SimonSays,
Thanks for making the minor correction on the numbering of verses. I was writing on a tablet that oddly doesn't believe I intend to use the numbers or words I am typing, changing them all the time for something different. It's like a wrestling match. I am off it at the moment and back on a solid computer with a real keyboard (they still make those, thankfully).
Bar Enosha: Messianic?
The expression "son of man" as used by Jesus is actually a play on words in Jewish idiom, and it doesn’t mean “Messiah” to Jewish ears. At Mark 2:28 the Greek term is HUIOS TOU ANTHROPOU. I am sure you know that Jesus was not speaking Koine Greek here. Mark merely wrote in his account in Greek, but all the conversations were likely in Aramaic and perhaps some of them were in Hebrew (maybe even Latin, if you count the conversations with the Romans).The expression in Aramaic is BAR ENOSHA and in Hebrew it is BEN-ADAM. The expression literally translates as "son of man" in formal equivalent English, but translations like the Common English Bible use the phrase “the Human One” here at Mark 2:28. Why?
While it comes from the literal expression meaning “offspring of,” the phrase "son of" in Jewish idiom has a very peculiar meaning which unfortunately English does not share. In Jewish expression, a "son of" something or someone has either the qualities of or is of the same substance as their "father." Since it appears you favor Watchtower theology, let’s use Christian texts to show you what I mean (though the Hebrew Bible is filled with these examples too).
At Mark 3:17 both James and John are called “sons of thunder.” At Luke 10:6 Jesus tells his followers that the peace they bring will surely rest on finding a “son of peace.” At John 17:12 Judas Iscariot is referred to by Jesus as the “son of destruction” or “perdition.” Thunder, peace, and destruction cannot have sons, so what do these expressions mean?
The New World Translation (2013) renders Luke 10:6: “If a friend of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him.” The previous edition (1984) has a footnote on the word “friend,” saying that the word in the Greek is literally “son.” A “son of peace” is a “friend of peace.” Other translations render “son of peace” as “anyone...who shares in peace” (NRSV) or “a peaceful person” (ISV) or even just someone who is “peaceful.” (NLT)
Along the same lines, “sons of thunder” means “boisterous.” James and John were “boisterous” men, or even “all bark, no bite” as a possibility. Judas Iscariot was not an offspring of “destruction,” but he ended up being destroyed by his own actions. As the “son of destruction” he was “one doomed to destruction” (NIV) or he was the “one person, [who] became lost.”--GWT.
Now about Mark 2:28 you wrote:
Who was Jesus speaking to? The Pharisees. The people who knew the law, but used it to benefit themselves, by refusing to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, therefore NOT accepting the abolishment of certain commandments, thus not willing to relinquish their authority to a higher authority which was Jesus.
But did the Pharisees understand Jesus calling himself the Messiah by the use of the expression “Son of Man” and thus someone who has the ability to ‘abolish certain commandments,’ as you claim? The answer is “no.”
The phrase “son of man” simply means “human being” in Jewish speech (oddly the Greek expression means the same thing, “human”). Because it simply means “human” (more literally, “son of Adam”) the term also means “me, myself.”
Explains the Jewish Encyclopedia: “Among Jews the term ‘son of man’ was not used as the specific title of the Messiah….As such [it] could have been understood only as the substitute for a personal pronoun, or as emphasizing the human qualities of those to whom it is applied. That the term does not appear in any of the epistles ascribed to Paul is significant….Most [Christian scholars and theologians] have come to the conclusion that Jesus, speaking Aramaic, could never have designated himself as the ‘son of man’ in a Messianic, mystic sense, because the Aramaic term never implied this meaning.”
Jesus was either saying: “So a man is lord even of the Sabbath.” Or: “I’m the master over the Sabbath.” The expression means that the Sabbath doesn’t control people and tell people what to do, but people can exercise their own conscience on how to properly observe the Sabbath. The needs of humans come first, and this is a Jewish tenet that existed then and now as I mentioned above.
Was Sabbath Keeping Abolished by Jesus?
The Watchtower comments you posted were quite incorrect on answering these questions, and you can help me prove it by answering these questions.
Why did Peter tell God he was still obeying kosher laws and had never broken them during the vision at Acts 10:12-14? Was Peter lying? Didn’t Jesus abolish kosher laws too along with the Sabbath? If so, why did Peter tell God he still ate kosher? Around 50 CE Paul writes that Peter was still eating kosher and it was an issue of contention at Galatians 2:11-13. Wouldn’t Peter have already understood that the Mosaic Law was abolished?
At Acts 21:20-26 we read that Jewish Christians still observed the Law, and that Paul himself performed a Nazarite ritual to show that he still saw himself under it.
If Sabbath keeping was abolished by Jesus, why were Jewish Christians still observing the Law in Acts? Why was Peter telling God he only ate kosher and Paul arguing with Peter about this some 20 years after Jesus’ death?
At Romans 14:4-6, Paul tells the Romans not to judge those who observe certain days as more important than others. If this is so, why would keeping the Sabbath be wrong?
Also Paul’s letters to the Ephesians, the Colossians, and the Galatians where he tells these Christians they are not to observe the Law, that they are not under it--were the Ephesians, the Colossians, and the Galatians ever under the Law? Wasn’t the Law given only to the House of Israel? How could God release the Gentiles from the Law if they were never obliged to keep it?
I would like to see you provide answers for all these questions.
And I would prefer you to not paste and copy from the Watchtower or any JW publication. Why not? The Watchtower Study edition of February 2017 states: “The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction.” (“Who Is Leading God’s People Today?” paragraph 12). I would rather not hear an explanation that comes from a group whose leaders “can err in doctrinal matters.”
