Ordinal Insanity
Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” Matthew 8:21 ESV
First – Someone called me with a personal dilemma. “I feel as if my wife and I need to move [to another city]. But I have so much family here and they are in such need. My cousin is really sick and I have been ministering to him. My sister is having real trouble and I want to be here for her. And I’m concerned about my own health. What if I get sick and we are so far away from my doctor?”
I heard the similarity to Matthew. “First, let me take care of my family obligations, Lord. Then I will come and follow you.” Is it any different today? There are always things to take care of; things that are perfectly reasonable (or so it seems) that prevent us from doing what God is asking us to do.
But let’s take a closer look at this story in Matthew. Notice that the speaker is one of the disciples! Don’t write him off as some fair-weather follower. He is mathetes, a Greek word that means “disciple.” He was serious about learning from Yeshua. Ah, but that’s only part of the story. The TDNT notes that the root word, manthano, is used hundreds of times in classical Greek to describe the activity of a disciple, but in the New Testament it is astonishingly rare. In fact, manthano is used only 3 times in Matthew whereas didasko (to serve) is far more frequent and akolouthein (to follow) is the “true mark of the mathetes.”[1] What does this mean? It means that in spite of the fact that this man is designated a matheton, he was not characterized by akolouthein. He was a disciple of learning, not a disciple of following.
There is a bit more to the story if we examine the culture. For this man to say, “Give me permission to first bury my father,” means that he is asking for an undetermined temporal hiatus. If his father were already dead, he wouldn’t even be with Yeshua. He would be sitting shiva (Leviticus 21:1-3). Therefore, his request is the equivalent of “Give me permission not to follow you until I bury my father.” Once we add the cultural element, it is clear that this man wanted only the intellectual lessons, not the transformational demands.
Matthew’s account ends with Yeshua’s statement, “Let the dead bury the dead.” Far too often Christian exegetes have treated this as if it were a spiritualized proclamation about salvation. They think that Yeshua is saying, “Let those who have not experienced forgiveness take care of those who are still outside the Kingdom. After all, they are all dead in their trespasses and sins.” But I doubt anyone present would have drawn such a conclusion. Everyone there knew that if this man’s father were actually dead he would be sitting shiva. Yeshua’s statement merely emphasizes this point. Death requires ritual performance. The dead demand compliance. Those who sit shiva are treated as if they were bound to the dead. Festival participation is cancelled. No one leaves the house. Speech is restricted to topics about the deceased. Ordinary activities of life are suspended. Prayers are recited. Services are held. And all of this continues for seven days. Yeshua is acknowledging that if this man were sitting shiva he would already be associated with the dead. Permission is not necessary. Shiva is commanded.
Are we any different than this excuse-prone disciple? Our conversations about following often begin with “First, give me permission.” What really comes first is “Follow me.”
Topical Index: dead, shiva, first, proton, Matthew 8:21
Skip,
I hope you are enjoying your trip.
I was troubled by one thing when I read this–you start with the presumption that “Shiva is commanded” and this presumption appears to drive the rest of your analysis to the point of concluding that the man’s father couldn’t actually be dead. In other words, the law of Shiva is sacrosanct so it can’t be that there is really a conflict here between following the law and following Jesus.
If we set aside this presumption, isn’t it possible that (1) the man’s father is dead, Jesus is leaving and the man says “Please wait, I want to come with you but I have to follow this Shiva law” and (2) Jesus’s response is similar to various responses He gave when He or His disciples were doing things contrary to “the law”. for example:
–performing miracles on the Sabbath
–in Matthew 9:14-15 when ask why his disciples were not fasting:
14 Then John’s disciples came and asked him, “How is it that we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?” 15 Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast.”
Consider the situations where people came to Jesus because a relative had just died (shouldn’t they be performing Shiva). For example Matthew 9:18. “While he was saying this, a synagogue leader came and knelt before him and said, ‘My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.'”
If you eliminate the Shiva presumption, it possible that Jesus’s reply to the man “Let the dead bury the dead” is a statement of “Let those who still put the law (in this case Shiva) before me do what the law requires”. Of course, the implication is that those who follow the law over following Jesus are spiritually dead.
Just a thought.
