"My Father works on the Sabbath, and so do I."
April 22, 2020
Apprentice Hunter
The essay
The first three gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the synoptic gospels because they agree among themselves. The fourth gospel has a different tradition and, at times, is contradictory to the other gospels.
The common view is that Jesus is the child of an elderly Joseph and a young Mary. It is also held that Jesus is Jewish, that is, he is a descendant of the tribe of Judah through David. In the gospels of Mark and Luke there are conflicting genealogies for Jesus. Although we will not enter into the longstanding debate if one of the lists is Jesus’ lineage through his father, or his mother, or his stepfather, it seems highly unlikely that there would be a descent though the mother. Of course, the fourth gospel does not provide a genealogical record, but simply states that Jesus is the Light that came to his own and they did not know him.
Our understanding of the ancient churches is that Jesus’ heavenly Father is the same deity as the God of Israel and this view initially is sensible as the Old Testament is joined to the New Testament. However, from the book of Genesis we know that God rested on the seventh day and the Sabbath is holy to him. Jesus unambiguously states that his father works on the Sabbath and Jesus also works on the Sabbath. It is clear, then, that the God who rests on the Sabbath cannot be Jesus’ Father who works on the Sabbath. We cannot be certain of the identity of Jesus’ Father from either the gospel account or the Bible, but whoever he is, he is not Jehovah, the national deity of Israel.
Firstly, the Gentle Reader must bear in mind that each of the 72 nations of the Old Testament had their own national gods and, secondly, Jehovah was not originally identical to the god of creation. Although this distinction is lost in the King James Bible version, where “the Lord” is used indiscriminately, different words are used when relating the Creation account and the actions of the national God of Israel.
On the initial reading, the author of the fourth gospel remains anonymous, as he only wants the reader to believe in Christ who was sent from the Father. The only individuals who are mentioned by name that Jesus loves are Mary, Martha, and their brother Lazarus. Therefore, any one of the three could be the Beloved Disciple, however, the Beloved Disciple wetn into the council that when Jesus was being tried, thereby eliminating Mary and Martha, leaving Lazarus as the Beloved Disciple.
The fourth gospel gives no account of the last supper.
The fourth gospel diverges from the synoptic gospels when Mary Magdalene finds he empty tomb while it was still dark.
Many modern Christians have difficulty understanding the issue of being three days in the tomb and this issue is due entirely to how we moderns understand time. Certain Christian communities expect Jesus to be in the tomb not for three days, but for seventy two hours. We are not certain when this innovative opinion became fashionable, and to make this idea work, Jesus must be crucified on Wednesday, not on Friday. Although the ancients had an understanding of hours, they accepted that any event that began on that day, regardless of the number of hours of duration. For example, if Jesus was placed in the tomb a few minutes after sunset Thursday or only a few minutes before the Sabbath began on Friday, then Friday will be counted as one entire day. Of course, the Sabbath from sunset to sunrise, was a full day, although not exactly twenty four hours, as astronomy teaches. Therefore, Jesus could resurrect anytime from sunset Saturday to before sunrise Sunday and this would count as the third day. Continuing on in this line of thought, if Jesus had risen after sunset on Sunday, then this would be the fourth day. In conclusion to this part, the modern practice of “Good Friday” and Easter services on Saturday night conforms to both the resurrection account as found in the fourth gospel and the ancient understanding of the meaning of three days in the tomb.
More often than not, Jesus is identified as being a member of the tribe of Judah and, therefore, is considered Jewish. The belief in Jesus’ Jewish origins is reinforced by the criminal charge affixed to the cross: “Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews”. The Jews already had a king in the person of Herod who arried into the Maccabean lineage so that his children could claim both a Jewish and a royal heritage. Until recently, it was not unheard of for rulers to not be of the same ethnicity as their subjects. King George I of England is such an example and, going further, he was a native German speaker and never learned English.
