This enables him to propose a solution to the se-
quence (of vv. MARK 2:27-2
!? One objection could be that the Sabbath is not "under the heavens" but in heaven and thus not susceptible to the transfer of authority from the Ancient of Days to the one like a son of man. This objection is entirely answered by the statement that the Sabbath was made for the human being; consequently the Son of Man, having been given dominion in the human realm, is the Lord of the Sabbath. (This interpretation obviates the apparent non sequitur between vv. 27 and 28/The sabbath 'was made for man' as g d's kids)!!
It is actually a necessary part of the argument that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath, for if the Sabbath is (as one might very well claim on the basis of GEN 1) in heaven, then the claim that the Son of Man, who has sovereignty only on earth, can abrogate its provisions would be very weak. DB thinks that this explanation of the connection between vv. 27 & 28 answers many interpretative conundrums that arise when 27 is read as a weak humanistic statement, something like "The Sabbath was made for man, so do whatever you want."
In his view,
in contrast, what may have been a traditional Jewish saying
to justify breaking the Sabbath to preserve life is, in the hands of Mark's Jesus, the justification for a MESSIANIC abrogation of the Sabbath. This interpretation has the virtue, he thinks, of solving two major interpretative sticking points in the text: the unity of the two answers of Jesus (both are references to his messianic status)
and the sub-ordination of "So the Son of Man
is lord even of the Sabbath."
The halakhic arguments in Jesus' mouth here & in chapter 7
are too well formed & well attested historically to be ignored; Jesus, or rather Mark, certainly knew his way around a halakhic argument.
This is, indeed, one of the main points, which makes us so (appropriately) bold as to be able to argue that Jesus' halakhic arguments are not infrequently more coherent & cogent than some of the latter-day Rabbis.
But they remain, none the less, and even more so,
halakhic arguments.
Èn zo actueel als wat:
"Arabieren, barbaren, criminelen die atomair,
biologisch/chemisch hun populistisch/idiologisch
'gelijk' willen bewijzen
etceterara
...
!? One objection could be that the Sabbath is not "under the heavens" but in heaven and thus not susceptible to the transfer of authority from the Ancient of Days to the one like a son of man. This objection is entirely answered by the statement that the Sabbath was made for the human being; consequently the Son of Man, having been given dominion in the human realm, is the Lord of the Sabbath. (This interpretation obviates the apparent non sequitur between vv. 27 and 28/The sabbath 'was made for man' as g d's kids)!!It is actually a necessary part of the argument that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath, for if the Sabbath is (as one might very well claim on the basis of GEN 1) in heaven, then the claim that the Son of Man, who has sovereignty only on earth, can abrogate its provisions would be very weak. DB thinks that this explanation of the connection between vv. 27 & 28 answers many interpretative conundrums that arise when 27 is read as a weak humanistic statement, something like "The Sabbath was made for man, so do whatever you want."
In his view,
in contrast, what may have been a traditional Jewish saying
to justify breaking the Sabbath to preserve life is, in the hands of Mark's Jesus, the justification for a MESSIANIC abrogation of the Sabbath. This interpretation has the virtue, he thinks, of solving two major interpretative sticking points in the text: the unity of the two answers of Jesus (both are references to his messianic status)
and the sub-ordination of "So the Son of Man
is lord even of the Sabbath."
The halakhic arguments in Jesus' mouth here & in chapter 7
are too well formed & well attested historically to be ignored; Jesus, or rather Mark, certainly knew his way around a halakhic argument.
This is, indeed, one of the main points, which makes us so (appropriately) bold as to be able to argue that Jesus' halakhic arguments are not infrequently more coherent & cogent than some of the latter-day Rabbis.
But they remain, none the less, and even more so,
halakhic arguments.
Èn zo actueel als wat:
"Arabieren, barbaren, criminelen die atomair,
biologisch/chemisch hun populistisch/idiologisch
'gelijk' willen bewijzen
etceterara
...
22 jan 2013 - bewerkt op 22 jan 2013
- meld ongepast verhaal
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.
- O 11 dec 2025 50250 ‘Wie dus die geboden onderhoudt & léért, zal
- O 10 dec 2025 50249 65 Wat kan een Beweging in de loop van haar
- O 10 dec 2025 50248 64 Bovendien werd het uitleveren van ‘n jood
- O 10 dec 2025 50247 Toen zijn apostelen werden vervolgd door een
- O 10 dec 2025 50246 63 Toen de farizeeën onder koningin Salome
- O 10 dec 2025 50245 Wie een studie heeft gemaakt van de schrift-
- O 09 dec 2025 50244 62 Zelfs als het niet mogelijk zou zijn om
- O 09 dec 2025 50243 Het zou dus helemaal niet verkeerd zijn om
- O 09 dec 2025 50242 Terwijl Yehosjoea zei: ‘Op de stoel
- O 09 dec 2025 50241 DIT ALLES doet ons denken
- O 09 dec 2025 5024061 YESJ zag de hypocrisie van deze farizeeën
- O 08 dec 2025 50239De Sadducese Koning sprak over de ‘Geverfden’
- O 08 dec 2025 50238 We kunnen de farizeeën niet met al de latere
- O 08 dec 2025 5023760 De farizeeën raakten betrokken bij de bur-
- O 08 dec 2025 5023659 In de tombe is ook ‘n tekening te zien van