Let's first read what is written in John 5:18:
John 5:18 (NIV)
18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
There are two conflicting interpretations here:
First, if you are a Seventh-day Adventist, you would likely argue that it is not true that Jesus violated the Sabbath; rather, it is a mere accusation from his adversaries, the Pharisees. They also assert that if you are on Christ's side, you would not accept the accusation against him, as Christ himself declared, "I did not come to destroy the law" (Matt. 5:17).
Second, if you are a Christian who understands the truth that we have been redeemed by Christ from under the law (Gal. 4:4-5), then Jesus has indeed annulled the Sabbath because we no longer need it in the New Covenant. Christ has come as our Savior, fulfilling the Sabbath, which was merely a shadow (Col. 2:16-17).
Which of these interpretations is correct? When we gather all the scriptural evidence, we can see that the second interpretation aligns more with the truth. Why do we say this?
If the Sabbath will remain forever and not be abolished, then the Seventh-day Adventists are correct in saying that Christ did not break the Sabbath. However, if the Sabbath is only temporary, like a "shadow," then it is correct to say that Christ has abolished it. In my previous article dated January 16, 2024, I demonstrated from numerous Bible evidences the temporary nature of the law in general and the Sabbath in particular. [1] An example is found in Matthew 5:17-18, often used by Adventists as evidence that the law will not pass away, but this is a result of a misinterpretation of the passage.
As a correction, I stated: "What the Seventh-day Adventists may have overlooked is the keyword in the paragraph that provides an indication that Christ's fulfillment of the entire 613 commandments has a limit. This word is "until" in the phrase "until its purpose is achieved." It simply means that Christ's fulfillment is the goal or purpose, and it will end or "disappear" once He fulfills that purpose. For instance, the sacrificial system found its ultimate purpose in Christ's atonement. Since Christ has already accomplished and fulfilled the ritual animal offerings and sacrifices of the Old Testament, we no longer engage in animal sacrifices today."
As a correction, I stated: "What the Seventh-day Adventists may have overlooked is the keyword in the paragraph that provides an indication that Christ's fulfillment of the entire 613 commandments has a limit. This word is "until" in the phrase "until its purpose is achieved." It simply means that Christ's fulfillment is the goal or purpose, and it will end or "disappear" once He fulfills that purpose. For instance, the sacrificial system found its ultimate purpose in Christ's atonement. Since Christ has already accomplished and fulfilled the ritual animal offerings and sacrifices of the Old Testament, we no longer engage in animal sacrifices today."
As for the temporary nature of the Sabbath, I also mentioned in that article the encounter of Jesus with the Pharisees in Matthew 12:1-8, where Jesus defended his actions and those of his disciples in violating the Sabbath of the Jews. Let's revisit some of the arguments I presented:
"There are a few important points to consider in order to see the truth that the Sabbath is just a ceremonial law and not a moral law. Christ used ceremonial laws as examples to defend His violation of the Sabbath.
a.) David and his companions ate the "bread that was offered to God" placed in the Holy Place compartment of the Holy Temple. According to Moses' law, only priests were allowed to eat it. David and his companions eating it did not constitute a sin.
In this instance, I want to expound the point that Jesus did indeed broke the Sabbath because he used examples of God's servants in the Old Testament who also transgressed the law but, like Christ, remained without sin.
In simpler terms, Jesus justified his violation of the Jewish Sabbath, asserting that he did not sin, much like David and the priests who transgressed the law without incurring sin. Essentially, Jesus said to the Pharisees, "Why do you judge me for breaking the Sabbath law when David also transgressed the law, and likewise, the temple priests violated the Sabbath, yet you do not accuse them of sin?"[1]
Answering the Challenge
So, how do we respond to the question "Where can we read that Christ broke the Sabbath?" If we're seeking a verbatim statement, we won't find any.
Yet, by considering the circumstantial evidence within the context of Matthew chapter 12, we can confidently assert that Jesus did indeed violate the Sabbath. He justified his actions by citing examples of David's transgressions and the actions of the priests in the Temple.
But first, I want to explain the meaning and significance of circumstantial evidence. What does circumstantial evidence mean?
"Circumstantial Evidence, as the name suggests, is the evidence, based on circumstances or incidents, which does not directly prove a fact, but it points out the guilt of a person indirectly, by linking the chain of events to reach the final conclusion." [2]
Circumstantial evidence is a type of evidence that can also be considered as strong proof of an event even if it is not a direct testimony. For example, in the question "Where can we read that Christ broke the Sabbath?" is a type of inquiry seeking direct evidence, in this case, they are asking for a verbatim or word-for-word passage where Christ explicitly says, "I am Christ, and I broke the Sabbath!"
Of course, we won't find a verbatim passage. The frequent insistence on searching for a verbatim text to validate something is shallow and a weak form of argument. It is often used by some to deceive others. This demonstrates ignorance, as if verbatim is the only type of evidence to validate the truth or falsehood of something.
Circumstantial evidence is equally weighty and robust as direct evidence in the legal field of any country. This is what our reference is stating.
