Adventist Sabbath Argument #7
Jesus said that, "the Sabbath was made for man" (Mark 2:27). Therefore, the Sabbath was made for all of mankind to keep, and not just for the Jews.
My Response:
This assertion is alleged from the story of Jesus and His disciples passing through corn fields on the Sabbath found in Mark chapter 2. Specifically, it is verses 23-28 that relate the story as follows:
"23And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
24And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
25And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
26How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
27And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath."
The first thing to notice is that the Adventists will usually only quote one verse (i.e. verse 27) of this passage in order to maintain their teaching that the Sabbath was made for all people to keep, and sometimes only part of this verse is utilized as demonstrated above in the assertion itself. However, as will be demonstrated, this is a mistake, because it lifts the verse from its immediate context (i.e. verses 23, 24, 25, 26 & 28). Let us consider this passage in light of its surrounding context to see what Jesus' statement actually means.
1. Verse 23 states that Jesus and His disciples were passing through corn fields on the Sabbath, and that His disciples began plucking ears of corn to eat. It is very important that we realize Jesus was not plucking any ears of corn, only His disciples were. The reason why this is important is because it sets the focus for the Pharisaical accusation that is about to come, i.e. that the focus is upon the disciples and not upon Jesus Himself.
2. Verse 24 states that the Pharisees complained to Jesus why "they" (the disciples) did unlawful actions on the Sabbath. Jesus' response and defense to the Pharisees will be for His disciples sake, rather than for Himself. In otherwords, everything He is about to say to the Pharisees applies to His disciples, because they are the focus of the attack.
3. In verses 25-26 Jesus reminds the Pharisees of the story of David in the Old Testament where David and his friends ate the showbread in the temple that was unlawful for them to eat. In Leviticus 24:9, speaking of the showbread, God had said,
"And it shall be Aaron's and his sons; and they shall eat it in the holy place: for it is most holy unto him of the offerings of the LORD made by fire by a perpetual statute."
It would appear that David and his friends had violated the Law, which they certainly did. But why is Jesus utilizing this story for the justification of His disciples being accused of doing that which was unlawful on the Sabbath? The Sabbath commandment had forbade work of any kind (cf. Exodus 20:10). Is it not strange that Jesus would defend His disciples from an example of a Law-breaker? Perhaps not, if we understand Jesus' point of view on the subject.
In the parallel passage found in Matthew regarding this same incident, Jesus says this to the Pharisees,
"But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless" (Matthew 12:7).
His point appears to be that David, though doing something unlawful according to the Law, remained innocent in God's eyes, because God desires mercy rather than a sacrifice. This is an important point Jesus is making, because He is referring to His disciple's situation. Notice that Jesus does not say to the Pharisees, "You guys are mistaken about the Sabbath law. My disciples are not breaking the Sabbath, or doing anything unlawful at all! You guys have misinterpreted the Sabbath by adding all of these restrictions to it." Rather, what we find Jesus doing is not denying their unlawful practice, but rather defending it with an example of another unlawful practice from the Scriptures. And He can do this, because even though David and his friends were breaking the Law, just as His disciples were doing; even so in God's eyes they were still innocent for doing so, because God desires mercy ultimately.
That which follows is Jesus' explanation as to why His disciples are innocent of this violation.
4. Verse 27, Jesus says, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath". What does this mean? Since it is His disciples that are the focus of the attack of the Pharisees, and since this is part of Jesus' defense for them, then it follows logically that this statement is regarding them.
Let us analyze this statement of Christ's:
A. The Sabbath was made, that is the Sabbath was created.
B. It is for man, that is to serve man's need. Man was not created for the Sabbath, that is to serve the Sabbath's need.
C. Therefore, since the Sabbath was made to serve man, man's authority is greater than that of the Sabbath. Man is it's master. And this is exactly the conclusion that Jesus Himself comes to in the following passage.
5. Verse 28, Jesus says, "Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." The capitalization of "Son" and "Lord" is the translator's interpretation of what Jesus is saying, and not what Mark wrote in the original Greek. Jesus' statement is within the context of His defense of His disciples. He has not been speaking of Himself at all. What Jesus says is for the benefit of His disciples in order to refute the charge of the Pharisees against them. Therefore, this final statement by Christ must be taken within the context in which it was said. The son of man is lord even of the Sabbath day. This naturally follows from verse 27's argument that "the Sabbath was made for man". The issue Jesus is discussing is that of authority, and not applicability. This interpretation explains Jesus' use of the story of David and his friends doing that which was unlawful for them to do, and yet remained "guiltless" in God's eyes for doing so. Why? For the same reason that His disciples were held "guiltless", because David and his friends were lords of the Law. The Law was made for man, and not man for the Law. God has accounted us as more than servants (cf. John 15:15). He has given us authority as actual sons and daughters of God!
Conclusion:
Verse 27 of this passage cannot be utilized by the Adventist without acknowledging that it is to be interpreted within the context in which it is found. To attempt to use verse 27 to teach that the Sabbath was made for all of mankind, and thus is to be observed by all, is to lift the verse from its natural context and misapply it. Therefore, the traditional Adventist use of this passage is unjustified and invalid.