Paul,
You also start your argument with presumption:
1. That Jesus and His disciples were “doing things contrary to the law”. I believe there is a great difference between interpreting the law correctly (as Jesus did many times), and Jesus “doing things contrary to the law”. In all the cases regarding healing on the Sabbath; Jesus showed that life and compassion for people in need takes precedence over Sabbath observance. This is not “acting contrary to Torah”, but actually interpreting Torah correctly and upholding it.
(If you listen to Skip’s commentary on Matthew regarding this passage, he actually fleshes it out a lot more. Also, Messiah Journal 106 (from FFOZ) have a fantastic article regarding whether Jesus broke the Sabbath when healing. Rabbinic literature also states that life takes precedence over Sabbath observance.)
Furthermore, if Jesus showed that compassion and life takes precedence over Sabbath observance and if His entire life was about reaching out to those in need and pain, why would He be so sarcastic and “cold” towards a man who has just lost his father? Why would Jesus stop a man from burying his own father? Why would he publicly “humiliate” a man who has just lost a loved one? I believe this goes against the nature of Jesus.
I agree with Skip, I don’t think this man’s father was dead. Firstly, I do not believe Jesus would act in such a cold and heartless way towards a man who has just lost a father. Secondly, in a society in which Torah observance, traditions and costumes, community and duty to ones family are central to life – the probability that this man’s father was not dead is more probable. Please listen to Skip’s commentary for a further explanation on what the term probably means.
2. You assume that “following G-d’s law” and “following Jesus” are two different things. You assume that Jesus did not follow G-d’s law, that He did not follow Torah. For me this goes contrary to all the evidence in Scripture. Jesus upheld the Torah perfectly. He even kept many of the Rabbinic fences around the Torah. He was oppose to those rabbinic fences that hindered proper Torah observance – for instance, putting Sabbath observance before life and compassion towards people. And He was also oppose to those Rabbinic traditions that were being taught as if they were “commandments from G-d.”
You use Matt. 9: 14 – 15 as a “proof text” that Jesus and His disciples “disobeyed Torah”. But, have you actually gone to look at how many days are set-apart as “fast days” in the Torah? And, do those days correspond with the events being described in this particular Matthew passage? Are there evidence in Rabbinic literature that Rabbi’s required more fast days that prescribed in Torah? Especially from their students? Why was it that John the Baptist’s disciples asked Jesus this question and not the Pharisees? Can you say for certain that the Matthew 9 passage refers to the fast days required by Torah? Is there really enough evidence to support the assumption that Jesus acted “contrary to G-d’s law” in this particular instance?
Furthermore, verse 15 continues to say that “The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.” So, shall we then conclude that when Jesus is with you you can “act contrary to G-d’s law”, but when He is away you should do what D-d’s law require? I don’t think so. I think it is dangerous to take passages, not look at the context (etc.), and use it as proof texts. Especially to “proof” that Jesus was disobedient towards Torah.
You asked that Skip consider 9:18 and why Jairus weren’t performing Shiva. Well, I guess one must then also consider why didn’t Jesus tell Jairus that “he should let the dead bury dead”? Why wasn’t Jesus as cold and sarcastic towards the ruler who has just lost a daughter as he supposedly was towards the man who lost a father? Or are you assuming that Jesus showed mercy and compassion because Jairus decided to “act contrary to G-d’s law” and not perform Shiva, and the man decided to obey Torah?
Sorry for the long reply. But, for me “obedience to G-d’s law” and “following Jesus” are the same thing! Trying to obey the law in order to get saved out of yourself, now that is a different matter.
Jaco,
Thanks for your reply. I feel like your need to defend Torah may dismiss the fact that Jesus is God You twisted my references to “the law” into references to “God’s law” (I am curious why you write “G-d” but then fully spell out the name of Jesus, who is God). Jesus is God, so whatever he says or does is “God’s law”–it is impossible for Jesus to act contrary to whatever God’s law is–he sets God’s law. The question is what is God’s law after the coming of Jesus–my reference to “the law” was to what the religious leaders understood as God’s law before Jesus Is Torah still God’s law or is Jesus teaching us a new way to live in relationship with God? I can guess your answer.
I find it curious that you are so careful about exegesis but then dismiss what the words say on the basis that you just can’t believe Jesus would say it or do it, rather than opening your mind and heart to exploring the meanings and implications if he really did say it or do it.
