A History Of Old Testament Interpretation

We shall here endeavor to present a brief but comprehensive sketch of the treatment which the scriptures of the O.T. have in different ages received. 

At the period of the rise of Christianity, two opposite tendencies had manifested themselves in the interpretation of them among the Jews; the one to an extreme literalism, the other to an arbitrary allegorism. The former of these was mainly developed in Palestine, where the Law of Moses was, from the nature ' of things, most completely observed. The Jewish teachers, acknowledging the obligation of that law in its minutest precepts, but over looking the moral principles on which those precepts were founded and which they should nave unfolded from them, there endeavored to supply by other means the imperfections inherent in every law in its mere literal acceptation. On the other hand, at Alexandria the allegorizing tendency prevailed. Germs of it had appeared in the apocryphal writings, as where in the Book of Wisdom (xviii. 24) the priestly vestments of Aaron had been treated as symbolical of the universe. It had been fostered by Aristobulus, and at length, two centuries later, it culminated in Philo, from whose works we best gather the form which it assumed. For in the general principles of interpretation which Philo adopted, he was but fol- owing, as he himself assures us, in the track which had been previously marked out by those, probably the Therapeuts, under whom he hod studied. His expositions have chiefly reference to the writings of Moses, whom he regarded as the arch-prophet, the man initiated above all others into divine mysteries ; and in the persons and things mentioned in these writings he traces, without denying the outward reality of the narrative, the mystical designations of different abstract qualities and aspects of the in visible. The Alexandrian interpreters were striving to vindicate for the Hebrew Scriptures a new dignity in the eyes of the Gentile world, by showing that Moses had anticipated all the doctrines of the philosophers of Greece. It must not be supposed that the Palestinian literalism and the Alexandrian allegorism ever remained entirely distinct. In fact the two extremes of literalism and arbitrary allegorism, in their neglect of the direct moral teaching and prophetical import of Scripture, had too much in common not to mingle readily the one with the other. And thus we may trace the development of the two distinct yet co-existent spheres of Halachah and Hagadah, in which the Jewish interpretation of Scripture, as shown by the later Jewish writings, ranged. The former ("repetition," " following ") embraced the traditional legal determinations for practical observance: the latter ("discourse") the unrestrained interpretation, of no authentic force or immediate practical interest. The earliest Christian non-apostolic treatment of the O.T. was necessarily much de pendent on that which it had received from the Jews. The Alexandrian allegorism re-appears the most fully in the fanciful epistle of Barnabas ; but it influenced also the other writings of the sub-apostolic Fathers. Even the Jewish cabalism passed to some extent into the Christian Church, and is said to have been largely employed by the Gnostics. But this was not to last. Irenaeus, himself not altogether free from it, raised his voice against it; and Tertullian well laid it down as a canon that the words of Scripture were to be interpreted only in their logical connection, and with reference to the occasion on which they were uttered. In another respect, all was changed. The Christian interpreters by their belief in Christ stood on a vantage-ground for the comprehension of the O.T. to which the Jews had never reached; and thus, however they may have erred in the details of their interpretations, they were generally conducted by them to the right conclusions in regard of Christian doctrine. The view held by the Christian Fathers that the whole doctrine of the N.T. had been virtually contained and fore shadowed in the Old, generally induced the search in the O.T. for such Christian doctrine rather than for the old philosophical dogmas. Their general convictions were doubtless here more correct than the details which they advanced ; and it would be easy to multiply from the writings of either Justin, Tertullian, or Irenaeus, typical interpretations that could no longer be defended. It was at Alexandria, which through her previous learning had already exerted the deep est influence on the interpretation of the O.T., that definite principles of interpretation were by a new order of men, the most illustrious and influential teachers in the Christian Church, first laid down. Clement here led the way. He held that in the Jewish law a fourfold import was to be traced, — literal, symbolical, moral, prophetical. Of these the second was the relic of the philosophical element that others had previously engrafted on the Hebrew Scriptures. Clement was succeeded by his scholar Origen. With him biblical interpretation showed itself more decidedly Christian; and while the wisdom of the Egyptians, moulded anew, became the per manent inheritance of the Church, the distinctive symbolical meaning which philosophy had placed upon the O. T. disappeared. Origen recognizes in Scripture, as it were, a body, soul, and spirit, answering to the body, soul, and spirit of man: the first serves for the edification of the simple, the second for that of the more advanced, the third for that of the perfect. The reality and the utility of the first, the letter of Scripture, he proves by the number of those whose faith is nurtured by it. The second,' which is in fact the moral sense of Scripture, he illustrates by the interpretation of Dent. xxv. 4 in 1 Cor. ix. 9. The third, however, is that on which he principally dwells, showing how the Jewish Law, spiritually understood, contained a shadow of good things to come. Both the spiritual and (to use his own term J the psychical meaning he held to be always present in Scripture, the bodily not always. Origen's own expositions of Scripture were, no doubt, less successful than his investigations of the principles on which it ought to be expounded. Yet as the appliances which he Drought to the study of Scripture made him the father of biblical criticism, so of all detailed Christian scriptural commentaries his were the first ; a fact not to be forgotten by those who would estimate aright their several merits and defects. The value of Origen's researches was best appreciated, a century later, by Jerome. He adopted and repeated most of Origen's principles; but he exhibited more judgment in the practical application of them: he devoted more attention to the literal interpretation, the basis of the rest, and he brought also larger stores of learning to bear upon it. With Origen, he held that Scripture was to be understood in a threefold manner, literally, tropologically, mystically: the first meaning was the lowest, the last the highest. But elsewhere he gave a new threefold division of scriptural interpretation, identifying the ethical with the literal or first meaning, making the allegorical or spiritual meaning the second, and maintaining that, thirdly, Scripture was to be understood "secundum futurorum bcatitudinem." The influence of Origen's writings was supreme in the Greek Church for a hundred years after his death. Towards the end of the 4th century, Diodore, bishop of Tarsus, previously a presbyter at Antioch, wrote an exposition of the whole of the O. T., attending only to the letter of Scripture. Of the disciples of Diodore, Theodore of Mopsuestia pursued an exclusively grammatical interpretation into a decided rationalism, rejecting the greater part of the prophetical ref erence of the O.T., and maintaining it to be only applied to our Saviour by way of accommodation. Chrysostom, another disciple of Diodore, followed a sounder course, rejecting neither the literal nor the spiritual interpretation, but bringing out with much force from Scripture its moral lessons. He was followed by Theodoret, who interpreted both literally and historically, and also allegorically and prophetically. In the Western Church, the influence of Origen, if not so unqualified at the first, was yet permanently greater than in the Eastern. Hilary of Poitiers is said by Jerome to hare drawn largely from Origen in his Commentary on the Psalms. But in truth, as a practical interpreter, he greatly excelled Origen; carefully seeking out, not what meaning the Scripture might bear, but what it really intended, and drawing forth the evangelical sense from the literal with cogency, terseness, and elegance Here, too, Augustine stood somewhat in advance of Origen ; carefully preserving in its integrity the literal sense of the historical narrative of Scripture as the substructure of the mystical, lest otherwise the latter should prove to be but a building in the air. But whatever ad vances had been made in the treatment of O.T. scripture by the Latins since the days of Origen were unhappily not perpetuated. We may see this in the Morals of Gregory on the Book of Job ; the last great independent work of a Latin Father. Three senses of the sacred text are here recognized and pursued in sepa rate threads; the historical and literal, the allegorical, and the