Jesus is not speaking of applicability when He said "the Sabbath was made for man", but rather authority. Man has authority over the Sabbath Law, just as he does over the rest of the ritualistic observances of the Law, and as such, is not bound to them. Therefore, man is not held guilty in God's sight for his dismissal of these things. This goes for all of the ritualistic Laws such as circumcision, foods, drinks, washings, appointed times, clothings, sacrifices, etc.
21 comments:
David, Your logic and presentation on this text is brilliant and clear. Thank you once again for sharing your insights regarding SDA claims made out of context of scripture!
God bless all!!!
Yes, brilliant but flawed. When was the sab created and why did God create it? Why did he put it in the 10c's? Why did Jesus keep the Sab as was His custom?
Your logic is flawed because this would apply to the other nine as well would it not?
Paul makes it plain that the Law was a schoolmaster or teacher to bring us to Christ. We don't do away with the teacher do we? Jesus didn't. He came not to destroy the Law or the prophets but to fulfill them. He said Heaven and earth will not pass away until "All" is fulfilled. Well heaven and earth is still with us, right?
BTW, the Sab was given to mankind in the fact that Adam & Eve first day was the Sab, the only day that God named and blessed. Of all the commandments its the only one that says to "Remember." How can you remember something that is no longer valid? Remember to not lie, steal, commit adultery, etc. So why did God give the Sab command as He did?
David, as we have discussed many times, you are off base here and you know it. God's Law will stand forever as it is a transcript of His character.
Love Dad
PS Sorry I did not quote directly from Scripture as My Bible is in the other part of the house.
Hi Dad, welcome to the blog! I'm glad to see that it has finally let you post a comment! Feel free to engage in any conversation on here, as there have been some good ones. I'll do my best to keep the blog updated regularly.
Now, onto your comments...
You said, "When was the sab created and why did God create it? Why did he put it in the 10c's?"
Good questions, with several different directions to take on each. However, neither of them deal with the immediate content of the post at hand. I would suggest going back through the beginning posts of this series on the Sabbath that deal with the Adventist arguments from Genesis and Exodus. There might be some information there that addresses at least some of the content of these questions. And feel free to comment under any of those posts too!
You said, "Why did Jesus keep the Sab as was His custom?"
You're getting ahead of me, as this actually deals with my next post in the series. You'll have to wait until then for my response :P.
You said, "Your logic is flawed because this would apply to the other nine as well would it not?"
Not necessarily. The Adventists have convinced themselves, and have attempted to convince others (unsuccessfully), that the Sabbath commandment is a "moral" Law. However, the Sabbath is a ritualistic observance that requires one to cease from secular labor one day of the week. This is about as "moral" as having Labor Day off from work.
A moral Law is one that directly effects your fellow human being such as stealing, killing, etc. Jesus' teachings in the Gospels cover all of the necessary morality that God requires of us. Teachings such as, "Love your neighbor as yourself", and, "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you", covers all of the content that the "moral" commandments cover plus more! When a person sets themselves to following Jesus' teachings in the Gospels, they truly do not lack in anything.
cont...
You said, "Paul makes it plain that the Law was a schoolmaster or teacher to bring us to Christ. We don't do away with the teacher do we?"
The Law may be a "schoolmaster" that brings us to Christ, but Paul plainly says, "But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." (Gal. 3:25). This actually plays right into Christ's argument in the passage dwelt upon in my post. We are no longer "under" the Law as a schoolmaster. What does "under" mean, but authority? Indeed, that is what it means. And this is brought out by Paul in the following chapter where he says,
"Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father." (Gal. 4:1-2).
And when was this "appointed" time? He goes on and says,
" But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." (vss. 4-5).
This corresponds to what he said earlier in chapter 3,
"Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made;" (3:19).
The Law was to serve its purpose only until Christ came who would then redeem us from under the Law by giving us the adoption as sons and daughters of God. This was in essence Christ's point in Mark 2:23-28 when He said, "the son of man is lord even of the Sabbath". Remember, capitalization in English means nothing. It is the Greek of Mark that matters, and the context of Mark 2:28 is clear. Jesus is not speaking of Himself, but of His disciples. Therefore, the son of man(kind) is lord even of the Sabbath. Why? Because we have been adopted as actual sons and daughters of God. Therefore, we are no longer under the authority of the Law. We are now under Christ's direct authority, because He is our elder Brother, the first born. Jesus Christ is our new Moses, and His teachings in the Gospels are our new Law.
You said, "Jesus didn't. He came not to destroy the Law or the prophets but to fulfill them. He said Heaven and earth will not pass away until "All" is fulfilled. Well heaven and earth is still with us, right?"
Again, you're jumping ahead of me! Dad, slow down! :) I promise I'll get to that eventually. Patience! :)
cont...
You said, "BTW, the Sab was given to mankind in the fact that Adam & Eve first day was the Sab, the only day that God named and blessed."
This doesn't really have anything to do with the content of this post, but I'll address it anyways.
It may be true that the seventh day was Adam and Eve's first day, only if one assumes they were created at the end of the sixth day, but regardless of this, the Bible does not mark it as particularly special or important for them. In fact, all of the Biblical data referring to the seventh day of creation seems to simply focus on God ceasing His work of creation on that day, and that is all. It says that the day was blessed because God rested on it, but there is no mention of Adam or Eve's participation in that rest. To suggest that Adam and Eve did observe the Sabbath from Gen. 2:2-3 is nothing but extra-biblical conjecture. Interesting, but ultimately useless at attempting to establish a doctrine.
