I decided to repost this comment with reference to the comment I made in reply to Impartial Thinker’s post, but with a few embellishments, and not without good reasons. I felt the need to express these sentiments in the light of my theological moorings as an SDA. One can become very defensive, even appalled and question my intentions—citing this contribution as anti-Sabbatarian. But is there justification for this? What is the passage saying?—and this is the real crux of the matter!! We need to be dispassionate, logical and honest when dealing with Scripture. We need to exegete the text effectively and efficiently—lest we expose ourselves to undue scrutiny as it relates to bias and a hue and cry of foul is raised. Now I am quite aware of the historical approach used in connection with this passage as it relates to Sabbath defense. But the real question is. Was this what Mark intended, what is his purpose? One has to also pay attention to the tone of the passage! The accusation put forward by the Pharisees is not related to the legitimacy of Sabbath keeping, but the illegitimate behavior of the Jesus’ disciples the Sabbath!! How can you allow this Jesus, is this lawful?—this is the question that we need to speak to as it relates to authority!! And we must keep this in mind as we exegete the text, paying close attention to Jesus’ response. Furthermore this historical approach (only part of a network of ideas) may have sufficed in years gone by help persons to discern the universality of Sabbath. But with the advent of the internet, the birth and development of global village, and access to some many tools of scholarship, people are not taking things at face values anymore; as a consequence challenge is imminent from any corner. And we need to pay attention to this lest the shame of our nakedness appear in regard to this issue!! Now I am up for correction and input on this matter, because I am only human and I can err. Therefore, I will put it in my intellectual oven on a slow fire and continue to monitor it as it cooks/or bake if you so desire LOL!! Another thing I did not realize the Greek font I am using was not being recognized by the Face Book font platform and was getting scrambled into all kinds of weird combinations. So what I have done is to use a transliteration of the Greek text. This allows you to pronounce the Greek text. For those willing to see the actual Greek text you can Google it! Let’s get on the matter at hand! If many of us have been paying attention to Impartial Thinker’s posts, we need not dismiss it as mere rambling! Impartial Thinker is not debunking Sabbath keeping, but an argument that he thinks is not holding water! Historically many have posited an argument that goes something like this, allowed if I am to lay a bare skeleton of an outline: Mark: 2:27—the Sabbath was made for man……., the Sabbath was made at creation, and made before the first Jew (a reaction against the argument often put forward that the Sabbath is of Jewish origin), instituted at creation and was given to man!! Now if I catch his drift, he is saying, that the passage in Mark is not discussing the validity or question of Sabbath keeping but the issue of authority: meaning “Jesus, how can you allow your disciples to break the Sabbath, is this lawful”? What gives you the right to allow your disciples to conduct themselves in the manner they are pursuing? And Jesus responds in essence: the one who made the Sabbath has authority to declare if it is being infringed, and implied that the disciples were blameless. Now I need to explain my meaning in regard to “the one who made the Sabbath has authority to declare if it is being infringed”. I remember reading in William D. Mounce’s “Basics of Biblical Greek” that the Greek text does not always tell you exactly what is the translation should be , but offers you a list of possibilities/ options from which to choose from that would go naturally with the context and flow of the discourse. Take Mark: 2:27 for instance, the Greek text in question is “Taw sabbaton dia ton anthropun egenetor ooch haw anthropos dia taw sabbaton” The phrase “dia taw sabbaton” the preposition “dia” is followed by the accusative case (taw sabbaton) and can be translated “because of”, “on account of”, “for the sake of”, “for”, and then there is the rare use of the spatial: “through”, “by” (expressing agency), “by means of”—cf. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by H.E. Dana & Julius, R. Mantey. What does this imply? A translation could be rendered: The Sabbath was made by “the man” (ton anthropun)—this implying the son of man—JESUS. Now let me digress here a bit. This is not the first time this unique title appears. It was used in Mark 2:10 in relation to Jesus’ power to forgive sins—thus declaring His divinity! Now I spoke of purpose and tone of Mark earlier and we need to pay attention to his emphasis! I will just raise a few of them in their order. He starts off with declaring that Jesus is the son of God—first sentence in his gospel, then there is the baptism where God announces Jesus as His Son, then the casting out of the unclean spirit in Capernaum on the Sabbath—the demon declared Mark 1:24 Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. Note only God has power to annihilate fallen angels. Then come the healing of the man with palsy—whose sins are forgiven and the Scribes take issue with Jesus because He claims to forgive sins a prerogative that only God has!! And then the grain field incident on the Sabbath which we are looking at. This trend continues all through Marks’s gospel—that Jesus is the Son of God. And we know this Son of God created all things Colossians 1:16-17 “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist”. All the New Testament writers affirm that Jesus is the creator of the heavens and the earth, even all the universe! Therefore, since He created the Sabbath, He is the authority on all issues related to Sabbath—right?!! But let’s get back to our main argument, is such a translation valid—“the Sabbath was made by the man—namely Jesus Christ, the Son of man, therefore He is Lord of the Sabbath”? Because it states in Mark 2:28 — hoste kureeoo estin haw hweoo too anthropoo kai tou sabbatou. Is such a translation possible? Would such a translation do violence to the passage and the overall context of Mark, I don’t think so, BUT it would wound fatally the argument used—that all mankind was given the Sabbath at creation. As a matter of fact it is said there are two institution given at creation—the Sabbath and marriage. But, if we examine Genesis 2 we see no giving of the Sabbath to man, we do not see him resting, we see God resting! But I can say I do see the institution of marriage. One final thought here, how does the Sabbath being made for mankind—the traditional argument; answer the argument of Sabbath breaking and authority—raised by the Pharisees? In other words, does the Sabbath being made for mankind give him the right to break/ defile it? This has to be addressed in the context of Mark’s depiction of the incident and the indictment of the Pharisees with reference to Sabbath breaking and Jesus’ lack of censure / giving of liberty to His disciples to pursue the course they took? Does is lend to it?—if we use the traditional argument!! In short I don’t see how, if the traditional argument is applied. But if I interpret the passage with reference to Jesus’ authority based on Him being the Creator—no one can lecture him on how to keep the Sabbath! As matter of fact, He was performing duties on the Sabbath that tradition viewed as illegitimate, but was it? Who can accuse Him of sin? Even today, people are “still in the proverbial grain field” carrying on the discussion of the Pharisees as to what constitute proper Sabbath keeping! But it is good to do well on the Sabbath, feed the hungry, entertain strangers, provide for those less fortunate and not limit these activities to the other six days, and thereby make oneself inaccessible and a blessing to God’s creation on the Sabbath! In this way we reflect the image and spirit of the Creator who has called us and delivered us from the powers of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of His Son. In closing, what also comes to mind is this statement—that you don’t build/ develop a doctrine on one text. Have we been a victim of this said thing in an effort to proclaim the Sabbath .5more fully? Have we been raping the Scripture in order to get persons to behave? As I mentioned earlier, Sabbath keeping is not being showcased or questioned here but a faithful exegesis and interpretation of the passage! Therefore, from my humble view authority is the issue in Mark chapter 2. I am no scholar, but I invite persons more erudite than myself to make input into this discussion!! P.S. It would be interesting to see what Impartial understands by entering into rest as opposed to keeping the seventh-day Sabbath! God’s blessings to one and all.
Posted on: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 00:37:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015