moral. But the three have hardly any mutual connection : the very idea of such a connection is ignored. Such was the general character of the interpretation which prevailed through the middle ages, during which Gregory's work stood in high repute. The mystical sense of Scripture was entirely divorced from the literal. The first impulse to the new investigation of the literal meaning of the text of the O. T. came from the great Jewish commentators, mostly of Spanish origin, of the 11 th and following centuries; Rashi (t 1105), Abcn Ezra (t 1167), Kimchi (t 1240), and others. Following in the wake of these, the converted Jew, Nicolaus of Lyre near Evreux, in Normandy, (t 1341), produced his Postillss Perpetuae on the Bible, in which, without denying the deeper meanings of Scripture, he justly con tended for the literal as that on which they all must rest. Exception was taken to these a century later by Paul of Burgos, also a converted Jew (t 1435), who upheld, by the side of the literal, the traditional interpretations, to which he was probably at heart exclusively attached. But the very arguments by which be sought to vindicate them showed that the recognition of the value of the literal interpretation had taken firm root. 2. Principles of Interpretation. — From the foregoing sketch it will have appeared that it has been very generally recognized that the interpretation of the O.T. embraces the discovery of its literal, moral, and spiritual meaning. It has given occasion to misrepresentation to speak of the existence in Scripture of more than a single sense; rather, then, let it be said that there are in it three elements, co-existing and coalescing with each other, and generally requiring each other's presence in order that they may be severally manifested. Correspondingly, too, there are three portions of the O.T. in which the respective elements, each in its turn, shine out with peculiar lustre. The literal (and historical) element is most obviously displayed in the historical narrative: the moral is specially honored in the Law, and in the hortatory addresses of the prophets: the predictions of the prophets bear emphatic witness to the prophetical or spiritual. Still, generally, in every portion of the O. T., the presence of all three elements may by the student of Scripture be traced. In perusing the story of the journey of the Israelites through the wilderness, he has the historical element in the actual occurrence of the facts narrated; the moral, in the warnings which God's dealings with the people and their own several disobediences convey; and the spiritual in the prefiguration by that journey, in its several features, of the Christian pilgrimage through the wilderness of life. If the question be asked, are the three several elements in the O. T. mutually co-extensive? We reply, They are certainly co-extensive in the O.T., taken as a whole, and in the several portions of it, largely viewed; yet not so as that they are all to be traced in each several section. The historical clement may occasion ally exist alone. On the other hand, there are passages of direct and simple moral exhortation, e.g. a considerable part of the Book of Proverbs, into which the historical element hardly enters. Occasionally also, as in Psalm ii., the prophetical element, though not altogether divorced from the historical and the moral, yet completely overshadows them. That we should use the New Testament as the key to the true meaning of the Old, and should seek to interpret the latter as it was interpreted by our Lord and His apostles, is in accordance both with the spirit of what the earlier Fathers asserted respecting the value of the tradition received from them, and with the appeals to the N. T. by which Origen defended and fortified the threefold method of interpretation. But here it is the analogy of the N. T. interpretation that we must follow; for it were unreasonable to suppose that the whole of the Old Testament would be found completely interpreted in the New. With these preliminary observations, we may glance at the several branches of the interpreter's task. First, then, Scripture has its outward form or body, all the several details of which he will have to explore and to analyze. He must ascertain the thing outwardly asserted, commanded, foretold, prayed for, or the like; and this with reference, so far as is possible, to the historical occasion and circumstances, the time, the place, the political and social position, the manner of life, the surrounding influences, the distinctive character, and the object in view, alike of the writers, the persons addressed, and the persons who appear upon the scene. Taken in its wide sense, the outward form of Scripture will itself, no doubt, include much that is figurative. To the outward form of Scripture thus belong all metonymies, in which one name is substituted for another ; and metaphors, in which a word is transformed from its proper to a cognate signification; so also all prosopopoeias, or personifications; and even all anthropomorphic and anthropopathic descriptions of God, which could never have been understood in a purely literal sense, at least by any of the right-minded among God's people. It is not to be denied that it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to draw the exact line where the province of spiritual interpretation begins, and that of historical ends. On the one hand, the spiritual significance of a passage may occasionally, perhaps often, throw light on the historical element involved in it : on the other hand, the very large use of figurative language in the O.T., and more especially in the prophecies, prepares us for the recognition of the yet more deeply figurative and essentially allegorical import which runs through the whole. Yet no unhallowed or unworthy task can it ever be to study, even for its own sake, the historical form in which the O.T. comes to us clothed. Even by itself, it proclaims to us the historical workings of God, and reveals the care wherewith He has ever watched over the interests of His Church. Above all, the history of the O.T. is the indispensable preface to the historical advent of the Son of God in the flesh. We need hardly labor to prove that the N.T. recognizes the general historical character of what the O.T. records. Of course, in reference to that which is not related as plain matter of history, there will always remain the question, how far the descriptions are to be viewed as definitely historical ; how far as drawn, for a specific purpose, from the imagination. Such a question presents itself, for example, in the Book of Job. It is one which must plainly be in each case decided according to the particular circumstances. In examining the extent of the historical element in the prophecies, both of the prophets and the psalmists, we must distinguish between those which we either definitely know or may reasonably assume to have been fulfilled at a period not entirely distant from that at which they were uttered, and those which reached far beyond in their prospective reference. The former, once fulfilled, were thenceforth annexed to the domain of history (Is. xvii.; Ps. cvii. 33). With the prophecies of more distant scope the case stood thus. A picture was presented to the prophet's gaze, embodying an outward representation of certain future spiritual struggles, judgments, triumphs, or blessings; a picture suggested in general by the historical circumstances of the present (Zech. vi. 9-15; Ps. v., lxxii.), or of the past (Ez. xx. 35, 36 ; Is. xi. 15, xlviii. 21 ; Ps. xcix. 6, seqq.), or of the near future, already anticipated and viewed as present (Is. xlix. 7-26; Ps. lvii. 6-11), or of all these variously combined, altered, and heightened by the imagination. But it does not follow that that picture was ever outwardly brought to pass : the local had been exchanged for the spiritual, the outward type had merged in the inward reality before the fulfillment of the prophecy took effect. Respecting the rudiments of interpretation, let the following here suffice : — The knowledge of the meanings of Hebrew words is gathered (a) from the context, (6) from parallel passages, (c) from the traditional interpretations pre served in Jewish commentaries and diction aries, (rf) from the ancient versions, (e) from the cognate languages, — Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic. The syntax must be almost wholly gathered from the O.T. itself; and for the special syntax of the poetical books, while the importance of a study of the Hebrew parallelism is now generally recognized, more attention needs to be bestowed than has been bestowed hitherto on the centralism and inversion by which the poetical structure and language is often marked. From the outward form of the O.T., we proceed to its moral element or soul. It was with reference to this that St. Paul declared that all Scripture was given by inspiration of God, and was profitable for doctrine, for re proof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. iii. 16); and it is in the implicit recognition of the essentially moral character of the whole that our Lord and His apostles not only appeal to its direct precepts (e.g. Matt xv. 4, xix. 17-19), and set forth the fullness of their bearing (e.g. Matt ix. 13), but also lay bare moral lessons in O. T. pas sages