The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Simple Questions

Theology Christology
#21

IMO, Jesus didnt break the Sabbath. He explained it. The injunction was to keep the Sabbath holy, to do no work. The Pharisees were concerned that the disciples pulled some grains off a stalk to eat. They were concerned about healing a man on the Sabbath. Straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel. Jesus expressed utter contempt for their reasoning and the methods they used to get around the spirit of the law while doing charades to the letter if the law. To heal on the Sabbath was not holy? To gather low hanging fruit was work? Yet to avoid supporting ones parents by a gift to the temple, called Corban, a tradition that violated the spirit of the law was holy? Jesus, if He was the Messiah,was not held to centuries of midrash. He was, as the Author, held to His understanding of the actual writings in the spirit of the law- which He was, incarnate.

Nehemiah 13:15 In those days I saw people in Judah treading wine presses on the Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and loading donkeys with wine, grapes, figs, and all kinds of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day. And I warned them about the day on which they were selling provisions. 16 Men of Tyre dwelt there also, who brought in fish and all kinds of goods, and sold them on the Sabbath to the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem.

Reading through the prophets and the indictments against profaning the Sabbath they are mostly just like the above, having to do with seeking profit and pleasure on the Sabbath, saying nothing anywhere to be interpreted against healing or saving a life, or, according to Jesus, even pulling a sheep out of a ditch.

#22

Exodus 34:21 “6 days you shal work, and on the 7th you shall stop from your work…you shall not plow or harvest”. Picking fruits that are hanging, low or high (doesn’t make a difference) is considered harvesting. Gd finds so much contempt for this sin, that he decided that someone who does it should die. Healing a man who will die is permitted, but lets say a withered hand (non life threatening), is forbidden.
Giving a korban, was not a tradition, it was a commandment (some were voluntary, others were mandatory). A korban were a requirement during many time of the year, after a woman gave birth she had to give a 2 korbans. So to say that giving a korban was not in the spirit of the law, is dead wrong, it was the law.
What does “Jesus, if He was the Messiah, was not held to centuries of midrash.” mean?

#23

No. Jesus clearly said that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. That implies that man can choose how, or IF he will keep the Sabbath.

I think it IS clear.

Yes, that is clear also.

I DO believe that Jesus is equal with God in terms of His divinity (that’s why I capitalize pronouns which reference Him). And this is what John affirmed. “He called God His Father, making Himself equal with God.” God the Father had only one Son. To call God His Father implied that God had begotten Him, and that He therefore was another divine Being—just as divine as God was. This is how Jesus made Himself equal with God by calling God His Father. This is why the Jews wanted to stone Him. To them, this was blasphemy.

There is another sense in which the Son is NOT equal with the Father. He is not equal in authority, and He has always submitted to the Father. He said, “The Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28). When A is greater than B, then A does not equal B. Yet He is WITH the Father (John 1:1). and He is equally divine with the Father. He is “God essence” (John 1:1).

A human analogy would be that of a husband and wife in the Godly relationship which Paul advocates. They are not equal positionally. The wife, of her own free will, submits to the husband. But they ARE equal ontologically. They are equally human.

#24

Genesis 8:3,4 – “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.”

So here we have:

pre-Flood --> eating pork is abominable, as is eating any animal

post-Flood, from Noah to Moses --> eating pork is allowed (as part of the all things), as is eating any animal, except for the life/blood restriction

under Mosaic law specifically for Israel --> eating pork and other ‘unclean’ meats is again abominable, but other meat is acceptable to eat

with Israel set aside due to rebellion and the emphasis expanding to all people and nations as spiritual heirs of Abraham, through Christ --> eating pork is generally allowed, as is eating any animal

What is abominable in one time and place is not necessarily always abominable – context matters, with regard to God’s specific purpose and specific calling for that specific person/culture at that specific time.

It would have been abominable for Abram to disobey God’s call and not leave Ur in faith. It would not therefore be abominable for all other people to stay in Ur. It would have been abominable for Abraham to not be circumcised, upon God’s command. It was not abominable for him to be uncircumcised prior to God’s command, or for others outside that command to remain uncircumcised. And so on…

To ‘hate evil’ is not the opposite of Love, it is a key component of it. To hate that within myself or within another person (i.e. non-Love) which would bring strife, decay, corruption, death and keep us from reaching our full potential as persons, keep us from becoming who we are meant to be – this is to participate in Love with respect to myself and others, and to the God of all of us. To wish for the destruction of this evil so that all may find life and peace and joy is Love.