You said, "Of all the commandments its the only one that says to "Remember." How can you remember something that is no longer valid? Remember to not lie, steal, commit adultery, etc. So why did God give the Sab command as He did?"
Well, the Sabbath commandment is not the only one that says "Remember":
"Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments." (Mal. 4:4).
Now God said "Remember", Dad, because He knew we would forget. Better get started on that entire Law "with the statutes and judgments"! ;P
You said, "David, as we have discussed many times, you are off base here and you know it."
Really? "Off base"? Did any of your comments directly address any of the points I raised in my post?
And I know that I'm "off base"?
Hmm...I wouldn't have written what I have written unless I truly believed it. It would be cool if you took on some of the points I raise. We could then dialogue about the passage in Mark 2. I believe I stayed within context of what Jesus was saying. If you believe I did not, then please point out my error. If not, then why do you say I am "off base"?
You said, "God's Law will stand forever as it is a transcript of His character."
I believe it! It's just our understanding of what God's Law is that differs. You believe God's Law is the Ten Commandments. I believe God's Law is the teachings and life of Christ. Let's continue our dialogue and see where our differing views bring us!
Hahaha...I love you Dad! I really do like our conversations. I realize that in the past I have not been the most mature when speaking of these things with you. I sincerely apologize for that! I think I've learned alot about patience, humility, and perhaps a little bit of a sense of humor by speaking to so many people online and in person. Keep coming back! You really do help me to learn new perspectives on things, and I deeply appreciate it! Take care, and give my love to Bev!
PS: If your Bible isn't handy, you can always use the online Bible link I have on my blog. It allows you to copy and paste passages. Very convenient!
Sorry about the long reply, but hey, this is MY blog now isn't it? ;~P
Big D said,
"Hi David,
Now lets see, Jesus came to save those under the Law yet we are not under the Law but Under the teachings or authority of Jesus, right? Is the teachings of Jesus any different than the Law. Did He not Give the Law at Sinai? He created "ALL" things, right?
What you say directly contradicts the Apostle Paul. iN Romans 7, Paul says he had not known sin unless the Law said thou shalt not covet. He goes on to say that the Law is Holy Just and Good. Sounds like he was inspired to write those verses. Paul says in Romans 3:31 "do we make void the Law through faith? God forbid. You throw out the Law and what do you have? Chaos. Imagine having no traffic laws. The Law is something that is good. It protects us like a hedge about us. The Law points out sin and shows us that we need a Savior to save us. Surely your not saying that the Law has been done away with, are you? Your not Lawless are you? haha
David, it has always been based on Love. Obedience without Love is worthless. But, our obedience shows that we Love God for who He is and what He has done for us. Thats why John says "that he that says he knows Him and does not keep His commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him." 1John Its like a man who tells his wife that he loves her but goes out with other women. Would she believe that he really loves her? Love always leads to obedience not out of obligation but out of love for the one who has done so much for us.
The Sab is in the heart of the ten and if you throw the Sab out, as it seems you are intent on doing. then you must throw out all of the Law. John plainly says that sin is the transgression of the Law and so does Paul. Jesus kept the Sab not Sunday and showed us the true meaning of the Sab in helping our fellow man. NO Where did He tell us to quit keeping the Sab or to keep another day. To me that is proof positive that the Sab is still in force just like "don't kill, steal, or commit adultery."
LOve you much
Dad"
Hi Dad,
I'm glad we can continue our discussion.
You said, "Now lets see, Jesus came to save those under the Law yet we are not under the Law but Under the teachings or authority of Jesus, right?"
St. Paul said, "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." (Gal. 4:4-5).
We were redeemed from being under the Law. What could "under" mean, but authority? This is Jesus' exact point in Mark 2:27-28.
Jesus is the new Moses, therefore we hear Him. And He has spoken directly to us, and not through an instrument. His teachings in the Gospels are the new Law for the Christian to follow. Nowhere in the Gospels did Jesus ever stress the importance of ritualistic and ceremonial observances. Rather, we find Him teaching something different from what we find in Moses' writings.
In Moses' writings, what we see is emphasis on ritualistic commandments such as circumcision, sacrifices, foods, clothings, days, etc. What we find in the Gospels is emphasis on loving one another as ourselves, and forgiving our enemies their trespresses. Christ has set us free from the ritualistic and ceremonial observances found in the writings of Moses.
You said, "Did He not Give the Law at Sinai? He created "ALL" things, right?"
Yes, He did give the Law at Sinai. He did create all things. And this is why He has the authority to make changes where He wishes. This He did in the Gospels.
For example, He said in Leviticus 11:26, "The carcases of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not clovenfooted, nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them shall be unclean."
Then in Mark 7:15 He said, "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man."
Clearly He revoked His own prohibition against certain types of food.
cont...
You said, "What you say directly contradicts the Apostle Paul. iN Romans 7, Paul says he had not known sin unless the Law said thou shalt not covet. He goes on to say that the Law is Holy Just and Good. Sounds like he was inspired to write those verses. Paul says in Romans 3:31 "do we make void the Law through faith? God forbid."