which lie rather beneath the surface than upon it (Matt. xix. 5, 6, xxii. 32 ; John x. 34, 35 ; Acts vii. 48, 49 ; 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10 ; 2 Cor. viii. 13-15). With regard more particularly to the Law, our Lord shows in His Sermon on the Mount how deep is the moral teaching implied in its letter ; and, in His denunciation of the Pharisees, upbraids them for their omission of its weightier matters — judgment, mercy, and faith. The history, too, of the O.T. finds frequent reference made in the N. T. to its moral teaching (Luke vi. 3 ; Rom. iv., ix. 17 ; I Cor. x. 6-11; Heb. iii. 7-11, xi. ; 2 Pet. ii. 15, 16; 1 John iii. 12). The interpreter of the O.T. will have, among his other tasks, to analyze in the lives set before him the various yet generally mingled workings of the spirit of holiness and of the spirit of sin. The moral errors by which the lives of even the greatest saints were disfigured related, and that for our instruction, but not generally criticized. The O.T. sets before us just those lives — the lives generally of religious men — which will best repay our study, and will most strongly suggest the moral lessons that God would have us learn; and herein it is, that, in regard of the moral aspects of the O.T. history, we may most surely trace the overruling influence of the Holy Spirit by which the sacred historians wrote. But the O.T. has further its spiritual and therefore prophetical element. Our attention is here first attracted to the avowedly predictive parts of the O.T., of the prospective reference of which, at the time that they were uttered, no question can exist, and the majority of which still awaited their fulfillment when the Redeemer of the world was born. With Christ the new era of the fulfillment of prophecy commenced. A marvelous amount there was in His person of the verification of the very letter of prophecy — partly that it might be seen how definitely all had pointed to Him ; partly because His outward mission, up to the time of His death, was but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and the letter had not yet been finally superseded by the spirit. Yet it would plainly be impossible to suppose that the significance of such prophecies as Zech. ix. 9 was exhausted by the mere outward verification. Hence the entire absence from the N.T. of any recognition, by either Christ or His apostles, of such prospective outward glories as the prophecies, literally interpreted, would still have implied. The language of the ancient prophecies is everywhere applied to the gathering together, the privileges, and the triumphs of the universal body of Christ (John x. 16, xi. 52; Acts ii. 39, xv. 1 5-1 ; Rom. ix. 25, 26, 32, 33, x. 1 1 13, xi. 25, 26, 27, &c.). Even apart, however, from the authoritative interpretation thus placed upon them, the prophecies contain within themselves, in sufficient measure, the evidence of their spiritual import. The substance of these prophecies is the glory of the Redeemer's spiritual kingdom: it is but the form that is derived from the out ward circumstances of the career of God's ancient people, which had passed, or all but passed, away before the fulfillment of the promised blessings commenced. Nor was even the form in which the announcement of the new blessings had been clothed to be rudely cast aside : the imagery of the prophets is on every account justly dear to us, and from love, no less than from habit, we still speak the language of Canaan. But then arises the question, Must not this language have been divinely designed from the first as the language of God's Church? The typical import of the Israelitish tabernacle and natural worship is implied in Heb. ix. ("the Holy Ghost this signifying"), and is almost universally allowed; and it is not easy to tear asunder the events of Israel's history from the ceremonies of Israel's worship; nor yet, again, the events of the preceding historv of the patriarchs from those of the history of Israel. The N.T. itself implies, the typical import of a large part of the O. T. narrative. In the O. T. itself we have, and this even in the latest times, events and persons expressly treated as typical (Ps. exviii. 22; Zech. iii., vi. 9, &c.). A further testimony to the typical character of the history of the Old Testament is furnished by the typical character of the events related even in the New. All our Lord's miracles were essentially typical. So too the outward fulfillment of prophecy in the Redeemer's life were types of the deeper though less immediately striking fulfillment which it was to continue to receive ideally. It is not unlikely that there is an unwillingness to recognize the spiritual element in the historical parts of the O.T., arising from the fear that the recognition of it may endanger that of the historical truth of the events recorded. Nor is such danger altogether visionary ; for one-sided and prejudiced contemplation will be ever so abusing one element of Scripture as thereby to cast a slight upon the rest. But this does not affect its existence. Of another danger besetting the path of the spiritual interpreter of the O.T., we have a warning in the unedifying puerilities into which some have fallen. Against such he will guard by foregoing too curious a search for mere external resemblances between the Old Testament and the New, though withal thankfully recognizing them wherever they present themselves. The spiritual interpretation must rest upon both the literal and the moral ; and there can be no spiritual analogy between things which have nought morally in common. One consequence of this principle will of course be, that we must never be content to rest in any mere outward fulfillment of prophecy. However remarkable the outward fulfillment be, it must always guide us to some deeper analogy, in which a moral element is involved. Another consequence of the foregoing principle of interpretation will be, that that which was forbidden or sinful can, so far as it was sinful, not be regarded as typical of that which is free from sin. So again, that which was tolerated rather than approved may contain within itself the type of something imperfect, in contrast to that which is more perfect. C. Quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament. — The New Testament quotations from the Old form one of the outward bonds of connection between the two parts of the Bible. They are manifold in kind. Some of the passages quoted contain prophecies or involve types of which the N.T. writers designed to indicate the fulfillment. Others are introduced as direct logical supports to the doctrines which they were enforcing. It may not be easy to distribute all the quotations into their distinctive classes ; but among those in which a prophetical or typical force is ascribed in the N.T. to the passage quoted may fairly be reckoned all that are introduced with an intimation that the Scripture was "fulfilled;" and it may be observed that the word "fulfill," as applied to the accomplishment of what had been predicted or foreshadowed, is in the N. T. only used by our Lord Himself and His companion apostles. In the quotations of all kinds from the Old Testament in the New, we find a continual variation from the letter of the older Scriptures. To this variation three causes may be specified as having contributed: — First, all the N.T. writers quoted from the Septuagint; correcting it indeed more or less by the Hebrew, especially when it was needful for their purpose; occasionally deserting it altogether; still abiding by it to so large an extent as to show that it was the primary source whence their quotations were drawn. Secondly, the N.T. writers must have frequently quoted from memory. Thirdly, combined with this, there was an alteration of conscious or unconscious design. Sometimes the object of this was to obtain increased force. Sometimes an O. T. passage is abridged, and in the abridgment so adjusted, by a little alteration, as to present an aspect of completeness, and yet omit what is foreign to the immediate purpose (Acts i. 20; 1 Cor. i. 31). At other times a passage is en larged by the incorporation of a passage from another source: thus in Luke iv. 18, 19, although the contents are professedly those read by our Lord from Is. lxi., we have the words "to set at liberty them that are bruised," introduced from Is. lviii. 6 (Sept.): similarly, in Rom. xi. 8, Deut. xxix. 4 is combined with Is. xxix. 10. In some cases, still greater liberty of alteration is assumed. In some places again, the actual words of the original are taken up, but employed with a new meaning. Almost more remarkable than any alteration in the quotation itself is the circumstance, that, in Matt, xxvii. 9, Jeremiah should lie named as the author of a prophecy really delivered by Zechariah ; the reason being, that the prophecy is based upon that in Jer. xviii., xix., and that, without a reference to this original source, the most essential features of the fulfillment of Zechariah's prophecy would be misunderstood. The above examples will sufficiently illustrate the freedom with which the apostles and evangelists interwove the older Scriptures into their writings. It could only result in failure, were we to attempt any merely mechanical account of variations from the O.T. text which are essentially not mechanical.