Perhaps the message is that following Jesus takes priority over the old law. In fact, it takes priority over everything–our spouses, children, and dead relatives. Yes, that is a lot to ask and it may seem harsh, but I believe it is what he asks–even if it sounds harsh. Perhaps the law of Torah served a purpose before we had Jesus and before he paid the price for our sins once and for all. Perhaps he cleared the way for us to focus on relationship with him and with each other.
By the way, the man asking for healing was simply asking for healing for his child–he was not asking what could take priority over following Jesus. The fact that Jesus asked neither person why they weren’t following Shiva may be an important consistency between the stories–maybe it is no longer the priority.
Paul,
See Matthew 15:3-9. I have quoted below from David Stern’s Complete Jewish Bible:
3 He answered, “indeed, why do you break the command of God by your tradition?
4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’
5 But you say, ‘If anyone says to his father or mother, “I have promised to give to God what I might have used to help you,”
6 then he is rid of his duty to honor his father or mother.’ Thus by your tradition you make null and void the word of God!
7 You hypocrites! Yesha’yahu was right when he prophesied about you,
8 ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far away from me.
9 Their worship of me is useless, because they teach man-made rules as if they were doctrines.”‘
Dear Paul,
“I feel like your need to defend Torah may dismiss the fact that Jesus is God.”
– I completely disagree. The fact that Jesus lived a complete Torah observant life and modeled for us a life of what it means to live according to His law, His Torah, actually proves the fact that He is God. Nowhere in the four Gospels are there any examples where Jesus deliberately or accidentally disobeyed Torah. The fact that He obeyed Torah perfectly in the way that it should be obeyed by all men, proves that He is God. That is why I defend Torah.
I guess I can ask a similar question to you. Who gave the Torah to Moses? Whose laws, statutes and ordinances are contained in the Torah?
“I am curious why you write “G-d” but then fully spell out the name of Jesus, who is God.”
– Habit. I actually do not have a problem to write out “God” at all. But, if you were trying to insinuate that I do not believe Jesus is God by that comment, I am kinda offended by that.
“You twisted my references to “the law” into references to “God’s law”…my reference to “the law” was to what the religious leaders understood as God’s law”
– I did not twist your references on purpose. But, by making statements like; “the implication is that those who follow the law over following Jesus are spiritually dead”, I assumed you meant Torah and not the religious leaders’ understanding of Torah. If I assumed wrong, I’m sorry.
But, I do think that I assumed correctly, because in your last post you said “Is Torah still God’s law or is Jesus teaching us a new way to live…”, which would imply that you weren’t just referring to the religious leaders’ understanding of Torah, but actually to Torah itself.
“The question is what is God’s law after the coming of Jesus…”
– Paul, what is God’s law after the coming of Jesus? How did God change the way we should live? What are the things that we should do? And what are the things that we don’t have to do anymore? What in the Torah is no longer valid today? And what in Jesus’ teachings are completely new and does not echo the Torah?
I believe EVERYTHING in the New Testament is based on Torah! ALL the moral directives given by Jesus or any of the Apostles can be found in Torah. Salvation through grace by faith is NOT a New Testament concept, it’s found in Torah – Abraham, the Israelite’s, etc. All the Apostles lived fully Torah observant lives, including sacrificing at the Temple, after Jesus’ death and ressurection . I can go on and on, there is nothing new (in terms of how God expects us to live) in the New Testament. It’s all based on Torah. It’s only when you look at the New testament through the eyes of Replacement Theology that you will come to a different conclusion.
Now, I will agree that Jesus and the Apostles teach that our observance of Torah need to lead to greater morality and ethical behavior. That in our observance of Torah our characters need to be shaped more and more into the image of Jesus. That life, love, compassion, hesed, etc. all take precedence over ritual observance. That our relationship with God the Father, through Jesus, must always be the focal point of our obedience to His Word, His instructions for living.
“Perhaps he cleared the way for us to focus on relationship with him and with each other.”
– So, in effect you are implying that the lives of people like Moses, Samuel, David and Elijah did not have a focus on a relationship with God or other people, because all these men had to focus on observing Torah. The Torah was an “obstacle” in these men’s paths to really have a relationship with God or other people, an “obstacle” that needed to be cleared away in order for us to have a “proper” relationship with God.