I gave a short exposition on several verses in Galatians 3 and 4 in my previous reply. Until you can demonstrate that my exposition was in error, then it must be your understanding of Romans that is in contradiction to what St. Paul teaches in Galatians. After all, St. Paul is not going to contradict himself, is he?
You said, "You throw out the Law and what do you have? Chaos. Imagine having no traffic laws. The Law is something that is good. It protects us like a hedge about us. The Law points out sin and shows us that we need a Savior to save us. Surely your not saying that the Law has been done away with, are you? Your not Lawless are you? haha"
Yes! The Law has been thrown out! We're now completely lawless!! Hooray! Now we can run around doing whatever we like! Everyone that is not an Adventist is running around committing adultery and killing and cheating and every other lawless activity. If only we were all Adventists, we wouldn't all be so chaotic! Hahaha... ;~)
Joking of course. But the point should be plain. Those that have accepted Jesus' direction and instruction for their lives found in the Gospels are actually better individuals than those who base their lives on those teachings and commandments found in the writings of Moses! Think about it. Where is it written in the Ten Commandments to "do unto others as you would have them do to you" (Matt. 7:12)? Or perhaps you could point out where in the Ten Commandments it is written to "love one another even as I [Jesus] have loved you" (John 13:34). And coincidentally, it is that last one that tells the world whose disicples we are. And it has nothing to do with keeping the Sabbath!
You're reasoning that those who have given up the Sabbath are now lawless, fails, because it does not take into account the fact that those who have given up the Sabbath have done so because they are under a new Law.
As I said at the end of my previous reply:
"It's just our understanding of what God's Law is that differs. You believe God's Law is the Ten Commandments. I believe God's Law is the teachings and life of Christ."
This is the crux of our two positions. Until these two points of view are candidly accepted as they are, then baseless accusations like "You've thrown the Law out", or, "Now you're lawless", will continue to fail. This also goes for reasoning such as, "If you throw the Sabbath out, then it must be okay to murder and steal and commit adultery!".
You're remaining comments merely reflect the point of view that God's "Law" is the Ten Commandments. I do not share that point of view. As I said before, I believe God's true Law is the life and teachings of Christ in the Gospels. And the way that we fulfill *that* Law is by bearing one another's burdens (cf. Gal. 6:2). It is by loving one another as Christ loved us, that we show our love to God. And it is our love for one another that guards us from doing harm to each other. Thus, we fulfill the Law by love (cf. Rom. 13:8-10).
Love always,
David
PS: Since this post was about Mark 2:23-28, let's focus our discussion on that passage.
If you think my exegesis of what Jesus is teaching is wrong, then by all means, please show how it is from the passage itself. That way we can stay on topic. I think if we do this, then our discussion will be more beneficial to us and those reading our comments.
Love you!
David,
The reasoning of many Christians is flawed because ALL the Christians, Catholics, Orthodoxes or Protestants speak of the Ten Commandments. And all of them, when they speak about the Ten commandments, include a commandment regarding a day of rest. It is revealing.
Also, you never hear Jesus say that the Sabbath is done away, even after His resurrection. This is revealing too.
Also, there is another flaw in the logic of those who speak about the new commandment that Jesus gave the church. Having a new commandment doesn't automatically suppress another. Having a new commandment just add one more, unless this new commandment explicitly says that an old one has been abolished.
So Jesus said that He gives us a new commandment. This new commandment is about love. There is nothing in it saying that the Sabbath is done away.
Those who believe that the Ten commandments in general, and the Sabbath in particular, are not valid any longer are not oonsistent. Are we allowed not to respect our parents? No. So this is commandment is still in effect. Are we allowed to kill, steal, lie, covet, commit adultery? No. So they are still in effect. Now, are we allowed to have another god? No. So this one is still valid. Are we allowed to have idols? Neither. So this one also is in effect. Are we allowed to take the name of the Lord in vain? I don't think so.
So call them the way you want, the 9 commandments are still in effect and we know that those who violate these commandments on purpose will not enter the kingdom of God.
What about the Sabbath? Is it still valid? Ah, in a sudden, it is not. Why?
- We are no under the law, some people say. Not under the Ten Commandments.
- Oh, so we can kill, lie, covet...?
- No, no, you cannot do that.
- Ah, so we observe the Ten Commandments.
- Uh...No, only nine.
- So, it is the Nine commandments then?
- Nope, we still call them the Ten Commandments.
- But I thought that we don't observe the Sabbath?
- Well, we observe Sunday.
- Is it a commandment of God?
- Well, no...
If you think it is confusing, you are right...
To Still,
You reasoning fails because it does not take into account the fact the non-Adventist Christians are under a new Law, as I said to Big D (my Dad), and I quote:
"As I said at the end of my previous reply:
"It's just our understanding of what God's Law is that differs. You believe God's Law is the Ten Commandments. I believe God's Law is the teachings and life of Christ."
This is the crux of our two positions. Until these two points of view are candidly accepted as they are, then baseless accusations like "You've thrown the Law out", or, "Now you're lawless", will continue to fail. This also goes for reasoning such as, "If you throw the Sabbath out, then it must be okay to murder and steal and commit adultery!"."