Excerpt taken from William Smith, A Dictionary Of the Bible Comprising Its Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Natural History, p. 655-659.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Jesus Intentionally Worked on the Sabbath

(John 9:4)  I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

It was the Sabbath. He said He had to work the works God the Father sent Him to do while it was day; even on the Sabbath day.

He proceeded to fashion clay, which He applied to a blind man’s eyes, resulting in the one born blind to see. Jesus not only performed a miracle work on the Sabbath, He purposely worked with clay to do this; an intentional work of his hands, on the Sabbath.

Compare and contrast this to what God said about the works of the hands of those Hebrews.

(Jeremiah 32:30) For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the LORD.

Jesus worked on the Sabbath at the direction of the Father in Heaven whom Jesus said also worked on the Sabbath. Both the Son and the Father worked on the Sabbath.

By working on the Sabbath, fashioning clay on the Sabbath, He performed a work of His hands on the Sabbath. Jesus did this intentionally, leaving no doubt He did indeed work on the Sabbath that stated, plainly, no one was to do any work associated with labor on the Sabbath. Shaping and forming clay with one’s hands on the Sabbath was undeniably working on the Sabbath.

Because Sabbatarianism is fixated on the flawed translation / interpretation of 1 John 3:4, the only recourse they have to defend their flawed theology over sin and the Sabbath is to insist Jesus didn’t really work on the Sabbath, while accusing anyone who dares cite what Scripture actually says of accusing Jesus of sinning on the Sabbath. They refuse to admit the obvious: Jesus, God Incarnate, worked on the Sabbath, intentionally so, and did not sin. Sin is not the automatic result of transgressing the law, even if that law is the Sabbath commandment.

Jesus’ declaration that good works on the Sabbath are lawful and not a sin falls on deaf Sabbatarian ears, where the Sabbath law is viewed as a “moral” law where there is never an excuse to transgress it, especially doing so intentionally.

As pointed out so many times before, and ignored by Sabbatarians due to their ‘conditioning’: good works are indeed lawful on the Sabbath. He contrasted good works to evil works. Those are the two classifications of works of interest to God, where good works are produced by those who God deems good, and evil works are produced by those God deems as evil. For God said He judges righteous judgment, according to the heart; not the law. It is mankind who judges unrighteous judgment, according to appearance; abusing the law in order to do so, where any "work” done on the Sabbath transgresses the commandment, resulting in sin, and where Sabbatarians exempt their own works on what they believe to be the Sabbath as not resulting in sin. A hypocritical position.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Sin and Sabbath

(John 9: 16) Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.

The consensus of both the Pharisees and “others” was that Jesus did not keep the Sabbath. The Pharisees concluded Jesus was a sinner by reason of the fact He did not keep the Sabbath. He worked on the Sabbath. They watched Him, “witnessed” Him, work on the Sabbath. The Pharisees, like Sabbatarians today, concluded that working on the Sabbath breaks or transgresses the Sabbath commandment of the Decalogue, resulting in sin. Even Jesus’ disciple at the time witnessed Jesus break the Sabbath, and stated so in John 5:18, right after citing Jesus’ admission that He worked on the Sabbath.

Ask a Sabbatarian to define sin and he or she will cite the second half of 1John 3:4 that states in the KJV, “… sin is the transgression of the law.”

This is not about what sin “is.” The whole verse tells you what sin does. By taking part of the verse out of context, and interpreting that according to modern English instead of how the language was used over 400 years ago when the KJV was written. A false perception results that negates a declarative statement made by Jesus: “Good works are lawful on the Sabbath” which He further contrasted to evil works.

There are good works, and there are evil works.

Sabbatarians wasted no time in redefining good works to mean something not supported by the context of what Jesus said and taught, so that “good works” morphs into “approved” works where Sabbatarians become their own authority on the matter. Jesus’ explanation of good and evil works is totally ignored, where only good people can and do produce good works, only, and more importantly, only bad/evil people can and do produce evil works (Matthew 7:17-18).

Sabbatarianism recoils at the very thought that any and all good works produced by Christians - “good trees” done on their sabbath idol - are not sinful as a result, forcing them to twist and contort even what Jesus declared in an effort to insulate their sabbath idol from destruction.

Every imaginable and conceivable excuse and rationalization is employed to build a hedge around their idol in order to make it impervious to criticism as well as “doubling down” on emphasizing its overarching importance to the world, so that even the Gospel succumbs to its influence.

Sin is any evil, any iniquity, that is based in action or thought.

Why do Sabbatarians ignore the first half of 1 John 3:4?

It is because the Greek word used for sin there actually defines sin, and it is a definition with ramifications that Sabbatarianism tacitly rejects.

The Greek word for sin at the beginning of 1 John 3:4 is “hamartia.” In Greek, it means “missing the mark” like shooting an arrow at a target and missing it. “The transgression of the law” comes from the one Greek word, “anomia” (against law) which reinforces the actual definition of sin and how sin is “against law” that, in this progression of the statement, ends up invoking the condemnation of law; a death penalty.

Sabbatarianism bypasses the first condition of missing the mark and reconstructs the whole concept of sin into just transgressing the law, so that transgression of the Sabbath commandment results in evil / iniquity / lawlessness in one fell swoop, which is what the Pharisees did with Christ Jesus. They too circumvented the progression so as to make something “sin” that wasn’t sin, and that circumvention was in itself a sin.

Missing the mark / hamartia provides us with only part of the picture. It doesn’t tell us specifically what the “target” or “goal” was that was being missed.

(Romans 3:23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

This reveals the target: the Glory of God. The perfection of God. This is what sin falls short of.

When it comes to a person defined by God as evil / sinful / iniquitous, there is nothing they can do to “hit that target” or even come close to it. An evil person cannot by any measure achieve unto the Glory of God. The absolute “best” they could do was to refrain from their otherwise evil works and even their evil imagination. This brings up an interesting point.

(ISA. 58:13) If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

They could “honor” God by NOT doing those things they normally did - seeking their own “pleasure”, their own desires, even their own lusts. God wanted them to be focused in on Him when it came to the Sabbath, where this passage states what they were really thinking about on the Sabbath:

(Amos 8:5) Saying, When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat, making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit?