In the case of Jesus, the charge of treason, “King of the Jews”, should not be understood the he was Jewish himself, but that he was, or was perceived to be, a legitimate claimant to the throne of Israel and that throne was occupied by Herod. The criminal charge can only be interpreted as Jesus was found guilty of a serious crime and one cannot know the tribe of Jesus’ descent from the wording of the superscription alone. Fortunately, the fourth gospel clearly states which tribe of Israel Jesus is descended from: “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Whose father and mother we know.” [John 6:42]
The response is to this understanding is almost universal among Christians: “But, Joseph was the father of Jesus and Mary was his mother”. Yet, using the fourth gospel alone, Joseph is Jesus’ tribal affiliation and Jesus’ parents remains unnamed and on two occasions he addresses his mother as “Woman”, at the wedding in Cana and at the Crucifixion. However, Jesus is consistent as he addresses the unknown Samaritan woman as “Woman”. One woman named Mary mentioned in the fourth gospel is the sister of Jesus’ mother and the other Mary is the sister of Martha [cf. John 11:1, 19:25]
From the gospel evidence, the appellation “Jesus of Nazareth” seems to us to be misunderstood. We ask: Was Jesus more famous for being from the little town of Nazareth or being from the territory of Galilee? Or is it more likely that Jesus was famous as a Nazarene, a consecrated man who does not cut his hair?
As the Book of Acts mentions the “sect” of the Nazarenes, it is likely that the superscription was originally written as “Jesus the Nazarene”, the name of the criminal, an identifying mark or characteristic, and the criminal charge: “King of the Jews”.
The common view is that Jesus is the child of an elderly Joseph and a young Mary. It is also held that Jesus is Jewish, that is, he is a descendant of the tribe of Judah through David. In the gospels of Mark and Luke there are conflicting genealogies for Jesus. Although we will not enter into the longstanding debate if one of the lists is Jesus’ lineage through his father, or his mother, or his stepfather, it seems highly unlikely that there would be a descent though the mother. Of course, the fourth gospel does not provide a genealogical record, but simply states that Jesus is the Light that came to his own and they did not know him.
Our understanding of the ancient churches is that Jesus’ heavenly Father is the same deity as the God of Israel and this view initially is sensible as the Old Testament is joined to the New Testament. However, from the book of Genesis we know that God rested on the seventh day and the Sabbath is holy to him. Jesus unambiguously states that his father works on the Sabbath and Jesus also works on the Sabbath. It is clear, then, that the God who rests on the Sabbath cannot be Jesus’ Father who works on the Sabbath. We cannot be certain of the identity of Jesus’ Father from either the gospel account or the Bible, but whoever he is, he is not Jehovah, the national deity of Israel.
Firstly, the Gentle Reader must bear in mind that each of the 72 nations of the Old Testament had their own national gods and, secondly, Jehovah was not originally identical to the god of creation. Although this distinction is lost in the King James Bible version, where “the Lord” is used indiscriminately, different words are used when relating the Creation account and the actions of the national God of Israel.
On the initial reading, the author of the fourth gospel remains anonymous, as he only wants the reader to believe in Christ who was sent from the Father. The only individuals who are mentioned by name that Jesus loves are Mary, Martha, and their brother Lazarus. Therefore, any one of the three could be the Beloved Disciple, however, the Beloved Disciple wetn into the council that when Jesus was being tried, thereby eliminating Mary and Martha, leaving Lazarus as the Beloved Disciple.
The fourth gospel gives no account of the last supper.
The fourth gospel diverges from the synoptic gospels when Mary Magdalene finds he empty tomb while it was still dark.
Many modern Christians have difficulty understanding the issue of being three days in the tomb and this issue is due entirely to how we moderns understand time. Certain Christian communities expect Jesus to be in the tomb not for three days, but for seventy two hours. We are not certain when this innovative opinion became fashionable, and to make this idea work, Jesus must be crucified on Wednesday, not on Friday. Although the ancients had an understanding of hours, they accepted that any event that began on that day, regardless of the number of hours of duration. For example, if Jesus was placed in the tomb a few minutes after sunset Thursday or only a few minutes before the Sabbath began on Friday, then Friday will be counted as one entire day. Of course, the Sabbath from sunset to sunrise, was a full day, although not exactly twenty four hours, as astronomy teaches. Therefore, Jesus could resurrect anytime from sunset Saturday to before sunrise Sunday and this would count as the third day. Continuing on in this line of thought, if Jesus had risen after sunset on Sunday, then this would be the fourth day. In conclusion to this part, the modern practice of “Good Friday” and Easter services on Saturday night conforms to both the resurrection account as found in the fourth gospel and the ancient understanding of the meaning of three days in the tomb.