Still, Adventists are not allowing for the possibility that non-Adventist Christians are going by another Law. This is why it is so "confusing" for you to understand why non-Adventist Christians still respect their parents and don't kill or steal, etc. It is because they are under Christ's new Law in the new covenant.
It is His Law that teaches us that we should owe no one anything but to love them, just as St. Paul says (cf. Rom. 13:8-10). And when we love one another, just as Christ commanded us to (cf. John 13:34), then we fulfill all of God's requirements for us. Why? Because love does no harm to our neighbor (e.g. stealing, killing, adultery, dishonoring, etc.); therefore love fulfills the Law (cf. Rom. 13:10).
Observing the Sabbath does not fulfill the Law, Still, love does. Period.
The reason why non-Adventist Christians do not observe the Sabbath is because we do not need to. God does not expect us to, nor require us to. The New Testament is devoid of any condemnation by Christ or His Apostles toward others for Sabbath violation. The only ones we see concerned with others violating the Sabbath commandment in the New Testament is the self-righteous Pharisees! And the only ones we see today concerned with others violating the Sabbath commandment are Adventists, and other like minded groups!
Still, the reason why Sunday is not a commandment of God is the same reason why the Sabbath is no longer a commandment of God for the Christian. God is not concerned with daily, monthly, yearly observances anymore. Jesus taught us what God cares about in His sermon on the mount:
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matt. 7:12).
In otherwords, Still, this sums up our complete duty and obedience we owe to God. There is no more that He requires of us.
To love Him is to obey Him. To obey Him is to love Him. To obey Him is to do as He commanded. He commanded us to love one another (cf. John 13:34). He said that if we do this, then we are truly His disciples and the world will know it (cf. John 13:35). St. Paul tells us that when we bear one another's burdens, that we actually fulfill the Law of Christ (cf. Gal. 6:2). He also says that loving one another as Christ commanded us takes care of all other commandments (Rom. 13:8-10). Who are you, or anyone else, to add to this by telling people to keep the Sabbath or else they are sinning? You have no right nor authority for doing so!
If Christ or His Apostles did not stress the Sabbath commandment as something that must be kept by Christians, then why are Seventh-day Adventists stressing it to the Christian world?? If you wish to observe the Sabbath, then observe it quietly and contently. Do not make a nuisance of yourself to others. And do not attempt to deprive another Christian of the liberty by which Christ has made them free! (cf. Gal. 5:1; Rom. 14).
Blessings to you always and forever, my friend! :)
Can we please focus on Mark 2:23-28, since this is what the post was actually about?
Okay David,let's focus on Mark 2:23-28 now.
You really go out of your way to show that the Sabbath is to be discarded. I don't doubt your sincerity but unfortunately, your reasoning is wrong. And for a good reason: in your reasonings, you often start from the (unproven) premise that the Sabbath has been abolished and then you try to justify it a posteriori. With this approach, it is possible to prove anything and its contrary. This is why it is not a good approach.
There is nothing in the Bible justifying the abandonment of the Sabbath. And rather than using your kind of reasonings, many Catholics rather use extra biblical reasonings, that is, either invoking Tradition or the authority of the Church, which is more logical (though this time it has to be demonstrated that Tradition or the Church have the authority to change the law of God. But this is another story).
Now, let's have a look at the text. First of all, you are mistaken when you say that it was the disciples who were under attack. It was, in fact, Jesus who was the target of the accusation. Look at the context and you will see that the Pharisees were always trying to find an excuse against Him. You mentioned Matthew 12. Well, look at verse 2: "Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath". (Mat12:2, emphasis mine)
Look at Mark 2 from the beginning and you will see that the Pharisees and the scribes didn't like what Jesus was doing and saying (forgiving sins, eating and drinking with sinners, the disciples of Jesus not fasting).
So clearly, the true target of the Pharisees' actions was definitely Jesus (and it means that part of your reasoning is already faulty). Yes, the disciples did the plucking (which was not a sin by the way as it is not the same thing as harvesting. It was the Pharisees' extremism that made it a sin and their view was so extreme that you couldn't remove a fly from your cup because they considered this fishing) but the Pharisees were after Jesus (read Mark 3:1,2). And if they could have proved their case against the disciples, they would have proved the point against their master, Jesus and said that if the disciples were behaving that way it is because He, their master, was teaching false teachings and so He had to be removed.
Now, why was Jesus using David's story? His purpose was twofold. First, He wanted to show the Jews their inconsistency in their handling/interpretation of the law. David's took what was not his to take but no Pharisee at the time of Jesus would have dared condemn David, the great king. But they were ready to condemn the son of David, who was supposed to have the sceptre of the king.
Second, Jesus wanted to show that the Pharisees misunderstood the purpose of the Sabbath. The Sabbath day was supposed to be a blessing, not a burden. Unfortunately, it was what the Sabbath has become, a burden. And Jesus was trying to rehabilitate the Sabbath (by the way, each time Jesus did something on the Sabbath, it was to rehabilitate it, not to show that the Sabbath was not important any more, as some people think).
Let's consider the statement, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath". You said that "therefore, since the Sabbath was made to serve man, man's authority is greater than that of the Sabbath. Man is it's master".
