According to the scriptures and not reading into the scriptures, Jesus says that the Sabbath, which was made on the "seventh day" of the creation week *Genesis 2:1-3, was made for ἄνθρωπος (ánthrōpos G444 human beings) *Mark 2:27 and that he is the Lord (creator) of it *Mark 2:28; John 1:1-4; 14; Colossians 1:16. There was no Moses, no Jews, no Israel, no sin and no plan of salvation for mankind because mankind never sinned when God made the Sabbath for all mankind on the "seventh day" of the creation week *Genesis 2:1-3.
I do not believe so. Genesis 1:14 was not a reference to the annual Feast days it simply says " God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. I think your trying to read the annual Feast days into Genesis 1:14 which is not there. The annual Feast days came after the fall of mankind under the Mosaic covenant and Gods' plan of salvation for those who choose to believe and follow what His Word says.
Just because something was made "for" someone doesn't necessarily mean it was being practiced then. If you disagree, could you explain what the term "signs" (Hebrew,
‘owth) and the term "seasons" (Hebrew,
mo‘ed) mean in Genesis 1:14? Also, since God made the herbs for food (Genesis 1:29), does this fact therefore prove 1) that people were eating herbs on the third day, when the herbs were made (Genesis 1:11-13) or rather 2) that the herbs were made on the third day for man to eat, but they wouldn't actually be given to man till later?
What I believe is that God rested on the seventh day. However, the Sabbath wasn't given to man until after Israel left Egypt, and it was given/made known specifically to physical Israel (Exodus 16:29; Nehemiah 9:14; Ezekiel 20:12). Because of this, the main issue doesn't seem to be when the Sabbath was made but rather, whether the "man" the Sabbath was made for is "all mankind" or "Jews." If it's all mankind, then the Sabbath was given for everyone. However, if it's specifically the Jews under the old covenant to Israel, then it doesn't apply to us today. We'll look at this question next.
It is context that determines scripture interpretation not word meaning outside of scripture context to which it is being applied to. As posted earlier, according to the scriptures Jesus says that the Sabbath which was made on the "
seventh day" of the creation week *Genesis 2:1-3 was made for ἄνθρωπος (ánthrōpos G444
human beings) *Mark 2:27 and that he is the Lord (creator) of it *Mark 2:28; John 1:1-4; 14; Colossians 1:16. There was
no Moses,
no Jews,
no Israel,
no sin and
no plan of salvation for mankind because mankind never sinned when God made the Sabbath for all mankind on the "
seventh day" of the creation week *Genesis 2:1-3.
Actually as shown in the scriptures already, Jesus says that the Sabbath was made for
human beings *Mark 2:27 and the Sabbath was made on the "
seventh day" of the creation week according to Genesis 2:1-3. So once again
no. There was
no sin,
no plan of salvation or shadow laws,
no Moses,
no Jew and
no Israel when God made the Sabbath for
human beings. As posted earlier, according to the scriptures in the new covenant God's Israel are no longer all those who are
born of the flesh of the seed of Abraham but are now all those who are
born of the Spirit through
faith in Gods' promises (see
Romans 9:6-8;
Galatians 3:28-29;
Romans 2:28-29). Therefore Gods'
Israel today are simply all those who believe and follow Gods' Word. As shown earlier through the scriptures, when Jesus says that the Sabbath was made for human beings in
Mark 2:27 there was
no Jews,
no Moses,
no Israel,
no sin and
no plan of salvation given because there was
no sin therefore
no Mosaic "shadow laws", only Adam and Eve who were created on the sixth day of the creation week (see
Genesis 1:26-31 and
Genesis 2:1-3). You cannot get around what is written in the scriptures here.
Take Care.
So again, just because something was made "for" someone doesn't mean the ones it's made for received it immediately. Otherwise, man received the food that was made for them before man even existed! So the real issue in Mark 2:27 is who's being referenced by "man" (Greek,
anthropos). Let's consider:
If someone asked me whether angels need to be circumcised and I replied, "Circumcision was made for humans,
not for angels," would that be a true statement? I assume you'd agree. However, would it be accurate for someone to later take my quote and say, "Kilk1 believes circumcision is for Gentiles! Proof? He said, 'Circumcision was made for humans,' not just 'Jews,' so that settles what he believes!" This would obviously be taking me out of context if elsewhere, I've said that circumcision is specifically for Abraham and his descendants, right? After all, the context of my statement would be about humans vs.
angels, not humans vs. Jews in particular. Other statements of mine limits the scope of "humans" here, so you'd have to look to other statements of mine to know what I believe on the scope.
In the same way, if someone asked Jesus why His disciples picked grain on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-24) and He replied, "The Sabbath was made for man,
and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27, NKJV; emphasis mine), would we agree with Jesus? Obviously! However, would it be accurate for someone to later take Jesus' quote and say, "Jesus believes the Sabbath is for Gentiles! Proof? He said, 'The Sabbath was made for man,' not just 'Jews,' so that settles what He believes!" This would obviously be taking Jesus out of context if elsewhere, God said that the Sabbath is specifically for Israel, right? (And He
did, even calling the Sabbath a "sign" between Him and Israel, to show He set them apart [Exodus 31:13; Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Ezekiel 20:19-20].) After all, the context of Jesus' statement is about the Sabbath being made for man vs.
man being made for the Sabbath, not whether it's for man vs. Jews in particular. Other statements of God limits the scope of "man" here, so you'd have to look to other statements of God to know what He believes on the scope (such as Exodus 31:13; Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Ezekiel 20:19-20).
If you still disagree, insisting that "man" proves the scope is "all of mankind" regardless if other passages limit the scope, let's test your logic. And for clarification, by "testing your logic," I mean it in a positive way. I sincerely want to practice the truth and even took Saturday off when I first started hearing the arguments favoring the keeping of the Sabbath. However, upon further inspection, I'm not completely sure the arguments hold for Sabbath-keeping today. I mean "testing" in the sense of "iron sharpening iron" (Proverbs 27:17). Other relevant passages would be 1 Thessalonians 5:21 and 1 John 4:1. And since Acts of the Apostles 17:11 shows the value of testing positions through the Scriptures, let's do that with your position that "man" proves the scope is "all mankind" regardless of whether other passages specify physical Israel.
In John 7:22-23, Jesus referenced how the Jews would "circumcise a
man [Greek,
anthropos] on the Sabbath" (NKJV, emphasis mine). Since Jesus didn't say they'd circumcise a "Jew," is Jesus saying they circumcised both Jews and Gentiles on the Sabbath? If not, what passage(s) would you use to prove they only circumcised Jews?
In Hebrews 5:1-3, we're told that every high priest is taken from among "men" (Greek,
anthropos) and appointed for "men" (Greek,
anthropos) to offer sacrifices for sins, including his own sin. Since it didn't say "Jews" but "men" (Greek,
anthropos), does this passage prove that every high priest was taken from among "all mankind" and offered sacrifices for "all mankind"? If you answer "No," please explain why. Any verse(s) would be appreciated.
Hebrews 7:28 says that "the law appoints
men [Greek,
anthropos] as high priests who have weakness," (WEB, emphasis mine). Since it doesn't say "Jews" but "men" (Greek,
anthropos), does this verse prove that Jews and Gentiles are appointed as high priests in the law? If not, what passage(s) could you use to prove that in this context, the term is more specific than "all mankind"?
As for your (correct) point that God's Israel today "are simply all those who believe and follow Gods' Word," does God's Israel today follow the old covenant or the new?
Thanks,
Kilk