More often than not, Jesus is identified as being a member of the tribe of Judah and, therefore, is considered Jewish. The belief in Jesus’ Jewish origins is reinforced by the criminal charge affixed to the cross: “Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews”. The Jews already had a king in the person of Herod who arried into the Maccabean lineage so that his children could claim both a Jewish and a royal heritage. Until recently, it was not unheard of for rulers to not be of the same ethnicity as their subjects. King George I of England is such an example and, going further, he was a native German speaker and never learned English.
In the case of Jesus, the charge of treason, “King of the Jews”, should not be understood the he was Jewish himself, but that he was, or was perceived to be, a legitimate claimant to the throne of Israel and that throne was occupied by Herod. The criminal charge can only be interpreted as Jesus was found guilty of a serious crime and one cannot know the tribe of Jesus’ descent from the wording of the superscription alone. Fortunately, the fourth gospel clearly states which tribe of Israel Jesus is descended from: “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Whose father and mother we know.” [John 6:42]
The response is to this understanding is almost universal among Christians: “But, Joseph was the father of Jesus and Mary was his mother”. Yet, using the fourth gospel alone, Joseph is Jesus’ tribal affiliation and Jesus’ parents remains unnamed and on two occasions he addresses his mother as “Woman”, at the wedding in Cana and at the Crucifixion. However, Jesus is consistent as he addresses the unknown Samaritan woman as “Woman”. One woman named Mary mentioned in the fourth gospel is the sister of Jesus’ mother and the other Mary is the sister of Martha [cf. John 11:1, 19:25]
From the gospel evidence, the appellation “Jesus of Nazareth” seems to us to be misunderstood. We ask: Was Jesus more famous for being from the little town of Nazareth or being from the territory of Galilee? Or is it more likely that Jesus was famous as a Nazarene, a consecrated man who does not cut his hair?
As the Book of Acts mentions the “sect” of the Nazarenes, it is likely that the superscription was originally written as “Jesus the Nazarene”, the name of the criminal, an identifying mark or characteristic, and the criminal charge: “King of the Jews”.
“And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth [G 3478 Ναζαρέτ] -Matthew 2:23 He shall be “called a Nazarene. [G3480 Ναζωραῖος]” -Matthew 2:23 “Jesus of Nazareth” Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραίου -Matthew 26:71 The “sect of the Nazarenes. [G3480 Ναζωραίων]”- Acts 24:5 |
Genitive denotes possession.
Vocative denotes addressing a person.
Accusative expresses the object of an action.
Nominative is used for the subject of a verb.
Vocative denotes addressing a person.
Accusative expresses the object of an action.
Nominative is used for the subject of a verb.
Our suggested corrected translations are in brackets [].
G3478 Ναζαρά Translated as “Nazareth” twelve times.
Ναζαρὲτ [12 times] Indeclinable Proper Noun
The initial four letters of the city are “Ναζα” [“Naza”].
Ναζαρηνέ — [Twice] Vocative Singular Masculine
Mark 1:24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of [from] Nazareth?
Luke 4:34 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of [from] Nazareth?
Ναζαρηνὸν — [Once] Genitive Singular Masculine
Mark 14:67 And thou also wast with Jesus of [from] Nazareth.
Ναζαρηνοῦ — [Once] Accusative Singular Masculine
Mark 16:6 Ye seek Jesus of [from] Nazareth,
All four examples are acceptable translations.
G3478 Ναζαρά Translated as “Nazareth” twelve times.
Ναζαρὲτ [12 times] Indeclinable Proper Noun
The initial four letters of the city are “Ναζα” [“Naza”].
Ναζαρηνέ — [Twice] Vocative Singular Masculine
Mark 1:24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of [from] Nazareth?
Luke 4:34 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of [from] Nazareth?
Ναζαρηνὸν — [Once] Genitive Singular Masculine
Mark 14:67 And thou also wast with Jesus of [from] Nazareth.
Ναζαρηνοῦ — [Once] Accusative Singular Masculine
Mark 16:6 Ye seek Jesus of [from] Nazareth,
All four examples are acceptable translations.
