Sabbath Breaking and New Creation

[Heidi]

Do you know what Jesus's response to the Pharisees was when they accused him of breaking the Sabbath? Did he agree with the Pharisees? :o No, he did not.

It is now time to back up your unfortunately harsh words with evidence.

Where, and I mean precisely where, does Jesus disagree that He is breaking the Sabbath? And please note that to show disagreement with the Pharisees about something other than the breaking of the Sabbathis not good enough. You have to show that Jesus claims He is not breaking the Sabbath.

Please educate the "foolish" - show us where Jesus denies breaking the Sabbath. But I will notice if you try to pass off Jesus' disagreement with the Pharisees on another, related yet definitely distinct matter, as a denial that He is breaking the Sabbath.

Heidi (and others): Do you believe that the Jews (or anyone else) are still are under obligation to honour the stuff about not working on the Sabbath? If your answer is "no", what exact event caused the world to transition of a state where the rule was in effect to a state where it is not in effect? I humbly suggest that the very content of your own argument does not allow you to claim that "Jesus ended the Sabbath by any action of His".

I will boldly suggest that if you and others actually believe that Jesus ended the need to obey the Sabbath, you really need to work out the mechanics of how that actually happened. I think it happened by, you guessed it, Jesus' breaking of the Sabbath on a number of occasions. If you believe that Jesus ended the Sabbath, please tell us how He did this without "breaking" it.

Do you know why Jesus healed on the Sabbth? Or not? First explain why he did and then we can go through the verses.

 

[Drew]

I believe Scripture is clear - Christ came to fulfill the Law. Christ cannot and did not "break" something that He came to fulifill.

To be honest, I do not even understand the point of this discussion. In the scheme of things, does it really matter?

I think we may have not actually thought through the mechanics of how something is fulfilled. When Jesus comes to fulfill the Law and when in parallel the Spirit writes the Law on our hearts, we have to realize that the "old Law" is now to be "retired". It has served its role in God's plans and is now essentially obsolete and can be set aside in a place of honour.

To all readers: please do not make me respond to the idiotic question: "Drew, are you saying that we can now rob banks and covet our neighbour's wives?". Please remember what I said about the Spirit writing the Law on our hearts.

I do not see anything particularly wrong with the notion that Jesus symbolically acts out the "retirement" of the Law by breaking it. The act of breaking gives us a strong sense of "replacement". Jesus may be telling us that He (through the Spirit) is now going to do what the Law "wanted to do but couldn't" - give life ("do these things and you will live").

And I do not believe anyone has responded to the argument that there is powerful symbollism in active striking down of the Sabbath law. Everyone at the time of Jesus would have seen the Sabbath law as being particularly emblematic of being a member of ethnic Israel. In breaking the Sabbath, Jesus is declaring that membership in God's family is not limited to the Jew - it is for all mankind.

 

[Vic C.]

Scott makes a point; why are we even debating this? Does it really matter? Is this a battle of egos or a hunger for a greater Truth? This brings me to my point. "We" said Matthew 12:1-5 was a relevant chunk, but was it? What about the transitional verse and what follows it?

(LITV)
6 But I say to you, One greater than the temple is here.
7 But if you had known what this is, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," you would not have condemned the guiltless.

Hosea 6:5 Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: and thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth.
Hosea 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Hosea 6:7 But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.

Yes, Jesus did sort of "slain them" with His words. He slapped them upside their heads with their very own hypocrisy. They transgressed the Law and the Covenant to a point where it was almost unrecognizable. One much greater than the temple was in their midst; One greater than the very Law He was accused of breaking was in their midst and still they were blind to it... BLIND!

 

[Drew]

Does it really matter? Is this a battle of egos or a hunger for a greater Truth? This brings me to my point. "We" said Matthew 12:1-5 was a relevant chunk, but was it? What about the transitional verse and what follows it?

(LITV)
6 But I say to you, One greater than the temple is here.
7 But if you had known what this is, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," you would not have condemned the guiltless.

Hosea 6:5 Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: and thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth.
Hosea 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Hosea 6:7 But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.