Really? Let's think about it. When was the Sabbath made for men? At the time of Jesus or before? It is obvious from the text that Jesus is saying the Sabbath was made for men in all times, in fact, from the beginning (Jesus is not saying: "From now on, the Sabbath is made for men"). So, it means that even in the Old Testament, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath".
To be continued...
cont...
Now, in the Old Testament, do we see anything indicating that the authority of men was greater than the authority of the Sabbath? Not at all. In the contrary, we see God, who calls the Sabbath "His holy day", rebuking the Jews because they desecrated His Sabbath. If men has a greater authority than the Sabbath, they would have answered to God: "Sorry Lord, but we have authority over the Sabbath". But apparently, no Jew had your line of reasoning. And God neither as He punished those who were dishonoring His holy day. So much for men having authority over the Sabbath.
Let's verse 28 now and the expressions "Son of Man" and "Lord of the Sabbath". As I have shown earlier, Jesus is, indeed, the target of the attacks from the Pharisees. So He is realling speaking about himself. This view is in fact more consistent with His use of "Son of Man". In the New Testament, when Jesus uses that expression, He is speaking about himself. But in Mark 2:28, you want us to believe that it is not the case when he uses the expression "son of man" (by the way, your statement about the capitalization of "Son" has no value since in greek the expression "son of man" is always written the same way, "υioς του ανθρώπου", without capitalization (see Luke 19:10 for example)). There is no element showing that. It is just your interpretation based on the faulty premise that Jesus is not being under attack (by the way, even if it were true, we would need more than that to affirm that when Jesus uses "son of man", He is not speaking of himself).
If we consider the expression "Lord of the Sabbath", and if we consider that "Son of Man" refers to Jesus, we have a coherent ensemble. Jesus, being God, is the Lord of the Sabbath because it is His holy day, as it is said so in the Old Testament. It is coherent and there is no contradiction. But look at the conclusions you have to arrive to if we follow your interpretation. "Men authority greater that the authority of the Sabbath, "David and his friends.. lords of the Law"!! Where did you take thes ideas? You cannot find one verse supporting this idea. In fact, we see the contrary. Kings in Israel had to follow the Law and be subject to it, if not the crown was removed from them (look at king Saul). When we read the books of kings or the Chronicles, we see that the evil kings were call evil precisely because they were not following God's Law.
Again, I don't doubt your sincerity but I think that you are so eager to remove the Sabbath from the picture that you are starting to see things that the Bible doesn't say and also, you are starting to say that what is clearly in the Bible is not really there. Now I know that when we are presented a situation in the Bible, we have to see the text and the context before giving an interpretation. But the text in Mark 2:28 is clear. Jesus uses the expression that He has always been using for himself, "Son of Man". There is no reason to think that He is not speaking of himself here. But because you want to remove the Sabbath, it is not possible in your reasoning that Jesus be the Lord of the Sabbath. Thus, "Son of Man" cannot refer to Jesus.
It is a dangerous way to follow because the Bible becomes incoherent and its teachings arbitrary. It is dangerous because we don't let the Bible teach us since we place ourselves above the Bible (which is not surprising if we think that men, be they kings, are lords of the law). Worse, such reasonings present a schizophrenic God who for thousands of years has a particular behavior (with some requirements to be followed under the penalty of death) and changes his mind at a particular point in time.
Is God confused? No, for the Bible says that God is not the author of confusion.
We know who is.
Hi Still,
Here is my Looong overdue response:
You said, "You really go out of your way to show that the Sabbath is to be discarded."
First of all, I am not "going out of my way" to show that the Sabbath is to be discarded. What I am bringing out of the story in Mark's Gospel is that Christians are not under the authority of the Sabbath law (i.e. Christians are not prohibited from working on Saturday).
You said, "I don't doubt your sincerity but unfortunately, your reasoning is wrong. And for a good reason: in your reasonings, you often start from the (unproven) premise that the Sabbath has been abolished and then you try to justify it a posteriori. With this approach, it is possible to prove anything and its contrary. This is why it is not a good approach."
I am sorry Still, but I am not doing this. I am simply adhering to what is actually recorded for us in the Gospels and Apostolic writings. What I see being taught in passages such as this is that "breaking" the letter of the Sabbath is not considered a sin in the new covenant. Just as "breaking" the letter of the Law (i.e. David and his friends eating the showbread) is not considered a sin either. What I also see in this passage is Jesus explaining why this is the case, i.e. that the son (remember, no capitalization) of man is lord even of the Sabbath. In essence, what I believe this means is that man is the "lord" of the Law God gave. Notice St. Paul's argument:
"Now I say, That the heir (man), as long as he is a child (has not come to faith in Christ yet), differeth nothing from a servant (one who is under the authority of another), though he be lord of all (that is one who has authority over everything); But is under tutors and governors (the Law and commandments) until the time appointed (the coming of Christ) of the father (God the Father). Even so we (Christians), when we were children (before faith in Christ), were in bondage (under another authority) under the elements of the world (things dealing with this world like the observance of a particular 24hr period of time): But when the fulness of the time (the Law's authority) was come, God (the Father) sent forth his Son (Christ), made of a woman (became human), made under the law (under the Law's authority), To redeem (set free) them (people) that were under the law (under the Law's authority), that we (Christians) might receive the adoption of sons (no longer servants, but fellow rulers and lords with Christ and the Father)." Galatians 4:1-5 KJV (bold parts are my emphasis and words).