If you wish for another to come to a bad end as mere punishment or revenge, to be entrapped in strife and decay and not reconciled to all others, or if you treat them as a mere object to satisfy the desires of your self-enthroned without regard for their well-being, without regard for the sake of their own person – this is non-Love, an abomination, regardless of time or place or culture or world.

#25

Which comes back to whether Jesus has the divine authority to decide when to excuse work on the sabbath. The disciples are being put on par with priests serving God in the Temple.

Of course I put the incident lightly, “a snack”; no it wasn’t because they were starving. But such small amounts of effort being categorized as “work” and thus “breaking the sabbath” were part of what Jesus was challenging in the halakhah of the Pharisees attempting to fence-protect the Sabbath. What they were complaining about was practically on the level of Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef in our day creating a controversy by declaring finally settled the long-running rabbinic dispute over whether picking one’s nose was allowed on the sabbath (since that might lead to pulling nose hairs)! Jesus’ response is a reverse a fortiori: in these important matters, those serving God are allowed to blamelessly profane the sabbath, as you yourselves should be well aware, so why are you complaining about this small matter? (And GosMatt is the Gospel which reports Jesus acknowledging that the Pharisees not only have the best right to the seat of Moses for the synagogue, but also acknowledges that they can be doing right to tithe the mint and spices! – so long as they do not neglect the weightier matters of Torah, which are mercy and justice and faithfulness.)

There is no use within Judaism complaining that changes and lightening of the Torah precepts had to come somehow: despite halakha against sabbath breaking multiplying enormously since Jesus’ day, the death penalty for sabbath breaking (or for practically any breaking of Torah) had solidly ceased by the time of the 2nd or 3rd Christian century. Not from laxity either, but because the rabbis firmly believed that they had a responsibility to use their full legal ingenuity to save people from the death penalty of sabbath breaking! – which of course also explained their multiplication of halakha, fencing the Torah so that a person would not be guilty of breaking the sabbath. But should a person be found guilty, the rabbis would go the farthest distance to avoid being a “murderous” court.

Not all Pharisees were doing that in Jesus’ day, but what Jesus was teaching was the same principle, minus the fence of tradition to protect the sabbath – but plus the rationale of being himself the Lord of the Sabbath! Which after all was the key problem and complaint even from his allies among the Pharisees, not his merciful lenience regarding the sabbath. They didn’t have party-representatives following him around for nothing. :wink:

As for putting a stumbling block in front of the blind: even YHWH does that, when the blind are the unmerciful and unjust, just as it is written in Isaiah 8 and 28, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone (son) of stumbling and a rock of offense – YHWH of armies shall be to both the houses of Israel a stone to strike and a rock to stumble over and a snare and a trap for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and many will stumble over them, then they will fall and be broken, they will even be snared and caught – but he who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

(But have those who are unjust and unmerciful stumbled so as to fall? MAY IT NEVER BE! :slight_smile: God finds a way to save those from the death penalty even after He has executed them!)

I don’t think it’s speculation what happens to rotting blood, even if the details are not found in the scriptures, but be that as it may; the concepts of religious purity and safe living were closely connected in the kosher regulations.

#26

On the olam covenants, I could sit down and count how many of those must have been temporary since they had to be set aside for centuries before the Ezraian Temple, and for almost two millennia after the fall of the Herodian Temple; but you could reply that the covenant still holds for when-if-ever the Temple is reinstated. Although even then Ezekiel foresaw the temple being reinstated with some notable differences in sacrificial worship outside Jerusalem (which was and still is a key point of contention with Samaritan Jews).

Be that as it may; YHWH through the prophets told of a day coming when the presence of YHWH would come in person (even moreso than however much the Shekinah was still coming to the Temple in those days, which was of some dispute due to the rebellion of the priests and the people), and create a new covenant, not like the ones the people broke (with Torah), but written in their hearts.

Whether or not Jesus of Nazareth fulfills this promise (partially or not or fully later), this promise from the Tanahk shows that YHWH means to put aside the Sinai covenant someday.

What YHWH does not intend to put behind, is the Abrahamic covenant, which is a covenant of promise – and not one which can be voided (like the Torah covenants) by Abraham or his descendants failing to keep their side, because YHWH Himself stands in for Abraham (apparently as the seed of Abraham!) in making the covenant with YHWH! That covenant of promise is that YHWH shall eventually bring all of Abraham’s descendants to righteousness, as many as the stars in the sky or the sands of the sea. Which by the way must include all rational creatures, if YHWH actually comes as the seed of Abraham, thus showing all those created and sustained by YHWH as descendants of Abraham within the covenant of the promise (and also explaining the highly maximum number of descendants to be brought to righteousness).