You are also implying that because I celebrate Jesus’s sacrifice on Passover, the giving of the Torah and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Shuvout, and that I use the Feast of Unleavened bread to bring my life before God so that He can show me what in my character needs to change, my life do no focus on a relationship with Him. (To use an examples.)
I would argue that the instructions in the Torah, as modeled by Jesus, helps tremendously to show one HOW to focus your life in relation God and others, How those relationships should look.
“I find it curious that you are so careful about exegesis but then dismiss what the words say on the basis that you just can’t believe Jesus would say it or do it…”
– Lastly, if you suggested that Jesus’ words implied “following Jesus takes priority… over everything–our spouses, children, and dead relatives”, I would fully agree with you. Even Skip agrees with that. Especially if you listen to his commentary on Matthew. Jesus’ reply to this man was exactly that – immediate obedience to God should be the priority in our lives.
BUT, that is NOT what you suggested. You suggested that Jesus’ words; “Let the dead bury the dead”, means “that following Jesus takes priority over the old law.” In other words, Jesus came to replace the “old law” (Torah) with a “new law”. And that is what I disagree with.
Anyway, I guess this is an issue that we’ll probably not come an agreement on. God’s peace be with you. It was fun discussing it.
Skip, sorry for the enormous long posts!
I’m not quite sure if I completely understand what is still inferred in Matthew 8:21 but it’s been a passage that I’ve always pondered about. I just know with the recent passing of my beloved father, who had an incredible (simply incredible) impact in our university town and Chinese community that my mother, sisters and I spent much time lovingly caregiving for him and in many respects preparing for his proper “leaving of this world.” It was instinctive to us.
Unbeknownst to us, our testimony was so great that even most of the Christian professional caregivers who helped us said that they had never seen the kind of unity, love and harmony displayed for a loved one before and they’ve been in a lot of homes.
After my father’s passing, I had to take a few months to caregive for my somewhat incapacitated mother and plan for my father’s Memorial Service. Being in so-called “full-time ministry” as they say in the Greco-Roman world, I didn’t go to China, I didn’t go to the home office but worked with my immediate family in preparing the best “Celebration to Life” tribute to my father. Some would say that I was spending too much time “burying the dead” versus going about “full-time” ministry but I sensed from the Lord that what I was doing was “full-time” ministry and I will say that the incredible fruits from the preparation, execution and follow-through of the Memorial Service for my father was unbelievable. Comments are still coming back. People have been telling us that their lives were transformed by the event. Comments like: “the STRENGTH of your family and love for your father was evident to all. It’s helped us to reassess what we genuinely need to be as a family.” One of my father’s main doctors shared at the Memorial Service, “I could not stand being in the hospital room a few months ago with Ben’s daughters because there was so much love amid suffering there that I had to go walk around the hallway…”
The Dean of Electrical and Computer Engineering said my father put the Univ. of Illinois on the map with respect to his department. Dad was world renown in his field etc. but after all was said and done, most of his colleagues said that his greatest award was the raising of an awesome family. Some said, “Can we rent your sisters and you? How did your parents raise you to be like that?” Well, all praise goes to HaShem…the Lord Almighty.
Being Chinese, the majority of attendees were from the Chinese community. I thought many were not Christian but afterwards, because of the testimony I gave regarding my father’s awareness of God’s providence over his life near the last few months of his life, and is dismissal of Chinese gods and allegiance to the only and true God who saved him and forgave him of his sins, many of his Chinese friends started opening their hidden “faith” as if to say, “Since Ben came to that awareness, I guess I can freely express my faith now too.” That’s the kind of respect my father had in the intellectual community.
And in the months that follow my father’s passing, testimonies continue to come in on the Memorial Service regarding the unity, harmony and love expressed within our family.
It’s made me really think about Yeshua’s prayer in John 17. Yeshua preached and taught many a parable, sermon and rabbinical teaching but one of His greatest desires was that “….they all may be one as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be one in Us, so that the world may believe, and be convinced that You have sent Me.”
More than anything, Yeshua’s heartfelt desire was that His family be ONE (echad) so that the world would know that the Father genuinely sent Him. That comes with the talking becoming the walk.
So I still don’t understand completely what Matthew 8:21 infers but I do know that in my mother, sisters and I in the months preceding, during and following my father’s passing were in a sense, literally taking the time to prepare for my father’s burial, cremation and Memorial Service.