This is exactly how I understand St. Paul's argument. And this is exactly how I understand Jesus' argument in Mark 2:23-28.
cont...
You said, "There is nothing in the Bible justifying the abandonment of the Sabbath. And rather than using your kind of reasonings, many Catholics rather use extra biblical reasonings, that is, either invoking Tradition or the authority of the Church, which is more logical (though this time it has to be demonstrated that Tradition or the Church have the authority to change the law of God. But this is another story)."
You are right Still, that is "another story" which has no bearing here. All that is being discussed right now is Scripture. And I disagree with your comment, "There is nothing in the Bible justifying the abandonment of the Sabbath." Saturday has a very valid uniqueness and specialness to it for the Christian, but to say that Christians are to treat Saturday as a "sabbath" (i.e. prohibition from work) is inappropriate and unbiblical. Nowhere in the New Testament did Jesus or the Apostles ever condemn someone for "breaking" the Sabbath. Christians are not required to abstain from secular labor like the Jews of old had to. Christians are not servants, but sons and daughters of God by adoption. And as such, they are lords and masters of all, even of the Sabbath obligation!
You said, "Now, let's have a look at the text. First of all, you are mistaken when you say that it was the disciples who were under attack. It was, in fact, Jesus who was the target of the accusation. Look at the context and you will see that the Pharisees were always trying to find an excuse against Him. You mentioned Matthew 12. Well, look at verse 2: "Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath". (Mat12:2, emphasis mine)
Look at Mark 2 from the beginning and you will see that the Pharisees and the scribes didn't like what Jesus was doing and saying (forgiving sins, eating and drinking with sinners, the disciples of Jesus not fasting).
So clearly, the true target of the Pharisees' actions was definitely Jesus (and it means that part of your reasoning is already faulty)."
Still, it might be true that the Pharisees did not like Jesus, and were actively looking for something to accuse Him of (in this case it was His disciples conduct); but that certainly does not negate my point. It was His disciples that was the direct target of the attack:
"And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?" Mark 2:24.
"But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day." Matthew 12:2.
They might have been attempting to discredit Jesus' ministry by attacking His disciple's conduct, but it was His disciples, and not Jesus Himself, that was the primary focus of the Pharisees in this instance! To attempt to shift the entire focus to Jesus is to distort the story and twist it to say what you want it to say. The truth is that everything Jesus said in this and Matthew's passage was directed toward His disciples, and not Himself. I brought this out clearly in my post.
Still, you said that I was "going out of my way", but now it appears to be you who is "going out of your way" to hold onto a cherished belief. I only hope that those reading this can clearly see that.
cont...
You said, "Yes, the disciples did the plucking"
Yes, you are right. And it is precisely because of their "plucking" on the Sabbath that precipitated the incident with the Pharisees!
You said, "(which was not a sin by the way as it is not the same thing as harvesting. It was the Pharisees' extremism that made it a sin and their view was so extreme that you couldn't remove a fly from your cup because they considered this fishing)"
Interesting that Jesus did not use your line of reasoning when defending His disciples. Why do you think Jesus did not simply say something like, "You guys have misinterpreted the Sabbath, and have made it into a burden with your extremism"? Instead, Jesus just referred them to individuals in the Old Testament who obviously broke the Law, and yet were held innocent in God's eyes for doing so.
You said, "but the Pharisees were after Jesus (read Mark 3:1,2). And if they could have proved their case against the disciples, they would have proved the point against their master, Jesus and said that if the disciples were behaving that way it is because He, their master, was teaching false teachings and so He had to be removed."
Exactly! So the case was not against Jesus per se, but rather against His disciples. This means that Jesus was not defending Himself when He argued with the Pharisees, but rather He was defending His disciples. Therefore, everything Jesus said was meant for His disciple's defense, and not His own! Thank you for that clarification Still!
You said, " Now, why was Jesus using David's story? His purpose was twofold. First, He wanted to show the Jews their inconsistency in their handling/interpretation of the law. David's took what was not his to take but no Pharisee at the time of Jesus would have dared condemn David, the great king. But they were ready to condemn the son of David, who was supposed to have the sceptre of the king.
Second, Jesus wanted to show that the Pharisees misunderstood the purpose of the Sabbath. The Sabbath day was supposed to be a blessing, not a burden. Unfortunately, it was what the Sabbath has become, a burden. And Jesus was trying to rehabilitate the Sabbath (by the way, each time Jesus did something on the Sabbath, it was to rehabilitate it, not to show that the Sabbath was not important any more, as some people think)."
Uhh, that "second" one didn't quite follow from the first. Oh well, you did try, so I will give you credit ;~)
Your first one was well thought out. Just one thing I would add is that what David did was a "violation" of the Law given by God. You are right about everything else, though.
cont...
You said, "Let's consider the statement, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath". You said that "therefore, since the Sabbath was made to serve man, man's authority is greater than that of the Sabbath. Man is it's master".
Really? Let's think about it. When was the Sabbath made for men? At the time of Jesus or before? It is obvious from the text that Jesus is saying the Sabbath was made for men in all times, in fact, from the beginning (Jesus is not saying: "From now on, the Sabbath is made for men"). So, it means that even in the Old Testament, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath".