Now, an important observation.

I would simply point out at this setting that Christians do every day what the Hebrews were called to do on the Sabbath.

What did Jesus do, on the Sabbath, that we would agree was to the Glory of God and that we can contrast to the works of mankind who were incapable of doing anything to the Glory of God?

Everything.

Everything He did, whether on the Sabbath or otherwise, were works to the Glory of God. He healed people of diseases and afflictions and the people gave praise to the Glory of God ...but not the Pharisees. They remained adamant, hard-hearted, refusing to give Glory to God for the miracles wrought by Christ Jesus, thereby showing their contempt and hatred for both He and the Father in Heaven. They attributed His works to the ‘glory of the devil.’

Compare this now to the works of Christians, wrought in and through the Holy Spirit now dwelling in them, where all their works are now a reflection of God who now dwells in them, so that all their works, all the fruits of these “good trees”, are to the Glory of God.

There is no “missing the mark.”

Evil people not only cannot produce good fruits/works, they also deny the good fruits/works of those called of God and given the Holy Spirit, whose fruits are now wrought in God to the Glory of God. They call the good works of Christians "evil" and "sin", using the Sabbath as justification for doing so.

Sabbatarians, like their predecessors the Pharisees, call good, evil, and evil, good. The works of a Christian, now motivated by the Holy Spirit in them - with the “new heart” and “new law of God” in them - are viewed by Sabbatarians as works of the devil, performed by the servants of the devil, for the faithful Christians trod on the sabbath idol of Sabbatarianism where they do all to the glory of their sabbath.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Did Jesus Declare All Foods Clean In Mark 7:19?

Did Jesus really declare and end to certain laws? Some translations include this wording while others do not. Why is there a disagreement and which is right? This article explores the evidence.

---

Let's start at the start.

It was a Pharisaical tradition to wash your hands in a special way before eating. It wasn't just for dirt's sake, but for ritual cleanliness. The Pharisees would often take a legitimate biblical idea then expand the boundaries around it to prevent anyone from crossing a legitimate line. The intentions were good. If you don't cross our new boundaries, then you are certainly safe from crossing the old boundaries. The idea with the hand washing was, if you had unknowingly touched something unclean, then washing your hands would remove the ceremonial uncleanliness before you had the chance to spread it to other things, like your food. And therefore food could not make your whole body ritually unclean.
But things like this resulted in pushback from Jesus.

It is important that you keep in mind this hand washing ritual was all about ceremonial cleanliness; clean and unclean; holy vs common. And ceremonial cleanliness was all about making a person or a thing fit to occupy sacred space, like the Temple. The closer you got to God's holy and pure presence, the more ritually clean you had to be. (We will go into this more a bit later.)

Jesus' did not encourage His disciples to wash in this way before eating. Certain Pharisees asked Jesus why not. Judging by Jesus' strong reaction, this must have been more than an innocent question by the Pharisees. Jesus' answer was about how the various washings and rituals were undoing God's intent not just for the ceremonial law but God's intent for Israel to understand what the real defilement was in their lives in the first place. Jesus then explained to the crowd how it wasn't what goes into you but what comes out of you that can truly defile you.

When the disciples asked Jesus about this, He explained that the real issue was matters of the heart: evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil look, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. God's greater concern was not with outward displays of ritual purity and various washings, but with inward moral character.
The Pharisees had been expanding boundaries in all the wrong places. Doing the one but leaving the other undone.

It is in Jesus’ explanation to the disciples that the disputed line appears in Mark 7:19.

CEREMONIAL VS MORAL

Now for the hard question:
What about Jesus' response indicates He was concerned with voiding ceremonial cleanliness laws?
I see nothing of the sort at all. The conversation was not about legitimate Old Covenant laws. The conversation was not about pork.

Just like with Mark 2:27, Jesus' answer can seem quite jarring if we aren't paying attention to the flow of the conversation, because it is easy to misunderstand.

The Pharisees had taken ritual cleanliness rules that applied to the priesthood and expanded them to the common person - with good intentions. But in focusing on the ceremonial, they lost sight of the moral. Jesus passed judgment on the Pharisees multiple times (read Matthew 23 or John 8). Rarely do we see a Pharisee responding with, "I did not realize, and I am sorry for my behavior." or "Wait! I did not do what you accuse me of." Rather, they reacted with offense and pride and anger. "How dare you, an illegitimate son from a back water village, judge us, the teachers of Israel?!"
That is the crux of the conversation. All the handwashing in the world did nothing to protect them from what really mattered. They had neither recognized God Himself in their presence, nor recognized their own sin that was bringing them to the point where they would murder the very Author of the Law they so treasured. And no amount of washing was going to help this.

Which of these makes more sense?

A) [Pharisees]: Clean foods defile you with dirty hands. [Jesus]: Dirt is secondary. Sins from the heart are what truly defile you.
-or-
B) [Pharisees]: Clean foods defile you with dirty hands. [Jesus]: Not any more they don't. Meats laws are gone. Peace out! [mic drop]

I'm going with A!

IS IT REALLY IN THERE?

You may have heard people claiming the words "Thus he declared all foods clean" did not come from the pen of Mark. That's not exactly true. This is considered to be a legitimate verse. The validity of the verse is not in dispute, it's the translation that's in dispute. Let's see two very different ways this verse is translated:

(MAR. 7: 19) [ESV] ...since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

(MAR. 7: 19) [NKJV] ...because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?”

Same verse. Same Greek. Very different English.

At the heart of the difference in translation is what did Mark mean by 'all foods'. One translation takes it as a declaration about ending ceremonial clean and unclean meats laws. The other takes it as the continuation of Jesus' argument that lapses in ritual purity were never the real problem.

Both translations are technically acceptable ways to render the Greek. Yes! Both are technically acceptable translations. However, one of them does not cleanly follow the flow of the conversation.

I side with the NKJV's translation, and I think the parallel account in Matthew 15 supports this conclusion.

THE HEART OF THE MATTER

I said we would come to this later, and so we shall. Let's briefly remind ourselves why ceremonial cleanliness laws exist in the first place.

The ceremonial cleanliness rituals in Torah were not arbitrary. It wasn't a matter of health. It wasn't a matter of personal hygiene. It wasn't a matter of the nature of animals and pots and fluids. The rituals were about making a person or a thing fit to occupy sacred space. God is pure and perfect. (No. That's not strong enough.) God is absolutely pure, and utterly perfect. (Yes, that's better.) Things which enter His holy presence must be purified. Sometimes He makes allowances, such as when He met with Moses in the form of a burning bush and only asked Moses to remove his shoes. But when Israel was required to come into His holy presence, they had to perform far more complex purity rituals. The closer you got to God, the more ritually pure you were expected to be. There was another level for the priests who worked in the Temple. And there was still yet another level for the High Priest who went into the Holy of Holies once a year. All ceremonial cleanliness rituals were about making a person or object fit to occupy sacred space. Most of the sin offering rituals were not really about forgiving sin but rather about ritual purification. A disinfection, so to speak. This is what clean and unclean is all about; ceremonial purity and symbolizing fitness to be in God's presence.