The Memorial Service had no pastor by the way, but the Lord’s message was clearly preached by those who did share there — and so many lives were transformed in ways unspeakable because of what they heard and saw in my family. Both were one. We pray that we may continue to glorify you Lord and teach the world what it means to be a family.
Thank you for the testimony.
Christina, I like your name.
I know little, but this is what Matt. 8: 21 means to me.
I think Matt. 8: 21 is a special incident and a special command from the Lord. We know Jesus is to come first, to be put first, and this would have been especially so in this instance seeing the man received a direct command from the Lord.
Peter, Andrew, James, John and Matthew recognized the Lord and followed Him at once (Matthew 4:18-22, 9:9). Jesus was requiring of this man to respond at once to His call to come. As such, a direct requirement was made to him, — it was a very extraordinary sacrifice, to show his immediate and sincere attachment to Him in special circumstances.
Has this happened before in Biblical record? Yes.
God does not ordinarily go around asking us to sacrifice our sons, it was a special call directly to Abraham, even tho the commandment says: “Thou shall not kill”.
As regards the people of the world, nothing is more important than responding to the gospel. Jesus was/is gathering a crew to preach His good news, so His call to this man went over and above the rites, customs or honor due any other. They are right things, but immediate response was asked here.
Evidently what your family did was — and continues to be — a very great witness (Yay!) to many people as you willingly and gladly obeyed Eph. 6: 2.
It makes sense that Jesus wants to model to this generation how a family should behave, so you were surely in full-time ministry as you did this in love.
Today you are one day nearer that reunion than you were yesterday. 🙂
“For just as the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance, so also our comfort is abundant through Christ.” 2 Cor. 1: 5
Dear Dorothy,
Your exegesis in these cases ignores the cultural and historical background. First, what we are interested in is what the Scripture means to those who first heard it, not necessarily “what it means to me,” especially since it wasn’t written to us. Yes, we may find application, but that it not the same as claiming that it was written specifically for us.
Second, by ignoring the requirement of shiva, we remove the cultural background from the passage and then assert that it has a “spiritual” meaning. But would any Jew in the first century have missed the point about shiva? How can we understand what Yeshua actually meant if we remove this aspect of his statement?
Third, your example about Abraham is exegetically mistaken. God does not command Abraham to “kill” (which by the way is not the same verb as the Hebrew verb for “murder”, the verb in the commandment). God asks “please” would Abraham consider such a sacrifice. At no point does the narrator allow us to draw the conclusion that God expects Abraham to follow through. Abraham himself shows signs of recognizing that this is a test, which is what the narrator tells us quite clearly before the story begins. Suggesting that God Himself would require a violation of Torah “on occasion” is simply an error as it would impugn the very character of God. Kierkegaard made the same mistake in “Fear and Trembling” and many Christians have followed him in this error. But the Hebrew text paints a very different picture.
Skip, I did not say, nor suggest, nor assault God’s character: “Suggesting that God Himself would require a violation of Torah “on occasion” ” . . . . . that’s something YOU said I said.
Also I did not say God ‘commanded’ Abraham. (but I do think so).
I do not believe God would say “please consider”.
If you indeed twist scripture the way you twist my little words, I wouldn’t want to be you.
You cannot say I am not interested in what scripture says to me.
You can only say YOU aren’t interested in it — except as a history book.
(It seems you are looking at dead things instead of a Living and active Word.)
It’s alive to me.
The Hebrew text of the passage you cite in Genesis contains a particle (na) that converts the verb from a command to a request. This particle is NOT usually translated into English (see my article on “the Hidden please”), but it is nevertheless there and correctly translated in some Jewish documents. The fact that you don’t believe God would say such a thing is completely irrelevant. That’s what the text says. I didn’t add the particle. It is in the Scripture even if English Bibles ignore it. This is one more example of why you cannot rely on the English.
Suggesting that God would command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac is in fact an implication that God would violate His own Torah, which implies that He is not holy. Therefore, whether you actually wrote those words doesn’t really matter. Your conceptualization that God could violate Torah or even ask someone else to do so implies that God is not who He says He is.
