy, but John writes that John the Baptist said it;)
"Then they said to him, "Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?" 23 He said, "I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way of the Lord,' as Isaiah the prophet said." (John 1:22-23)
(So although it ‘seems’ clear, it is not good to make a quick judgment if we have other reasons to be ‘cautious’ as to whose statement is actually being recorded. This is why it is hard to determine if this was Johns own conclusion, or whether John heard it from someone else)
So it could be either;
A. Johns comment,
B. The statement of the Pharisees
C. Jesus own statement or teaching.
The problem with C is that do not have a statement or teaching anywhere that Jesus said this statement about Himself either, Jesus does not ‘say’ he breaks the Law.
There is no problem with B for the Religious leaders, with whom Jesus is in constant disagreement with, make this statement many times.
The first problem with A is B and C. Also it is out of character for John to make a statement like this on his own since John is generally just reporting, as a witness (As I noted, and have other verses for evidence), and thirdly a judgment on the Son of God concerning the Law, without conformation from His Lord, is no small matter for a fisherman, especially as John knew; This is the Son of God.
There is a good reason to why the Gospels are unique from the epistles; the Gospels are likely the same sermons that the apostles repeated from place to place, it is that the Gospels seem to be witnesses to the events rather than revelation. The listener could not argue with the author and say; 'these are your ideas why should we believe you?' They could say; 'Look we are only witnesses to these events, there are others too, we are only reporting what we have seen and heard'
This does seem to be the principle behind the idea of the Gospels.
Last edited by jriccitelli on Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: Did Jesus Observe the Sabbath?
In Matthew12:15, Jesus is answering the Pharisees with a question (Just as He often does)
Why did Jesus have a habit of answering the Religious leaders with questions?
To make them think and question their own assertions.
Before I note other similar responses of Jesus to the Jews, you might notice that Jesus does not revert to ‘what you can and cannot’ do on the Sabbath, thus becoming like them and quibbling over technicalities of their law, but He responds with questions and usually reverts to scripture, not arguing with them, thus fulfilling what was written about Him. Note what Matthew writes immediately following His run in with the Pharisees in Matt 12:15;
This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet:” Behold, My Servant whom I have chosen; My Beloved in whom My soul is well-pleased; I will put My Spirit upon Him, And He shall proclaim justice to the Gentiles.19 "He will not quarrel, nor cry out; Nor will anyone hear His voice in the streets.20 "A battered reed He will not break off, And a smoldering wick He will not put out, Until He leads justice to victory.
(Matt 12:18-20)
What other term applies best to Jesus’ run in with the Pharisees than “He will not quarrel”
I showed how Jesus answers in John 10:34, which certainly does not promote men being gods, Jesus certainly says alot of things that are challenging, that is his mode of operation as it says 'He challenged them with this saying'
but I have to go now.
Why did Jesus have a habit of answering the Religious leaders with questions?
To make them think and question their own assertions.
Before I note other similar responses of Jesus to the Jews, you might notice that Jesus does not revert to ‘what you can and cannot’ do on the Sabbath, thus becoming like them and quibbling over technicalities of their law, but He responds with questions and usually reverts to scripture, not arguing with them, thus fulfilling what was written about Him. Note what Matthew writes immediately following His run in with the Pharisees in Matt 12:15;
This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet:” Behold, My Servant whom I have chosen; My Beloved in whom My soul is well-pleased; I will put My Spirit upon Him, And He shall proclaim justice to the Gentiles.19 "He will not quarrel, nor cry out; Nor will anyone hear His voice in the streets.20 "A battered reed He will not break off, And a smoldering wick He will not put out, Until He leads justice to victory.
(Matt 12:18-20)
What other term applies best to Jesus’ run in with the Pharisees than “He will not quarrel”
I showed how Jesus answers in John 10:34, which certainly does not promote men being gods, Jesus certainly says alot of things that are challenging, that is his mode of operation as it says 'He challenged them with this saying'
but I have to go now.