In the time before Jesus' perfect and invaluable sacrifice purified to the uttermost all who accept it, there had to be a shadow of purification, a symbol. The Gentiles had absolutely nothing. And the Jews would also have had nothing, but God provided a means to symbolically purify them until Messiah could come.

The law did not require ritual hand washings before meals as a condition of entering sacred space. The law regulated what things could be eaten or worn or touched, and the law regulated certain priestly washings, but the law said nothing about regular Israelite's hands transmitting uncleanliness to regular food and then onto the body... which was what the Pharisees hoped to prevent when they made the rule about hand washing.
So, why would Jesus declare an end to one part of the legitimate law as a solution to an issue that had nothing to do with those legitimate laws, in a conversation that had nothing to do with those legitimate laws?

I see no good reason to agree that He did.

Jesus did not counter from the law but from common sense. You eat, you digest, you eliminate - but none of this touches the moral failures which begin in the heart.

Fixating on symbolism and requiring others to do so was distracting from the underlying meaning God enacted cleanliness laws for in the first place. All the purification rituals in Israel could never actually take away sin (HEB. 10:11). Jesus was speaking beyond holiness and onto righteousness. Jesus was cutting to the heart of the matter: sin is real, and it can have no part with a holy and righteous God, and the water was not literally washing away anything that truly mattered. Deal with your sin first (MAT. 23:25-26). Or, to put it another way, deal with righteousness first and then you are free to attend to holiness. This is the same lesson He gave in Matthew 5:

(MAT. 5:23-24) 23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

And if you think about it, this is the same thing Jesus was addressing in the ritual foot cleansing during His final Passover with the Apostles (read John 13, especially verses 10 & 11).

Here is the crux of my argument: If ceremonies in the first place cannot solve the issue, then removing the ritual laws also does not solve the issue. Therefore, that isn't what Jesus was doing.

FINAL POINTS

When we look at it this way, the verse no longer reads like Jesus declaring an end to Old Covenant meats laws. Therefore, the NKJV translation fits the narrative better. That is not to say He could not have done so. He had the authority. But I do not see anything here that leads me to believe He intended to.

This is where I pull out an old favorite verse:
(MAT. 5: 17-18) 17 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

I am not citing this selection to claim the law continues forever. I am citing it to demonstrate that it was not Jesus' intention to simply declare things away.

Jesus came to genuinely solve the issue. He did not come to circumvent by declaring an end to certain laws. He did not come to take the easy route. He was going to do it the hard way; the only real way. He did not permit Himself the option of simply making declarations. He came to fulfill fully, to keep Israel's end of the Covenant for them perfectly, as the true Israel of God, and when that was accomplished, He would die to cleanse us all and solve the issue at its very heart and root.

Lastly, let's skip ahead to Peter's Sheet Vision in Acts 10. When God said, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat," Peter responded, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” (v14.) Peter was quite adamant. This response would make no sense at all if Peter was fully aware that Jesus removed foods laws in Mark 7. The Gospel of Mark is traditionally considered to be Peter's version of events, after all.

CONCLUSION

Did Jesus declare all foods clean in Mark 7: 19?

No.

As Bereans Did has always said we would happily point out where Herbert Armstrong got things right, and we think he did here, at least to a degree.
However....
If Jesus did not declare meats clean in Mark 7, does that mean meats laws are still in effect for all Christians and we can proof-text Isaiah 66:17?

Also no.
...but not because of Mark 7:19.

The answer to that question can be found in Jesus' perfect sacrifice that permanently cleanses and truly takes away sin, which tore the curtain and opened our way straight to the Father, and which ended the Old Covenant with its terms and symbols and rituals and distinctions between Jew and Gentile. We go over this in other articles.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

The Sabbath Rest of Mark 2

Does the phrase "the Sabbath was made for man" in Mark 2:27 indicate the Sabbath was made on day 7 of Creation Week and is binding on all mankind? This article looks at that interaction from several angles and discovers there is so much more to consider.

---

In "The Sabbath Rest of John 14", we saw how the word "commandments" in English Bible translations rarely refers to the Ten Commandments, and never on its own, and that such help is missing in John 14. So, we naturally conclude the Sabbath is missing from John 14.

Today, we will go over another very popular selection: Mark 2:27-28.

Clearly, there is a Sabbath here. That's not the issue. Instead, we need to look at three related issues.

The first is the phrase "made for man". Sabbatarians claim it means "made for all mankind." Does it, or does it mean something else?
The second is the claim that verse 27 supports a weekly Sabbath at creation. Did we neglect to review this verse in our article "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2", or does it mean something else?
The third is the claim that since Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, then the Sabbath is binding in the New Covenant. Can this phrase support this, and only this?

Or, to put it another way, the Sabbath is there, but are we reading about its nature or its scope?

Let's start with one of the things we hammer away at here: context, context, context.

THE CONTEXT

To get an idea on what these two verses mean, we should take them as part of the conversation they were in. So, let's see that conversation.

(MAR. 2: 23-26) 23 Now it happened that He went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; and as they went His disciples began to pluck the heads of grain. 24 And the Pharisees said to Him, “Look, why do they do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 25 But He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and hungry, he and those with him: 26 how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him?”

The disciples were accused of violating the law for gathering food on the Sabbath. There are a couple of things to notice here.
First, gathering food on the Sabbath really was understood to be a violation of Torah. This wasn't just some Pharisaical tradition, like hand washing.
Second, Jesus never denies the accusation that they had violated the Sabbath. Rather than argue that the accusation was false, He argued that they were guiltless. He defends His disciples by appealing to examples where human need and mercy outweighed a rigid application of the law.
He used David violating of the law and being guiltless as His defense. They were guiltless because they did not act in contempt but out of need. A key comes from the parallel account in Matthew 12:7 “But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.”

The most important thing to bear in mind is that Jesus' words were defending the disciples. That is critical to the context. Context is key.

QUALITY OR QUANTITY

With that context filled in, now we come to verses 27 and 28.

(MAR. 2: 27-28) 27 And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.”

The Sabbatarian explanation takes verses 27 & 28 in complete isolation, apart from any context, and goes like this:

[Pharisees] Your disciples are breaking the Sabbath.
[Jesus] Yes, but they are guiltless because the Sabbath was created on day 7 and was made for every single human. And therefore, the Son of Man is Lord of it. And since the Son of Man is Lord of it, it also applies in the New Covenant which doesn't exist yet.

I was a little tongue-in-cheek there, but not inaccurate. But we must ask, does that interpretation fit? In my view, no. It does not.

