by EverAStudent 52 Replies latest jw friends
Everastudent, I looked thru my CD. It is never addressed in the way you are asking.
It was used in the 10/15/69 WT to bolster the end coming in 1975
In order for the Lord Jesus Christ to be "Lord even of the sabbath day," his thousand-year reign would have to be the seventh in a series of thousand-year periods or millenniums. (Matt. 12:8, AV) Thus it would be a sabbatic reign.
PS
Trinitarians believe that the Tetragramaton YHWH is the name for The God Head (all three together). So Jesus is as much YHWH as the Father is.
AH, I see.
Thanks DD.
PSacramento wrote:
I may be misunderstanding what everastudent is saying, but it seems to me that he is implying the Jesus was calling himself YHWH, ie: God the father, not God the son of the Trinity.
It is my undestanding that, while Jesus is part of the trinity, he is so as God, the Son, not God the father and as such he is the person of God, the Son.
To say that Jesus was claiming to be YHWH, God the father would mean that he was claiming to be the PERSON of God, the father, no?
Thanks for noting the point of confusion. In Trinitarian-speak YHWH is not the name of the Father only, but is the proper name for God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, all together.
For Trinitarians, when one says YHWH they are referring to all three persons of the one God. Further, the Almighty is like the name YHWH and refers to all three persons of the Trinity. The same holds true with the title, God. God is the Almighty, the Creator, the Savior.
Think of it this way, if Jesus were to show up in person and talk with you (and I am not even implying this does or does not happen today as it did with Paul) then you could properly say that you talked with YHWH, or with God, or with the Almighty. The same would hold true if the Father showed up and talked with you.
Which person of the Trinity showed up and talked with Abraham (Genesis 18) by the oak trees? Some say it was the Father. Some say it was Jesus, the Son. Some say it was all three persons of YHWH because the manifestation was in three persons. More confounding is that YHWH stays behind to talk with Abraham while the other two messengers go to rain down fire on Soddom and Gomorrah, though the text alternates between saying it was the angels who rained the fire and that it was YHWH who rained the fire. Of course, it is easily reconciled by understanding that YHWH is three persons and visited Abraham as a manifestation of three persons.
Thanks for clearing that up everastudent.
IsaacAustin wrote:
Everastudent, I looked thru my CD. It is never addressed in the way you are asking.
It was used in the 10/15/69 WT to bolster the end coming in 1975
In order for the Lord Jesus Christ to be "Lord even of the sabbath day," his thousand-year reign would have to be the seventh in a series of thousand-year periods or millenniums. (Matt. 12:8, AV ) Thus it would be a sabbatic reign.
Thanks! That is interesting! It seems they believe that the title He used of Himself is only to apply in the future. That too is unsupportable by the Greek since it says that Jesus IS the Lord of the Sabbath, and not, WILL BE the Lord of the Sabbath.
It would be kind of a silly defense for Jesus to mount to say, "We can eat wheat on the Sabbath because some day I will become the Lord of the Sabbath." I do not believe that such a theory is good logic, is allowed for by the Greek, or is what Jesus was attempting to communicate at the time, given the circumstances and context of the situation.
EverAStudent, the WT disregards present and makes future when it suits their needs. Jesus they teach was not born the Christ but became the Christ at his baptism, even though Luke 2 says 'born to you today IS the Christ'...they make it future.
Just to give a different perspective, it is assumed in the OP that "Lord of the Sabbath" is a title referring to Jesus, but what if it isn't? The expression "son of man" in Aramaic and in the Hebrew OT is a very common term for "human" or "humanity"; one can find many examples here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man
In some cases, Jesus uses the expression to refer to himself indirectly (as in Matthew 8:20), but the vast majority of the "Son of Man" sayings referencing Jesus belong to a more technical domain: "Son of Man" as an apocalyptic figure (in harmony with the Book of Parables from 1 Enoch, in which the Son of Man is a heavenly eschatological judge on a throne of glory coming with power and accompanied with angels) and "Son of Man" as referring specifically to the Passion (a specifically Christian usage, unlike the other two which occur in pre-Christian Judaism). Neither technical sense is in view in Mark 2:28. I think the reading that takes "son of man" as meaning "human being" makes very good sense of the text. We read in v. 27-28: "The sabbath day was made for humans (dia ton anthrópon egeneto), not humans for the sabbath day. So (hóste) the son of man is lord (kurios estin) over the sabbath day". If "son of man" is here an equivalent expression meaning "a (lowly) human being", the thought in v. 28 directly builds on that in the prior verse (as the use of the logical connective implies), as it states that the sabbath day is in a subordinate position with respect to man, such that the needs of humans outweigh the needs for the sabbath to be observed, if "life" is at stake (cf. 3:4). If the day is what is in the subordinate position, then humans indeed are lord over the sabbath day.