Incorrect
3 5 5 13 |
Correct
0 1 0 1 |
Form
Accusative Singular Masculine Nominative Singular Masculine Genitive Singular Masculine |
If seems that the translators of the King James Bible version are unaware of the difference between the word Ναζαρηνός and the word Ναζαρὲτ and the initial conclusion is that the translators thought the two words were spelling variants of a single word. However, it seems highly unlikely that all of the translators working on different passages would be incapable of discerning an "Indeclinable Proper Noun” from the many declensions of a declinable noun. Therefore, we must conclude that the editor was responsible for allowing all the translations to be incorrect, except for Matthew 2:23.
Ναζαρὲτ,
Ναζαρηνοῦ Ναζαρηνέ Ναζαρηνὸν Ναζωραίων Ναζωραῖον Ναζωραῖος Ναζωραίου |
Indeclinable Proper Noun [The city of Nazareth.]
[1] Accusative Singular Masculine [“of Nazareth"] correctly translated [2] Vocative Singular Masculine [“of” Nazareth"] correctly translated [1] Genitive Singular Masculine [“of” Nazareth"] correctly translated [1] Genitive Plural Masculine [“the Nazarenes”] correctly translated [3] Accusative Singular Masculine [“the Nazarene”] incorrectly translated [6] Nominative Singular Masculine [“the Nazarene”] 5 are incorrectly translated [5] Genitive Singular Masculine [“the Nazarene”] incorrectly translated |
The incorrect English translations serve two purposed simultaneously. Firstly, these translations reinforce that Jesus is from Nazareth, a village of no importance, and, secondly, minimizes his affiliation with the “sect of the Nazarenes.” The Nazarenes are considered to be extremists in their religious views and, in the Temple period, religious views and political views were inseparable. Having Edomite Herod, who was not Jewish, as the King was never going to be acceptable to the Nazarenes. Of course, the foreign Romans legions keeping Herod in power was not acceptable to anyone.
Therefore, by eliminating all but one reference to Jesus being a Nazarene, the result is that Jesus is removed from the fervent zeal that these oath taking men had for the 613 Laws of Israel, although the incident of Jesus overthrowing the money changers in the Temple remains in the four gospels and, perhaps, gives an indication of the extreme views of the Law that Jesus may have held. Finally, James, the brother or cousin of Jesus, was known as being a Nazarene. James was considered to be a very holy man that his praying for many hours on his knees in the Temple kept Jerusalem safe for decades. Shortly after James was murdered on the Temple stairs, Jerusalem fell and the Temple was destroyed, as we read in the only eyewitness account of Josephus.
Therefore, by eliminating all but one reference to Jesus being a Nazarene, the result is that Jesus is removed from the fervent zeal that these oath taking men had for the 613 Laws of Israel, although the incident of Jesus overthrowing the money changers in the Temple remains in the four gospels and, perhaps, gives an indication of the extreme views of the Law that Jesus may have held. Finally, James, the brother or cousin of Jesus, was known as being a Nazarene. James was considered to be a very holy man that his praying for many hours on his knees in the Temple kept Jerusalem safe for decades. Shortly after James was murdered on the Temple stairs, Jerusalem fell and the Temple was destroyed, as we read in the only eyewitness account of Josephus.
The Gentle Reader may wish to create to columns with headings of “Promotion of the Law” and “Promotion of Faith”.
Possible subjects of the former include, but are not limited to, dietary restrictions, honoring the Sabbath, keeping foreigners from entering the Temple, the importance of works, and other concepts that are tribal, that is, limited to the nation of Israel.
Possible subjects of the later include, but are not limited to, no dietary restrictions, the universal message of the good news, the importance of faith, and other concepts that are cosmopolitan, that is, there are no national or ethic restrictions.
The Gentle Researcher can begin reading the fourth gospel and add the chapter and verse under the appropriate heading. This exercise should be continued for the synoptic gospels and the Pauline Epistles. The Gentle Researcher will now be in a position to determine, on the aggregate, which books are, for lack of a more specific terminology, pro Israel and anti Israel. Of course, through this method individuals in the New Testament can be understood as being either Pro Law or Pro Faith.
The title of this essay, “My father works on the Sabbath, and so do I.”, is a rewording of John 5:17- “But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” It is of interest that both healings that Jesus performs in the fourth gospel are on the Sabbath- the lame man [5:10] and the blind man [9:14].
“Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” -John 5:18
This passage is difficult to interpret, since the relationship between a father and son is not equality, but superiority and inferiority.
“The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” -John 10:33
The “Jews” do not ignore Jesus and mutter to themselves, “He is not right in the head for making himself god.”, but accuse him of blasphemy. Jesus responds in verses 34 to 36:
“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?”
Jesus states “Is is not written in your law…”, not the expected, “Is is not written in our law…” If Jesus were either the “son of Judah”, Jewish, or “the son of Joseph”, of the tribe of Joseph, then the wording “your law” is difficult to interpret. However, if Jesus were a Samaritan, then this fact would explain the usage of “your law”. Previously, the “Jews” said, “Say we not well that thou [Jesus] art a
Samaritan...?” [John 8:48]
Possible subjects of the former include, but are not limited to, dietary restrictions, honoring the Sabbath, keeping foreigners from entering the Temple, the importance of works, and other concepts that are tribal, that is, limited to the nation of Israel.
Possible subjects of the later include, but are not limited to, no dietary restrictions, the universal message of the good news, the importance of faith, and other concepts that are cosmopolitan, that is, there are no national or ethic restrictions.
The Gentle Researcher can begin reading the fourth gospel and add the chapter and verse under the appropriate heading. This exercise should be continued for the synoptic gospels and the Pauline Epistles. The Gentle Researcher will now be in a position to determine, on the aggregate, which books are, for lack of a more specific terminology, pro Israel and anti Israel. Of course, through this method individuals in the New Testament can be understood as being either Pro Law or Pro Faith.
The title of this essay, “My father works on the Sabbath, and so do I.”, is a rewording of John 5:17- “But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” It is of interest that both healings that Jesus performs in the fourth gospel are on the Sabbath- the lame man [5:10] and the blind man [9:14].
“Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” -John 5:18
This passage is difficult to interpret, since the relationship between a father and son is not equality, but superiority and inferiority.
“The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” -John 10:33
The “Jews” do not ignore Jesus and mutter to themselves, “He is not right in the head for making himself god.”, but accuse him of blasphemy. Jesus responds in verses 34 to 36:
“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?”
Jesus states “Is is not written in your law…”, not the expected, “Is is not written in our law…” If Jesus were either the “son of Judah”, Jewish, or “the son of Joseph”, of the tribe of Joseph, then the wording “your law” is difficult to interpret. However, if Jesus were a Samaritan, then this fact would explain the usage of “your law”. Previously, the “Jews” said, “Say we not well that thou [Jesus] art a
Samaritan...?” [John 8:48]
Mary Magdalene found the tomb and the tomb was empty, in so far as there was no body. However, there was one item in the tomb: the napkin [Strong’s Number G4676]. Strong’s Number G4676 is found once in the synoptic gospels and is utilized only one other time in the gospels; at the rising of Lazarus [John 11:44]. The initial supposition is that Mary Magdalene accidentally went to Lazarus’ tomb in the dark. After Mary told Simon Peter and the Beloved Disciple, the disciples ran to the tomb and Mary followed [20:2]. Both Lazarus, if he is the Beloved Disciple, and Peter would surely recognize Lazarus’ tomb and realize that it was not Jesus’ tomb[20:3]. Even if all three, in fact, went to the wrong tomb, Mary Magdalene ultimately encountered Jesus, although she initially thought Jesus was the gardener.
A comment in the fourth gospel is that the Jews, meaning the Jewish leaders, sought to kill Jesus.
“And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.” -John 5:16
“After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.” -John 7:1
For leaders of the temple, one could use the phrasing “the Pharisees and the scribes”. To our understanding, this wording is more accurate and does not an indicate the entire tribe of Judah, but further distances the Jesus as either “the son of Joseph” or a Samaritan.
A comment in the fourth gospel is that the Jews, meaning the Jewish leaders, sought to kill Jesus.
“And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.” -John 5:16
“After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.” -John 7:1
For leaders of the temple, one could use the phrasing “the Pharisees and the scribes”. To our understanding, this wording is more accurate and does not an indicate the entire tribe of Judah, but further distances the Jesus as either “the son of Joseph” or a Samaritan.