Yesterday we explored a story about Jesus and his followers eating grain in the fields on a Saturday, a day of rest, and getting in trouble from the religious authorities. In his response, Jesus referred to one of the great heroes of the Jewish faith, David, who ate holy bread in the temple when he was starving. He mentions the story, and lets the religious authorities do what they do best – argue about God while God is standing right there. He asks them why David got away with eating holy bread, since David was never condemned for eating it.
This story illustrates Jesus’ approach to two kinds of law. There is God’s law given at creation about the Sabbath: rest on the seventh day…period. That stands, and that’s actually what Jesus is about – giving us eternal rest, even today. But there is also the ritual/Sabbath/ceremonial law that is built on top of the basic commandment at creation. Think of it like scaffolding around a structure to help build it – it can be very helpful in following God’s law. But we don’t want to let it obscure God’s original purpose and law. This scaffolding is a reality of our sin or rebellion from God. Our hearts don’t naturally follow God’s law anymore, and so we need these additional structures. But, don’t forget they are provisional…until something comes along and makes them obsolete
Then Jesus comes along and says, “I am Lord of the Sabbath.”
He claims to be God, and gives an invitation to find rest in him, and to stop wrestling with sin and other sinful realities around us, to stop wrestling with ourselves, and just rest in him as he fights those battles.
Claims like this got him in trouble with the Pharisees and Scribes, and eventually their urging that he be killed. But in doing, they made him Lord of the Sabbath…exactly what he’d said.
On the cross, he is restless for us – huge work. He takes on the restlessness of our sin and because of that, we can rest, not on our work overcoming sin and brokenness in our lives, but on his work.
We see him showing that the day of rest, the Sabbath, isn’t the point, just as the temple bread wasn’t the point. God is the point. Resting in God is the point. We’ll see how tomorrow.
Question: Why do you think Jesus’ claims were so offensive to the religious legalists?
Loading Content...
Share a Link to this Message
The link has been copied to your clipboard; paste it anywhere you would like to share it.
Yesterday, we read this:
And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. (Acts 2:42-47 ESV)
Yesterday we focused on the first two practices: Devotion to the Apostles’ Teaching and Fellowship, and the Breaking of the Bread. Today we’ll look into the other two:
The Prayers
Their community started this way at Jesus’ command: wait and pray for the Holy Spirit. They had a big mission, to spread his good news worldwide, and would need the Holy Spirit to make it possible. Their continued existence would require prayer, especially as they faced persecution and alienation.
Their Jewish tradition of temple worship and sacrifices for individual sin was transformed into Christian prayer in the temple. All Acts says here is that they were attending the temple. It says nothing about them continuing the sacrifices, and it seems likely they would have no more sacrifices, since Jesus was descrbied in the Book of Hebrews as the ultimate sacrifice for sin. No evidence they participated in the sacrifices, but they seem to have prayed there, which was incredibly bold and dangerous.
Common Life
They had all things in common. That could mean a lot of things, but it goes on to say they were selling their possessions and distributing the proceeds to those in need.
This is controversial, of course, because it makes us wonder if we need to do the same.
First, did they do what we think we read here? Well, note that it says they were “selling” instead of “sold”. There seems to be an ongoing activity of supporting each other as needs arose, not a one time liquidation. Secondly, note that they broke bread in their homes, which means some still had a home. They didn’t all become homeless, even though Jesus was. Surely some did, but not all.
Whatever the details, it’s clear they suddenly saw their possessions differently, or at least the needs of others. They became generous in a new way. Surely that endures as a principle to hold today, however it’s expressed, in vows of poverty or in opening one’s home to a friend in need.
Question: To what extent does your attitude toward your possessions reflect theirs?