Yes, Jesus did sort of "slain them" with His words. He slapped them upside their heads with their very own hypocrisy. They transgressed the Law and the Covenant to a point where it was almost unrecognizable. One much greater than the temple was in their midst; One greater than the very Law He was accused of breaking was in their midst and still they were blind to it... BLIND!

Getting our theology right almost always matters. Incorrect theology almost always leads to bad life decisions and practices.

I think that Jesus clearly defends the actions of David when he (David) broke the Law. No one has mounted any kind of credible counterargument to this. It was clearly God's law that was broken (not man's distortion of it). Either this is sin or it is not. If it is not sin, then it is easy to see that Jesus' breaking of the Sabbath was not sin either. If it was sin, it makes so sense for Jesus to use it as He does - as an obvious rebuke to the very claim that breaking the law was sin.

This is not a question of egos - it is a question of getting at the truth. And this issue is hugely important. Why? Precisely because we need to see the big picture. This symobolic act, which I suggest Jesus did publically and dramatically, shows that the kingdom of God belongs to all, not just to ethnic Israel. The Sabbath law, along with circumcision and dietary laws marked out the Jews as "the people of the covenant" - the people who stand to inherit the promises of the covenant.

With great drama Jesus purposefully and intentionally breaks the Sabbath - thereby fulfilling it. By this act, Jesus is saying "The covenant promises are for all the people of the world", not just ethnic Israel. The Jews have played a very important role. By their being placed under Law, they drew the sin of the world onto themselves and then onto the faithful Messiah. Through one man, sin spread to all the world, through Jesus, grace spreads to all the world.

The covenant promises of forgiveness and vindication are not the property of national Israel. Those elements of the Law that demarcated the Jew from the rest of the world - circumcision, diet, and Sabbath - now need to be retired. To fail to do so would be promote a theology where there are 2 tables in God's kingdom - one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles.

This is the last thing Jesus wants (in my opinion). So the Sabbath law needs to be struck down in public. And that is what Jesus does.

I suggest that to see his actions as merely pointing out the hypocricy of the Pharisees is to miss an essential truth that has profound implications for our day.

We are one family. And there is only one table at which we dine.

 

[stranger]

Drew wrote:

The covenant promises of forgiveness and vindication are not the property of national Israel. Those elements of the Law that demarcated the Jew from the rest of the world - circumcision, diet, and Sabbath - now need to be retired. To fail to do so would be promote a theology where there are 2 tables in God's kingdom - one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles.

This is the last thing Jesus wants (in my opinion). So the Sabbath law needs to be struck down in public. And that is what Jesus does.

My argument is that there is a distinction between Jews and Gentiles that is ongoing. In saying this it is not a distinction that divides the body of Christ, nor is it a distinction that introduces inequality (God showns no partiality) or reintroduces the dividing wall of hostility between Jews and gentiles. That there are unfulfilled prophesies for the nation of Israel can be seen throughout the old and new testaments. One major section dealing with this is Romans 9 to 11, and especially the prophesy of the olive tree. The same apostle who wrote: there is neither Jew nor Greek also preached the Gospel to the Jew first and also the Gentiles, even though a hardness had come upon Israel so that few would believe in Christ! So there is what I call the priority of the Jew and this has not come without a price tag, they have paid double for their sins.

 

[Heidi]

Scott makes a point; why are we even debating this? Does it really matter? Is this a battle of egos or a hunger for a greater Truth? This brings me to my point. "We" said Matthew 12:1-5 was a relevant chunk, but was it? What about the transitional verse and what follows it?

(LITV)
6 But I say to you, One greater than the temple is here.
7 But if you had known what this is, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," you would not have condemned the guiltless.

Hosea 6:5 Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: and thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth.
Hosea 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Hosea 6:7 But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.

Yes, Jesus did sort of "slain them" with His words. He slapped them upside their heads with their very own hypocrisy. They transgressed the Law and the Covenant to a point where it was almost unrecognizable. One much greater than the temple was in their midst; One greater than the very Law He was accused of breaking was in their midst and still they were blind to it... BLIND!

God post.

"Mercy, not sacrifice means love is the fulfillment of the law. So Jesus did not break the Sabbath by healing on it. He fufilled it right in front of their very eyes by his love through healing.