It does not make sense in the cultural and legal context of Israel, as everyone there was Jewish, during the Old Covenant period, and they believed the Sabbath was for the Jews only. Jesus expanding the scope of the Sabbath would certainly have caused new and even greater issues.
It does not make sense in the context of the conversation. It reads as if Jesus suddenly leapt into a completely different conversation.
It does not make sense that because the scope of the Sabbath was far greater than anyone realized therefore Jesus gets to be Lord of it. Make that make sense.
It does not make sense as a legal defense. The disciples were guiltless because the Sabbath is far more binding than anyone realized? How does that make them guiltless? It doesn't. Jesus' defense was not, "Well, everyone else on earth is guilty, too!"
It does not make sense in that Matthew says nothing of it. In the synoptic parallel in Matthew 12, Jesus doesn't come anywhere close to saying the Sabbath is binding on all mankind. But He does defend the disciples. How can the scope of the Sabbath be His primary point if Matthew says nothing of it?
But worst of all, it does not make sense in that it indicts Jesus Himself. As their teacher, He was responsible for what He let them do. If His comments were about the scope of the Sabbath, then He conceded that everyone is guilty, including Himself.

I offer a different way to understand these verses:

[Pharisees] Your disciples are breaking the Sabbath.
[Jesus] Yes, but they are guiltless ... because they ate out of need. The Sabbath was meant to lift burdens not cause them. And since it was meant to be a blessing, the Son of Man is Lord of it and has authority to declare these men guiltless.

David broke the law and was guiltless. The priests regularly broke the Sabbath law and were guiltless. His disciples broke the Sabbath law and were guiltless. In short, the law allowed for violations done in need (for example, certain police actions were necessary, as in NUM. 15:32-34) and in ignorance (NUM. 15:22-26). The disciples were not ignorant, nor were they acting wantonly. Their motivation was need. The Pharisees were not allowing for any of that. Their main concern seemed to be that the Sabbath was paramount and it had been violated. Jesus was explaining to the Pharisees how the Sabbath was never intended to be what they had made it into (MAT. 23:4,23). Their priorities were backward.

That said, it wasn't meant to crash into the other ditch, either. Jesus was not teaching that the Sabbath could be ignored whenever it became inconvenient (see "The Law Was Written On Our Hearts - Part I"). His disciples were not callously violating it. Wanton disregard for the Sabbath carried the death penalty (EXO. 35:2). But that was not the case here.

Jesus repeatedly showed that the Sabbath was never intended to prevent acts of mercy, necessity, and doing good. Even where the law had been legitimately violated, God desires mercy more than rules and regulations. Life, even an animal's life, was not to be sacrificed on the altar of rigid legalism. As He told the Pharisees, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” (MAT. 12: 7). This is the exact same point He made in Luke 13: 10-7 &15-17, 14:1-6, and John 5:1-18.

And perhaps most telling of all, both Matthew and Mark flow straight into yet another example of Jesus showing how it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath (MAT. 12:9-14; Mark 3: 1-6). That is no accident. Again, mercy is emphasized. Again, no mention of the Sabbath being binding on all mankind from creation.

(MAT. 12:12b) Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.

Here is the heart of what I'm getting at: Jesus's words in verses 27 & 28 were about the real nature of the Sabbath, not its scope. The quality, not the quantity.

Jesus was teaching the weightier matters of the law (MAT. 23:23). Sometimes rest is a blessing. But sometimes doing nothing when there is an obvious need is evil (MAT. 25:45). As James said:

(JAS. 2:13b) Mercy triumphs over judgment.

Neither Mark nor Matthew say, “Therefore all mankind was bound to the Sabbath from creation.” That conclusion is being read into the verse. That conclusion is not being reached because that is what these verses say, or even what they logically support, but because of other Sabbatarian commitments.

Now, let's do a deeper dive into the Greek.

ANTHROPOS

The Greek words translated "man" are anthrōpon (ἄνθρωπον) and anthrōpos (ἄνθρωπος). They are the same word. The difference is grammatical. With anthrōpon man is the object, and with anthrōpos man is the subject. The difference doesn't really matter for what we are after. I am going to refer to them both as anthrōpos because that is the root word. It makes life easier for me.

Anthrōpos is singular. It can mean "a man" or "mankind" in general. There isn't a slam dunk here in either direction. The word could technically support either explanation. It's what's missing that makes the bigger difference.

Consider that "humanity" (anthrōpos) is a category, not a quantity. Saying something was made "for man" is not the same thing as saying it was commanded for every human being who has ever lived.
Nature, not scope.

Perhaps an analogy might help.

Imagine going to the store to buy a men’s shirt, and saying, “This shirt was made for men. This must mean every man who has ever lived is required to wear it.” That would be ridiculous. “Men” tells you the nature of the shirt. It does not tell us the scope of who must wear it.

Yet that's the very leap the Sabbatarian interpretation makes. It inserts words like "all," and "every," into a verse that never says those things. Mark 2:27 says the Sabbath was made for humans, but it does not say all humans. It never says every member of mankind is obligated to keep it. If Mark had intended to say, "the Sabbath was made to be binding on all mankind," there were clearer ways to do that. Mark didn't use them. And Matthew says nothing at all.

When we plug anthrōpos back into the larger context, we find that even though it means mankind, Jesus' point had nothing to do with the Sabbath being universally binding from creation on every human being. His point was to defend His disciples and put the law back in its proper perspective versus how the Pharisees had interpreted it.
I appreciate the way the NLT puts verse 27:

[NLT] Then Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath.

That is what Jesus was getting at.

There is another aspect that we need to see.

WHEN?

It is not just that Sabbatarians interpret this verse as evidence for a universal Sabbath command for all mankind. It is also used to support the weekly Sabbath was made for all mankind at creation. I cannot agree these verses support that claim.

Consider, before we can accept that Mark 2:27 supports a weekly Sabbath from creation, we must already believe the weekly Sabbath was created in Genesis 2.
How so?

Notice how Mark 2:27 says "was made," but it does not say when. Of course the Sabbath was created. But how do we know this refers to Genesis 2 rather than Exodus 16? We don't! Again, this conclusion is imported into Mark from other places.
But what other places? There are no other prooftexts to point to other than Genesis 2. We went over this in detail in "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2", but let's skim it again as a reminder.

Genesis 2 says the seventh day of creation was sanctified and blessed. Why? Because on it God ceased from His work of creation, and wished to enjoy what He had made. But it says nothing about every seventh day. The Bible does not say that rest was repeated. Nor does it say the rest applied to anyone at all but God. The Bible does not say Adam rested. Adam had nothing to rest from! He was hours old and had no sin. The Bible does not say the weekly Sabbath started in Genesis 2. We can clearly see the weekly Sabbath pulls imagery from creation, but not that it was literally instituted at creation.

Without Genesis 2 saying there was a weekly Sabbath at creation, where else can we go to prove out this claim? Nowhere! Except Mark 2. And we've seen it isn't here in Mark 2 either. I did not forget to mention Mark 2 in my "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2" post. I left it out on purpose because it has nothing to do with it.

So, Genesis doesn't say this and Mark doesn't say this, yet Mark is being used as evidence for Genesis and Genesis for Mark. We must first assume things into both places in order to get them to point at one another. This flirts with circular reasoning - using something as evidence for itself.
How do we know Genesis 2 says the Sabbath was made at creation? Because of Mark 2.
How do we know Mark 2 says the Sabbath was made at creation? Because of Genesis 2.

But if neither of them say that, then how can they both say that together?

Given all that, which makes more sense?