The real issue here is whether or not you will allow Scripture to speak for itself of whether you will require Scripture to conform to your prior beliefs. It is not a matter of twisting anything. It is a matter of clear exegesis without all the contemporary cultural baggage. I have tried not to impugn your spiritual status in these discussion but rather to stick with the process of exegesis and argument. But you continue to, frankly, insult me, question my spiritual commitment and deny my desire to follow YHWH. Your comments are not articulated developments or careful arguments. They are your personal feelings, usually it seems, without consideration of the history, culture or linguistics. While I appreciate the fact that you have different “feelings” about Scripture than others, I would like you to consider that this blog is not about how a person “feels.” It is about understanding the text and its application. How people “feel” about the exegesis is independent of the meaning of the text. As I said to Michael in another comment: I am really not concerned with what the verse “means to me,” because what it means to me is a function of my culture, my history and my bias. I am interested in what the text meant to the audience that it was written for – and then whether it applied to me. Perhaps you would consider adopting this approach.
>>”But you continue to, frankly, insult me, question my spiritual commitment and deny my desire to follow YHWH.”<<
I ask you to please forgive me for that.
I surely don't want to be found sitting in the seat of the Judge when the Judge comes into the room! Yikes! Indeed that would be a b-a-d spot to be in. Thank you for pointing it out.
Thank you. Accepted. Let’s continue to explore the meaning of the text. You were very gracious.
I do not find “the hidden please”.
Close, I find “Na, Na-Na, Na”
https://skipmoen.com/2009/03/05/the-hidden-please/
I liked both TWs. I needed to see them both. “the hidden please” and the “na na-na na”.
Even self-employed, I’d still feel like violating the dress code sometimes. [That described me, up to today. Tomorrow will be better now. ]
Christina,
You asked me to read this and share my thoughts, so here goes. My understanding of what was said above, and how I understand the scripture is this. God calls, we make excuses,ie… too busy, got a game, fake people, etc. Joey teaches the youth that the guy in question was not asking about burying his father/sitting Shiva, he wanted to go back home to his unsick father until he got sick and died. It was just an excuses to not follow “at this time”. There are other examples of this line of excuses in scripture, saying goodbye to family was another one. You did what you were called too as did your hubby when his mom was ill, your parents were actually dying. You don’t make excuses not to follow, obeying sometimes maybe 😉 I do believe that sitting Shiva is how we should honor our loved ones. Anyways, hope that helps.
Christina,
I read every word, and thanks for sharing this. I love it when I can come here and not only get some good and reverent scholarship — but beautiful testimonies, as well.
“Notice that the speaker is one of the disciples! Don’t write him off as some fair-weather follower. He is mathetes, a Greek word that means “disciple.” He was serious about learning from Yeshua.”
Hmmm
That is very interesting and Yeshua’s statement, “Let the dead bury the dead”
Has a different meaning for me, but it does not negate the Law in any sense
Jesus seems to me to be an “all or nothing” kind of Leader, as in “all in”
To follow him you must sometimes sacrifice that which is most dear
Jesus was a revolutionary who wanted his disciples to follow
Him
While I appreciate the insight, are we really concerned with what the passage “means to me”?
“are we really concerned with what the passage “means to me””
Hi Skip,
Well I’m concerned with what it means to me and I think you are too 🙂
At the same time, I think there are objectively valid and invalid interpretations
My view is not enough to make it objectively valid
My objection to your interpretation is not that it is false, but that it misses the point
Seems to me that Jesus is contrasting death and life and telling his followers
They must sacrifice their lives and families to follow him
I AM interested in how it APPLIES to me, but I am interested in what it means to the people who heard it first.
Awesome testimonies! Christina- that is so beautiful! I have been to several funerals that were such a testimony to the awesome grace of our LORD and spoke so deeply and left such an impact upon my life as to be indeed, “life-changing!” I came away from these thinking, “I want to be like that!” – and two of these funerals were for my mother and father-in-law, both such godly people. Oh, how I would love to send each of you a tape of their funerals- “He being dead still speaks!” – As each got up to testify the life-message of each of these came shining through- what a godly heritage my wife has. Her grandparents were missionaries to India- she has an uncle who has been serving in Japan with his wife for over fifty years! Our family so blessed by our heavenly Father! –
No one, not even a disciple/follower of Christ, starts out knowing everything. Isn’t this “calling” by Christ in it’s infancy stages? It took a full three years and one crucifixion and resurrection for the twelve to “get it..” – This Man was more than just a man- He was God the Son. I suppose our limited imaginations cannot grasp what the impact would be to eat breakfast with a man that four days ago was dead.