Thus for the early Jewish Christians (like Saul of Tarsus) a big question was whether Jesus comes to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant, which properly is an olam covenant which cannot be even suspended much less abolished, in order to bring out the prophetically promised new covenant of the circumcised hearts unlike the old one through Torah which was broken.

In other words, YHWH swears by YHWH (for YHWH has nothing greater to promise by than His own unique self-existence as ground of all reality) to fulfill the covenant with YHWH to bring all rebel children of Abraham themselves into the new covenant of righteousness apart from Torah.

That being the case, we can infer that the olam covenant of the Torah (which is constantly broken by Israel) was not meant in fact to continue forever and ever, even though olam can refer to such unending continuation. It is more like the bars which imprisoned Jonah for olam – only three days or so. :wink:

But that does not mean righteousness, which the Torah points toward and aids, can be set aside. True justice, fair-togetherness between persons, may be stricter than Torah or more lenient than Torah.

#27

In regard to Corban – it’s pretty obvious the problem Jesus had with korban was not that the Pharisees followed it, but rather that some Pharisees agreed a person could intentionally refuse to support their parents by declaring the resources korban. That wasn’t happening by accident, that was happening out of some kind of revenge plot against the parents! – but (at least some of) the early rabbis in Jesus’ day came down on the side of agreeing with it rather than denouncing this interpretation for dishonoring mother and father.

Korban wasn’t halakha tradition, this application and technical judgment about it had become halakha.

#28

This goes back to other issues:

1.) Is it lawful to do the best of things on the sabbath, or not?

2.) If so, is healing the blind among the category of the best of things?

3.) If so, just how much work is allowed to heal the blind on the sabbath? How little effort to heal the blind is allowed?

4.) Does God break the sabbath by healing the blind (or doing anything else God continually does or may specially do) on the sabbath?

5.) Does a man asking for a miracle from God to heal the blind break the sabbath by doing so? Or “there are six other days of the week in which you may ask God to heal someone’s eyes, do that then”? (To paraphrase the complaint of the Pharisees against the woman asking Jesus to free her from her hunched back!)

6.) If a man heals by the power and authority of God on the sabbath, and hints strongly that he is doing so as Lord of the Sabbath, namely YHWH, is the real problem that he has healed on the sabbath, or is the real problem his claim to having personal divine authority and/or identity on par with God Most High?!

#29

Hi, Paidion.

I believe I understand you better now. And regarding the Sabbath, I don’t think we really disagree. If it was the intent of God’s law that man was made for the Sabbath, then Jesus broke the Sabbath. However if it was as Jesus said; that the Sabbath was made for man, I still don’t see that Jesus broke the Sabbath in the eyes of God. But I understand what you’re saying (at least I think I do), and that’s what I wanted. Plus, you’ve clarified your views on Jesus and as far as what you’ve said, I agree. (Though you know I’m Trinitarian :wink: )

Thanks!
Cindy

#30

No. Jesus never did anything wrong in the sight of God. He showed that strict Sabbath keeping according to Mosaic law, was unnecessary. The Mosaic law forbade lighting a fire in one’s dwelling on the Sabbath. If Jesus had done that, then strictly speaking, He would have broken the Sabbath according to Mosaic law. But God would never have faulted Him for that, since the Sabbath was not meant to be strictly observed. It was made for man’s benefit, that he might have a day of rest and recreation.

#31

I don’t see that Jesus broke the Sabbath even on a reasonably “strict” interpretation of Torah. Each example is a question of degree, motive, circumstance, and rationale for special exceptions, not disagreement over basic details such as no fire lighting on the Sabbath. Presumably the priests lighting fires on the Sabbath for Temple rituals basically agreed with the no-lighting-fire rule for example, even though they had a special case exception.

Consequently, I don’t see clear evidence that John (the GosJohn author/editor/final readactor/whatever) meant to be agreeing with the judgment of Jesus’ enemies among the Pharisees that He had in fact been breaking the Sabbath, instead of only reporting the charge made by them against Him.

#32

Yep, and in a word it’s called… CONTEXT. The inevitable problem of being hamstrung by wooden literalism is that of missing the woods for the trees.

#33

Nope. Context doesn’t do a thing to show that Jesus didn’t literally break the Mosaic Sabbath law. Indeed it seems He often went out of His way to do it, just to needle the Pharisees. He chose to do things on the Sabbath, when He could easily have waited for a different day on which to do them. But He wanted to demonstrate that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.