A) The Sabbath was made at creation and the whole world is guilty, including Me. And because of this, therefore I am Lord of the Sabbath, and now everyone must keep the Sabbath in the New Covenant which doesn't exist yet.
or
B) The reason the Sabbath was created was to bless you; you were not created to bless the Sabbath. And because it was meant to be a blessing, I am Lord of the Sabbath, and I have authority to declare the disciples guiltless.

As for me, I'm going with B.

NEW COVENANT

Lastly, we must consider one more Sabbatarian claim. That being, since Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, that makes the Sabbath binding in the New Covenant.
Does that follow? No.

This is a third scope change. First, the scope of the Sabbath was expanded to include all mankind. Second, the scope of the Sabbath was changed so that it began at Creation Week. Now it is being expanded to include all time going forward. I do not agree these few words can support that much doctrinal weight. Notice, nothing in Jesus' statement directly says anything about Covenants or the future. So, where are these conclusions coming from? Not the text.

Consider that this encounter did not happen in the New Covenant. New Testament, yes, but not New Covenant. They aren't the same thing. There was no New Covenant at that time. Chances are good that no one there besides Jesus had any idea that a New Covenant was imminent. Claiming that Jesus' lordship binds a law to the New Covenant makes absolutely no sense at all without quite a lot more explanation.

On top of that, the claim is inconsistent with other Sabbatarian beliefs. Jesus did not present Himself as Lord of the Sabbath alone, to the exclusion of everything else. He had always been Lord of the Sabbath. He had always been Lord of the entire Old Covenant.
Why is that important? Because if Christ's lordship over the Sabbath proves the Sabbath continues, then by the same reasoning His lordship over the rest of the Covenant would prove that all of it continues. Every law; even the ceremonial laws. (For example, Jesus was Lord of the Levitical Priesthood, therefore the Levitical Priesthood is binding in the New Covenant. Or circumcision. Or exclusion of the Gentiles.) There can be no New Covenant because the Old Covenant cannot end because Jesus is Lord of it. And that simply is not in line with most anyone's beliefs.
We cannot say, "The Sabbath continues, but not those other things. Oh! And the rest of the Ten Commandments. And meats laws. And tithes. And holy days, too. But not those other things."

So why did Jesus say He was Lord of the Sabbath? It was part of His defense. In the context of the conversation, I believe He was asserting His authority to put the Sabbath in its proper perspective and to declare the disciples guiltless. His statement was not particularly about the Sabbath but about Himself. Therefore, He was not saying anything about the scope of the Sabbath.

CONCLUSION

We’ve looked at the context, the Greek, the synoptic parallel in Matthew, as well as similar passages. Taken together, does the evidence show Jesus declaring His disciples innocent, or the world guilty? 

The disciples were in need, not acting in careless disregard. Jesus responded with mercy, putting the Sabbath into proper context. This falls directly in line with other places where Jesus repeatedly taught it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. He did not weaken the covenant law by showing mercy, but neither did He turn this moment into a declaration that the whole world was under indictment. And most certainly, He was not indicting Himself in the process.

Taken together, does the evidence show Jesus declaring the Sabbath binding from creation? No. That must be assumed in from other places.
Mark 2 and Genesis 2 do not show the weekly Sabbath was created on day 7 of Creation Week nor that all men were bound to it. So, if they do not say this separately, they cannot be evidence for one another. All that Mark 2 says is that it was created. And Matthew says nothing about it at all.

Taken together, does the evidence show Jesus declaring the Sabbath binding into the New Covenant? No. That large of a claim is not supported in the text.
Nothing about this conversation was particularly about the New Covenant. The same reasoning intended to bring the Sabbath into the New Covenant accidentally brings every law, and ultimately prevents the New Covenant in the first place. We know that is not what happened.

The Sabbatarian position does not come from a straight reading or a study of the underlying Greek. It comes from predetermined conclusions and is being read into Mark. This position requires critical details to be assumed into the narrative in a rather circular fashion.

What was the definition of eisegesis again? Oh yes, "the process of interpreting a text by imposing one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into it, rather than drawing meaning from the text itself."

I find it ironic that the Sabbatarian position ends up siding closer with the Pharisees than with Jesus.

Further reading:

Your Life Is Worth More Than The Sabbath
Law of Moses - Law of God - part I
Jesus Was Not Against The Law
Jesus and The Sabbath
What Did Jesus Say In Relation To The Sabbath?

Other articles in this series:

The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4
The Sabbath Rest of Isaiah 66
The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2
The Sabbath Rest of John 14

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Answering Trent Horn On Justification By Faith Alone

This article serves as a refutation of claims made by Trent Horn in regards to the question of whether Jesus Christ taught justification by faith alone. Following are excerpts from the author along with a critique of said claims:

"Protestants usually claim that Jesus means our words are indicative of the content of our hearts, and so it is our hearts (and the faith they contain) that will be judged rather than our words or actions. But in Revelation 2:23, Jesus says, “I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.” Jesus does not render a judgment based solely on what our hearts deserve but also on what our works deserve."

Good works are not the cause but the result of having been justified before God. The heavenly rewards which He bestows upon us are dependent on our good works. The author seems to conflate the terms gift and reward. Justification before God is not something we can earn on the basis of good works that we perform, even in part. It is an unmerited grace of God.

"But this parable doesn’t teach the sufficiency of faith for justification; it teaches the necessity of repentance...When Jesus explains this parable, he does not say the tax collector was justified rather than the Pharisee because the former did not rely on works for his justification. Instead, the Pharisee was not justified because he was guilty of the sin of pride, whereas the tax collector was humble and recognized his need to repent. Jesus even explains why the tax collector rather than the Pharisee was justified: “For every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 18:14)—indicating it is the tax collector’s humble, repentant attitude that is the distinguishing factor."

The Parable of the Rich Man and Tax Collector has more than one aspect to it. Further, if faith is not enough to bring about our right standing before God, then it would not make any sense for Jesus to say that the tax collector ended up justified. The only thing that he had was faith. The path of faith is the path of humility. The rich man trusted in his own good works to be pleasing before God. That was the basis of his righteousness. He went away condemned, despite having thought that he was thriving spiritually, rendering his true state all the more delirious and perilous. Therefore, the Pharisee is an ideal illustration of the ultimate failure of a system of righteousness by works. Such efforts get to one's own head and thereby insult God Himself.

"In fact, in the next chapter an actual tax collector, Zacchaeus, repents of his wrongdoings and seeks forgiveness from Jesus. It is only after Zacchaeus declares he will pay back everyone he defrauded that Jesus tells him, “Today salvation has come to this house” (Luke 19:9)."

The desire of Zacchaeus to make restitution to the people that he previously stole from serves as evidence of him having truly repented of his sins. Good works are a consequence or product of a saving faith.

"Finally, MacArthur cites John 5:24, because Jesus said, “He who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” But just four verses later Jesus says that, at the final judgment, “All who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.”

John 5:24 speaks of having eternal life in the present tense. It is said to be immediately in one's own possession at the moment of conversion. John 5:28-29 contrasts the lives of people who placed their trust in Jesus Christ and those who rejected Him. Those who fit into the later category will stand eternally condemned at the last judgment. They never repented of their sins in this life.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************