I knew someone who was a missionary in Japan for a few years. What an incredibly difficult place to break through!! He described most of his years as an “ice-breaker”, just trying to get the people to become used to his family’s presence.
Several times in Skips comment section I have seen people referring to Jesus “breaking the Sabbath by healing on it,” I just do not understand the faulty reasoning behind it.
He condemned the Priests severely for doing away with the commandments of God and teaching their own traditions instead. Mat 15:6 And honor not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have you made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Mar 7:9 And he said to them, Full well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.
He criticized them for making the law a burden. Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: Mat 23:4 they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne.
Was Jesus braking the law by healing on it or was He paring away the dross that had heaped on it by a power mad priest class? Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. Mar 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. Luk 6:5 And he said to them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
He reiterated and reinforced the commandment to help, a large possibly panicked potentially dangerous, animal in distress even on the Sabbath. We have all seen news blurbs about the efforts required to get a horse out of a bog or a hole and they did not 4by4s with power winches, cranes or helicopters to help them. Deu 22:4 You shall not see your brother’s ass or his ox fall down by the way, and hide yourself from them: you shall surely help him to lift them up again. Luk 13:15 The Lord then answered him,and said, You hypocrite, do not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering? Luk 14:5 And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day? Is helping a human in distress less merciful (legal)?
Are you or I more likely to be the better judge of what is Sabbath keeping, or is the Lord of the Sabbath the consummate expert? No one I can think of is likely to be a greater authority on the law than the Law Giver Himself?
Jesus put the question of law to the priests and even they had to restrain themselves.
Luk 13:16 ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day? Mar 3:4 And he said to them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? Luk 6:9 Then said Jesus to them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it? Luk 14:3 Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? Luk 14:4 And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him,
It could be said that if it is sabbath keeping, i.e. legal to do good on the sabbath then it’s opposite, to not do the good you are able to do on that day, that then would amount to sabbath braking. Food for thought.
And last, if braking the law is sin, and if Jesus broke the sabbath by healing on it thereby sinning, He would then have been disqualified as the Pascal Lamb, no longer being without spot or blemish. But since He was acceptable and accepted by the Father that is a clear proclamation that He did not at any time brake the Sabbath.
So can we please lay to rest this fallacious slander that Jesus sinned by healing on the Sabbath?
The entire argument about what is allowed on the Sabbath. Tractate Shabbat, a rabbinic document, lists 39 prohibited acts on the Sabbath. Healing is NOT one of them. So, the argument turns not on what is technically allowed or disallowed but rather how healing is interpreted. Intramural debate about healing may have been one of the reasons that this issue comes up so often. There is NO specific prohibition, therefore there is NO direct violation of the Torah or even the extension of the Torah in Tractate Shabbat. The question is how differing rabbinic schools of thought viewed the act of healing. Yeshua is aligned with one school of rabbinic thought, the opponents with another. This is definitely NOT an argument about breaking the Sabbath as if it were a direct violation of some Torah requirement.
You see the same intramural debate going on in the discussion of divorce, by the way.
The priests of the day certainly got exercised about it. I think that more than anything else is what they killed Him for.
~ Let this be written for a future generation, that a people not yet created may praise the LORD ~
(Psalm 102:18)
~ For the LORD is good; His mercy is everlasting; and His truth endures to all generations ~ (yes, even to our own..) -and ~ that you might tell it to generations following..~
~ Tell it to your children, and let your children tell it to their children, and their children to the next generation ~ (Joel 1.3)
~ but the word of the LORD remains forever and this word is the (gospel) good news that was announced to you ~ (1 Peter 1.25)
To all, – do not miss the hidden “na” (or please) in God asking (not commanding!) Abraham to sacrifice what was most precious to him, it is such an excellent “discovery” and in keeping with the humility (yes humility) of God who humbled Himself and became a Man- and dwelt among us. Let us never forget who Yeshua was (or is!)- and if this isn’t mind-blowing enough- to think that the God/Man
would wash His disciples feet – is indeed a “help Thou mine unbelief” event, but in thorough keeping with the life of Christ, (God Incarnate) from birth to final breath.