Moreover, the passage is a reinterpretation of the creation account in Genesis 1:26-28, 2:3, where humanity itself is in view. In 2:3, the sabbath day is made when God rests on the seventh day and blesses and sanctifies it, and this event is subsequent to the creation of man. Earlier God not only "made" (epoiésen) "humankind" (anthrópon) and blessed them, but he also commanded them to "control" (arkhete) and "dominate" (katakurieusate) the earth and all that is in it (v. 26-28). The verb katakurieuó "to dominate, be master/lord over" is an intensive verbal form of kurios "lord". The interpretation in Mark 2:27-28 is that God made humankind lord not only of the earth and everything in it, but also of the sabbath day itself, which was made subsequent to man's creation.
Now could Jesus have been using the expression as a circumlocution here to refer to himself? Maybe, but this strains the connection between v. 27 and 28; the idea isn't that Jesus uniquely or specifically is the one who is "lord" over the sabbath but that every other person is as well; anyone who needs to relax the commandment to observe the sabbath in order to save a life or do good may do so because he or she is already "lord" over the sabbath. The sabbath isn't "lord" over humankind demanding people to observe it at any cost (even if life is at stake); the sabbath is for man's benefit, not a cause for detriment.
Greetings Leolaia.
That is an interesting alternative approach to the passage. I dare say, I have not encountered it before.
I struggle with your comment that Jesus used "Son of Man" to refer to humanity in general instead of to Himself specifically. Of the approximately 80 times Jesus uses the term in the gospels, I have found that each one is a direct reference to Himself. Such self-references include when He refers to Himself as judge over the earth, or coming in His glory, or having authority to forgive sins.
To be a credible alternative interpretation (i.e. that all humanity is the real lord of the Sabbath) it would be necessary to show that Jesus at least sometimes used "Son of Man" to refer to humanity in general instead of to Himself. I am unaware of even a single such usage by Jesus, much less an habitual one.
Further, you state that Jesus borrowed the expression "Son of Man" from the extra-biblical text 1 Enoch. While I understand your enthusiasm for ancient literature, the assertion betrays a bias that an historical Jew, such as Jesus, could not have shared. If Jesus was an historical man, and if He was the "Son of God" as He claimed, then He would have more likely borrowed the "Son of Man" reference from Daniel 7:13-14. In fact, Jesus quoted Daniel 7 during His trial in reply to the question, "Tell us if you are the Christ" to demonstrate that He did consider Himself to be the "Son of Man" coming in the clouds to reign over an everlasting dominion (read Matthew 26:63-65). As a result of Jesus' quotation from Daniel 7 the leaders were able to decree that Jesus had blasphemed.
Finally, in considering the context of the discussion about the lawful actions on the Sabbath, Jesus mentioned that "something greater than the temple" was present. Just as He had done with claiming that His glory was greater than that of Abraham's (read John 8) He now claimed to be greater than the temple. It seems out of place to think that Jesus would first claim to be greater than the temple and then suddenly tell the crowd that all of them were the true lords of the Sabbath. It is more likely that Jesus was citing His credentials and authority (as Lord of the Sabbath) to demonstrate that His interpretation of the Law of the Sabbath was superior to that of the Pharisees.
In all three synoptic gospel accounts of the story, after Jesus claims to be Lord of the Sabbath and subsequently heals people in defiance of the Jewish officials, the officials are recorded as deciding to find a way to have Him killed. Did they really desire to kill Him because He could heal people, or did they want to kill Him because He claimed equality with YHWH when He called Himself Lord of the Sabbath, a claim to higher authority than the officials possessed?
Thanks for the discussion, Leolaia.
I don't think Jesus set out to start a new religion as much as he was trying to dismantle the rigid Jewish one. I think he could have just as easily started the first Unitarian Church, but his followers got carried away and wanted a hero, a messiah, a lord to make everyday a Sabbath, without work and hadn't Jesus showed 5000 that he could feed them all? With adulation, they put Jesus on an ass and he rode it all the way to his crucifiction. Martyrs make better heroes, anyway.