"In the eyes of law, both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are given equal weight and importance."[3]
Furthermore,
"Circumstantial evidence is proof of multiple facts, which helps you to reach a final conclusion. It is one in which the witness does not explicitly affirm the facts of the case that is to be proved or disproved, rather evidence in relation to other facts is presented and then the inferences can be drawn based on logical reasoning." [4]
Jesus is using circumstantial evidence in justifying his actions and those of his disciples in violating the Sabbath through examples of David's transgressions of the law and the priests' violations of the Sabbath in the temple. Let's read again from the passage:
"They said to Jesus, “Look! Your followers are doing something that is against the law to do on the Sabbath day.”3 Jesus said to them, “You have read what David did when he and those with him were hungry. 4 David went into God’s house. He and those with him ate the bread that was offered to God. It was against the law for David or those with him to eat that bread. Only the priests were allowed to eat it. 5 And you have read in the Law of Moses that on every Sabbath day the priests at the Temple break the law about the Sabbath day. But they are not wrong for doing that. 6 I tell you that there is something here that is greater than the Temple. 7 The Scriptures say, ‘I don’t want animal sacrifices; I want you to show kindness to people.’ You don’t really know what that means. If you understood it, you would not judge those who have done nothing wrong. 8 “The Son of Man is Lord over the Sabbath day.” (Matthew 12:2-8 ERV)
The argument employed by Jesus in this instance is a frequently used and well-known reasoning among ancient rabbis. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament highlights that "This is a Jewish “how much more” argument: if acceptable for the guardians of the temple, how much more for one greater than the temple?"[5]
If it were true that they were merely falsely accusing Jesus of breaking the Sabbath, his response would not be like that. Instead, he would likely respond in a manner similar to the arguments of Seventh-day Adventists today, saying, for example, "I did not come to destroy the law...", "From my youth, it has been my custom to enter the synagogue on the Sabbath...", "Sin is a violation of the law, and I cannot sin..." However, that is not the tone of his response to the Pharisees according to the passage itself. His answer is aimed at justifying his violation of the Sabbath, much like the examples of David and the priests.
Reason for Jesus Violating the Sabbath
Jesus' violation of the Sabbath serves as a means for him to prepare the minds of the Jews, as well as his disciples, that the Sabbath they have long been accustomed to is just a temporary shadow, a part of the ceremonial aspect of Moses' law in the Old Covenant that is about to pass away. This is because he, as the promised Messiah in the Old Covenant, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:19; Col. 2:16-17), will provide them with true rest daily for their souls and deliverance from sin.
This is clearly demonstrated in the Scriptures how Jesus prepares the minds of the people, as seen in the context of Matthew 12 and Mark 2:
Note that before Matthew mentions the discussed encounter of Jesus and his disciples with the Pharisees due to plucking grains on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:1-2), he first narrates about the rest that Jesus offers to people in Matthew 11:28-30:
Matthew 11:28 - 12:2 (NIV) 28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. 1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
Matthew 11:28 - 12:2 (NIV) 28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. 1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
Mark 2:21-24 (NIV)
21 “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. Otherwise, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. 22 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins.” 23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”
According to the SDA Bible Commentary, "new wine" refers to the gospel, while "old wineskins" pertains to the teachings of Judaism.
"The representation of the gospel by “new wine” and its work by the process of fermentation resembles in essence the parable of the leaven but emphasizes a different result (see on Matt. 13:33). The “new wine” represents the vital truth of God at work in the hearts of men ... Jesus’ revolutionary teachings could not be reconciled with the reactionary dogmas of Judaism. Any effort to contain Christianity within the dead forms of Judaism, that is, to unite the two by forcing Christianity to take the shape of, and be reconciled to it, would prove vain. ...The attempt to unite the new with the old would result in two-fold destruction. The “wine” of the gospel would be “spilled,” and the “bottles” of Judaism would be “marred." [6]
The point of Jesus regarding New Wine and Old Wineskins, as elucidated by theologians of the Seventh-day Adventist church, is unmistakably about the lack of harmony and compatibility between the New Testament teachings of Christ and the doctrines of Judaism, including the overall law and the specific observance of the Sabbath. It is emphasized that "Jesus’ revolutionary teachings could not be reconciled with the reactionary dogmas of Judaism." Therefore, there should be no wonder about the "revolutionary teachings" of Jesus, such as his continued violation of the ceremonial requirement of the weekly Sabbath.
This is the reason why he invited heavily burdened Jews, including those bound by the yoke of the Mosaic Law, including the Sabbath (Acts 15:10), towards the spiritual rest that can only be found through Jesus (Matthew 11:28-30).
This invitation also includes our beloved Seventh-day Adventists who, until now, have not been fully enlightened by the truth of the New Testament gospel of Christ.
Conclusion:
Conclusion:
From our careful study of the Scriptures, we understand that John 5:18 is more appropriately interpreted to mean that Jesus indeed broke the Sabbath. Based on circumstantial evidence from Jesus's actions and arguments, he defended this violation by citing examples like David breaking the law and priests violating the Sabbath without committing sin. It is important for our Seventh-day Adventist friends not to think that we are teaching that Jesus sinned because of his Sabbath-breaking. That is not the case. If the priests in the temple can continue to desecrate the Sabbath without sinning, how much more Jesus Christ, who is greater than the Temple and the Lord over the Sabbath, did not sin. My prayer is that Seventh-day Adventists may understand this truth and realize that they will not sin if they also accept that Jesus ended the weekly Sabbath so they can focus on the Savior of their souls.
Footnote:
[1] https://formeradventistph.blogspot.com/2024/01/fafp-question-of-day-why-jesus-chose-to.html.
[2]https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-direct-evidence-and-circumstantial-evidence.html#google_vignette
[3[ ibid.
[4] ibid.
[3[ ibid.
[4] ibid.
[6] Seventh-day Bible Commentary Volume 5 on Mark 2:21-22
No comments:
Post a Comment