|
|
Post by Mark on Jun 8, 2008 11:00:43 GMT -8
If Messiah was submissive to  in all things, how could He declare Himself to be "Lord of the Sabbath" as He did in Matthew 12? |
|
|
|
Post by Nashdude on Jun 16, 2008 3:28:02 GMT -8
Simple---because obedience to the is a RESPONSE to God's salvation, and Christ (not the ) is the BRINGER of that salvation. He was prophesied as early as Adam's sin, and all the children of God from Adam to Abraham to Moses to David all placed their faith in that prophecy---that the "woman's seed" of Genesis 3:15 would one day defeat the sin that man had introduced into God's creation. This seed---the Messiah---is the promise in Whom the patriarchs trusted, before the ever came about! In a very real way, Jesus IS the Sabbath. God instituted the Sabbath as a day of glory for Himself, a day of rest and renewal for us in Him. It was created for our benefit, not as a burden but as a blessing. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jun 16, 2008 4:55:34 GMT -8
Your answer works from a Christian perspective that already acknowledges Yeshua as Messiah; but His audience was Jewish who did not recognize Him as such. Any thoughts as to what this reference might mean to them?
Would not declaring Himself "Lord of the Sabbath", or even earlier in the same text "greater than the Temple" constitute blaspemy by their interpretation. And if so, why did they not respond so. In fact, immediately following this episode, they allowed Him into the synagogue to teach!
|
|
|
|
Post by Nashdude on Jun 16, 2008 11:23:50 GMT -8
Your answer works from a Christian perspective that already acknowledges Yeshua as Messiah; but His audience was Jewish who did not recognize Him as such. Any thoughts as to what this reference might mean to them? Would not declaring Himself "Lord of the Sabbath", or even earlier in the same text "greater than the Temple" constitute blaspemy by their interpretation. And if so, why did they not respond so. In fact, immediately following this episode, they allowed Him into the synagogue to teach! Excellent points, both. Thing is, blasphemy is not so much speaking errantly or even arrogantly concerning God. Rather, it is VILIFYING God, setting Him as an ENEMY. Remember, Paul was rather arrogant when he was young in the ministry. Peter too. But neither one in their arrogance actually set God as an enemy, did not constitute blasphemy. When Jesus proclaimed Himself "Lord of the Sabbath", there were two ways the Jews could have gone. The could have (errantly) condemned Him for blasphemy, or they could have looked to the prophecies which stated the following about Messiah... Isaiah 9:6 -- For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. In Isaiah, it was plainly prophesied that the Messiah would not just be a prophet, but the very God in the flesh! The Jews of Jesus' day would have known this prophecy, and I think they were thinking about this when He proclaimed Himself "Lord of the Sabbath". At that point, they might have taken it as blasphemy, but they dared not act yet, for fear that He might actually be who He claimed to be. As time went on, and He showed Himself more and more at odds with "conventional Levitical wisdom"---and incidentally, more perfectly in line with God's ACTUAL Will---they gradually lost that fear of mistake and acted. Thinking themselves wise in the scriptures, they actually proved how terribly foolish they really were... Isaiah 7:14 -- Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Matthew 1:23 -- Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jun 16, 2008 15:29:49 GMT -8
Your point would work if they recognized Yeshua as the Messiah; but they did not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nashdude on Jun 16, 2008 18:54:07 GMT -8
Your point would work if they recognized Yeshua as the Messiah; but they did not. Agreed, they did not, but not for lack of evidence. The fact that they did not string Jesus up immediately is testimony to the fact that, although He might have been "blaspheming" in their eyes, they were not yet confident that He was NOT the Messiah. They did not see Him as Messiah because they EXPECTED something different---obvious royalty, a conquering king, all that jazz. Rather than follow the prophetic evidence to its logical conclusion, they went in with preconceived notions about Messiah that were never in scripture in the first place, hence the often mistaken identities of Messiah such as Alexander the Great. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jun 17, 2008 3:44:25 GMT -8
It seems they lost all doubt by Luke 4:29 when they tried to throw Him off a cliff for declaring Himself to be the Messiah.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nashdude on Jun 17, 2008 4:33:12 GMT -8