Now, in the Old Testament, do we see anything indicating that the authority of men was greater than the authority of the Sabbath? Not at all. In the contrary, we see God, who calls the Sabbath "His holy day", rebuking the Jews because they desecrated His Sabbath. If men has a greater authority than the Sabbath, they would have answered to God: "Sorry Lord, but we have authority over the Sabbath". But apparently, no Jew had your line of reasoning. And God neither as He punished those who were dishonoring His holy day. So much for men having authority over the Sabbath."
Still, the Law was given as a "tutor" (teacher) and "governor" (lord/master/authoritarian) until the Seed (Christ) would come and redeem us from its authority over us by giving us the adoption as sons (cf. Gal. 3:19-25; 4:1-5 previously quoted). This all took place after the Old Testament.
You said, "Let's verse 28 now and the expressions "Son of Man" and "Lord of the Sabbath". As I have shown earlier, Jesus is, indeed, the target of the attacks from the Pharisees. So He is realling speaking about himself. This view is in fact more consistent with His use of "Son of Man". In the New Testament, when Jesus uses that expression, He is speaking about himself. But in Mark 2:28, you want us to believe that it is not the case when he uses the expression "son of man" (by the way, your statement about the capitalization of "Son" has no value since in greek the expression "son of man" is always written the same way, "υioς του ανθρώπου", without capitalization (see Luke 19:10 for example)). There is no element showing that. It is just your interpretation based on the faulty premise that Jesus is not being under attack (by the way, even if it were true, we would need more than that to affirm that when Jesus uses "son of man", He is not speaking of himself)."
Still, you should know better than this since this issue of "son of man" has been discussed on SDA2RC at length regarding the forgiveness of sins Or do you not remember??
In any case, it is the context that defines the use of a word or words. Therefore, in this case, my interpretation of "son of man" referring to humanity is valid. If you disagree with that, which you obviously do, then that's fine. Chuck another one up for two people reading the exact same passage of Scripture and coming to different conclusions regarding it!
cont...
You said, "If we consider the expression "Lord of the Sabbath", and if we consider that "Son of Man" refers to Jesus, we have a coherent ensemble. Jesus, being God, is the Lord of the Sabbath because it is His holy day, as it is said so in the Old Testament. It is coherent and there is no contradiction."
Yes, I know that this is a favorite line of reasoning among Adventists.
You said, "But look at the conclusions you have to arrive to if we follow your interpretation. "Men authority greater that the authority of the Sabbath, "David and his friends.. lords of the Law"!! Where did you take thes ideas? You cannot find one verse supporting this idea."
Where did I get these ideas from??
Why Still, have you not been paying attention??
I obviously got them from Jesus (Mark 2:23-28) and St. Paul (Gal. 4:1-5).
Now it's that interpretation/understanding thing that seems to be hanging us up.
You said, "Again, I don't doubt your sincerity but I think that you are so eager to remove the Sabbath from the picture that you are starting to see things that the Bible doesn't say and also, you are starting to say that what is clearly in the Bible is not really there."
Wow Still! You do realize I can say the exact same thing about you?
Interpretation: Round and round we go!
You said, "Now I know that when we are presented a situation in the Bible, we have to see the text and the context before giving an interpretation. But the text in Mark 2:28 is clear. Jesus uses the expression that He has always been using for himself, "Son of Man". There is no reason to think that He is not speaking of himself here. But because you want to remove the Sabbath, it is not possible in your reasoning that Jesus be the Lord of the Sabbath. Thus, "Son of Man" cannot refer to Jesus."
You see Still, you speak about going by the context, but you leave the context of the passage under consideration (Mark 2:23-28) to arrive at your "pre-defined" definition of "son of man". I arrived at "my" definition by simply adhering to the context of Mark 2:23-28.
And you are right, Mark 2:28 is clear according to verses 23-27 of the same chapter!
Think about it.
You said, "Worse, such reasonings present a schizophrenic God who for thousands of years has a particular behavior (with some requirements to be followed under the penalty of death) and changes his mind at a particular point in time."
Wow!
Are you saying that God still requires the death penalty for "Sabbath breaking" (i.e. Exo 31:12-15)?? You implied as such in another comment on SDA2RC a while back. You never gave me an answer one way or another.
Would it not be good news if God did "change" His mind on the death penalties??
Think about that Still.
You said, "Is God confused? No, for the Bible says that God is not the author of confusion.
We know who is."
Still, if you think that God still has those death penalties from the Old Testament, then I would have to say that it is you who are confused!
Blessings to you!
David,
The wages of sin is still death, even today. The only difference between Israel and today is that today we don't live in a country or kingdom where God is the direct leader. So God has no direct say in the legislation of the country. But if someone wilfully breaks God's commandments, God will not consider him guiltless at judgement day.
So did God changed his mind on the death penalty? No. Again, the wages of sin is death. But God provided a way out with the sacrifice of Christ. If you refuse Christ, you are left with your sins and the consequences of your sins. If you say that we are Christians but don't follow God's commandments, we will be rejected by Christ because only those who do the will of the Father are the brothers and sistes and mothers of Jesus (according to the Gospels).
Again, God is consistent. He doesn't say something for thousands of years to change His mind afterward.
Post a Comment