As for “wooden literalism”, I prefer to first interpret a passage by its obvious meaning, rather than reading some other meaning into the passage because of a conflict with one’s theology.

#34

Justin Martyr’s Explanation of the Sabbath to the Jews
Justin lived from 110 – 165 A.D. The quotes are from his book Dialogue With Trypho. This book describes a debate between the Christian philosopher, Justin, and Trypho, a Jewish man (Some of Trypho’s companions were present also.) Here is Justin’s explantion to Trypho as to why Christians do not keep the Sabbath.

**Righteous Men of Old Kept No Sabbaths **(Titles mine)

Nature Does Not Observe Sabbath Days

God Himself Does Not Observe the Sabbath Day

The True Israelites Are Those Who Come to God Through Christ

We Are Now Required To Keep Sabbath Daily By Resting From Sin and Working Righteousness

#35

There can quite “literally” be a whole world of difference between the 1st century near eastern mindset and that of a 21st century western mindset; push any TEXT without considering CONTEXT can demonstrate its own PRETEXT.

#36

Jesus, being the word/logos understood the Sabbath much more thoroughly than any majority opinions arrived at by rabbis. Jesus explained that grabbing off a few grains to eat on the Sabbath was not harvesting. He used abuses of corban- whether it is modified by interpretation for personal benefit or revenge it is no longer law, to show that it becomes something else that violates the spirit/intent of the commandment- a man made tradition.

IMO, The purpose of declaring something as Corban was not revenge however. It was a means of evading my responsibility to honor my parents by declaring funds as Corban which I can then use to pay tithes and offerings.

In any case, elevating their opinions about how the commandments ought to be applied, and adding to the word of God, was the singularly greatest reason Jesus called them “scribes, lawyers, Pharisees, hypocrites”

#37

Actually, Jesus directly breaking the Sabbath law on His personal authority would fit my theology great; ideally I’d prefer it.

But I’m trying to be fair to the context, where even in GosJohn, Jesus keeps the basic expectations of Torah, and (at least some of) the Pharisees are being useless nitpickers on one hand and complaining about the real problem (Jesus’ high authority and identity claims) on the other.

#38

I have no problem with Jesus breaking the Sabbath law either, as a testament to the level of His authority. Although I have expressed that I think He was explaining it- I don’t have an axe to grind about it LOL.

#39

Have you ever wondered why Jesus said, " “You have heard that it was said to those of old…” or simply " “You have heard that it was said…”?
Why didn’t He say, “God has told your forefathers in the old days…” or something similar? Taking Jesus’ words alone, there is no indication that these laws came from God. And one of them, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy” is not found anywhere in the Old Testament.
Please don’t misunderstand. I am not attempting to say that God was not the source of some of these laws. However, after quoting each one, Jesus then says, “but I say to you…” Furthermore the Greek uses the emphatic “εγω” so that in English it should read, “but [size=150]I[/size] say to you…” so that when you read it, you emphasize the “I”. By saying these words with the emphasis on “I” Jesus declares his own authority to override the laws that were said to those of old. In the first two instances, what Jesus said to them was even stricter than the old laws (vs 21, 27). In the last three, the old laws were to be abandoned entirely and replaced by better ones (vs 33, 38, 43).

As I see it, Jesus, as the Lord of the Sabbath had the authority to break the Sabbath law, and I think He did, not only on the occasion mentioned, but on several other occasions.

#40

Perhaps He did. Perhaps it is a fine line as to whether the Lord of the Sabbath broke the Sabbath law. In Matthew 12, it appears to me that He is showing exceptions to the Sabbath rule evident within the law and history-- also that example of the priests within the temple as an exception to the law- Himself being the singular high priest, and “one greater than the temple”. Also the interesting language in 12:5-7

"Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break(profane/desecrate/violate-other versions) the Sabbath and are innocent?
I tell you that something greater than the temple is here.
If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.

So He is definitely chastising the Pharisees for condemning the innocent.

Innocence doesnt seem to be the correct term for someone who is leading men astray, and I hav primarily been responding to the opening post juxtaposing the truthfulness of Christ verses a hypothesis that He taught breaking the Sabbath in opposition to the intent of the lawgiver.

I should listen to JC because He shows in the law and the history justification of His action and declares Himself innocent . He is the lawgiver and so the highest authority on the intent of the lawgiver and the context in which to understand the Sabbath.