It seems they lost all doubt by Luke 4:29 when they tried to throw Him off a cliff for declaring Himself to be the Messiah. Well, those folks were kinda a special circumstance. They weren't your average run o' the mill Pharisees. They were people who KNEW Jesus, knew His family, watched Him grow up. It would have been extremely difficult to reconcile their image of Messiah to the boy that used to run around with their own kids. Or, as Jesus said, "a prophet is not without honor except in his own country." |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jun 18, 2008 4:17:01 GMT -8
We miss so very of the simple essence of what the Scriptures say when we fail to understand the perspective and cultural context of what is being said in the Scriptures. To us, Greek thinking westerners, "Lord of the Sabbath" suggests dominion or authority over the Sabbath: He can manipulate or interpret observance any way He sees fit because He is Lord over it. That is just like telling a police officer that my speed omitor didn't say I was doing 75 miles per hour, it only read 35. My guage of reality does not abdocate my responsibility, even though the car is mine. To a Jew, "Lord of the Sabbath" is no suggestion that He is better or over the Sabbath; but as Lord, He is responsible to the Sabbath. Remember that the kings of Israel were to be the greatest proponents of , guardians fo , not above the Law by any means. In the context of Messiah also saying He is greater than the Temple, He is actually quoting Isaiah 66, where Adonai says that the humble spirit is greater than the Temple. When saying He is Lord of the Sabbath or greater than the Temple, it is only we as Greek thinkers, who don't understand the context, see a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Nashdude on Jun 18, 2008 10:04:44 GMT -8
We miss so very of the simple essence of what the Scriptures say when we fail to understand the perspective and cultural context of what is being said in the Scriptures. To us, Greek thinking westerners, "Lord of the Sabbath" suggests dominion or authority over the Sabbath: He can manipulate or interpret observance any way He sees fit because He is Lord over it. That is just like telling a police officer that my speed omitor didn't say I was doing 75 miles per hour, it only read 35. My guage of reality does not abdocate my responsibility, even though the car is mine. To a Jew, "Lord of the Sabbath" is no suggestion that He is better or over the Sabbath; but as Lord, He is responsible to the Sabbath. Remember that the kings of Israel were to be the greatest proponents of , guardians fo , not above the Law by any means. In the context of Messiah also saying He is greater than the Temple, He is actually quoting Isaiah 66, where Adonai says that the humble spirit is greater than the Temple. When saying He is Lord of the Sabbath or greater than the Temple, it is only we as Greek thinkers, who don't understand the context, see a problem. Good points, all. And while I agree with everything you said (especially the reference to Western thought), that would not negate the truth of the being a RESPONSE to salvation rather than a CAUSE---a truth that is still implied by the verse. Incidentally, I don't remember that verse out of Isaiah 66. I'm sure I've read over it a few times and it just never stuck out to me. Could you please give me the reference? It seems like it would work BEAUTIFULLY with 1 Samuel 15:22, Isaiah 1:11, and Psalm 51:17. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jun 19, 2008 3:42:54 GMT -8
HI Nashdude,
I want you to clearly understand that I completely agree with your sentiment in every respect. However, I also want you to understand that your method of drawing conclusions on the Scripture is dangerous: beginning with a premise or a conclusion, then seeking ways to validate that position. This is where it is valuable to draw from various strains of theology to understand different perpsectives on the text. Ask the question, "How many different ways could this passage be interpretted?" Then, determine which of those interpretations lines up consistently with the character of the author. How might the original audience understand what the author is saying? And finally, from what Old Testament reference(s) could he be using to establish his position? Understanding the Jewish writings of antiquity, how would he and his listeners understood what the Old Testament meant?
The Isaiah 66 passage is specifically Isaiah 66:1-3.
|
|
in all things, how could He declare Himself to be "Lord of the Sabbath" as He did in Matthew 12?
