The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Stoning Sabbath Breakers Today?

Bob,
I think you’ve summed up much that’s been said quite nicely. There are semantics at play no doubt and so I don’t want to continue to make clear I don’t see Kelly or you or anyone who literally rests on Saturdays unto the Lord to be some “legalistic” crime.

Like I’ve said, my belief is that we do observe the sabbath, but not by sitting. Rather by recognizing our reconciliation and living it out in our lives by doing good. I’ve expressed my belief that Jesus was not declaring “It’s ok for preists to do good work on the Sabbath.” but instead understand him to be declaring it’s ok for ANYONE to do good work on the sabbath - for such work is God’s work. So I find it logical to say we can be at work (for whatever you do do unto the Lord) and simulaneously be honoring the sabbath (rest in God’s kingdom which is within).

So I don’t know about Bobx1’s ideas on that, but those are mine. So I agree the sabbath has value, but not in a literal way of having to rest our muscles or bones. I’m just not big on symbols being taken literally (like Catholics do with transubstantiation).

Yes I think we agree about the dividing point - it’s uncertain and no one (us included) has any text to bear to illuminate where this line is. I’m not one to argue from silence and say since the Sabbath is in with other moral laws, then it must be moral. What if it was one that wasn’t? Unlikely? Perhaps. Impossible? No.

I’ve clarified that I’m favoring the idea that there is a moral subtext to it however. That is rest 1 day a week provides a subtext that people should not work their employees or slaves 14 hrs a day 7 days a week. For a healthy community people need time with their families and need to get rest from work. But does this necessitate that Saturday be the day off? Does it necessitate that if work is done on the sabbath, he must be put to death? There I find typology of the Christ blatantly expressed - The sabbath breaker will die - sort of set up all along, and Jesus knew it (thus antagonizing his critics).

There’s so much to say but one things I think is becoming clearer - neither side of this argument sees that washing the cup on the outside does anything to the inside - we agree on that. What’s not clear is what does “a clean outside” really mean. There seems to be 2 expressions:

a) Those who obey All God’s commands literally from the heart (no adultery, no lying, no murder, no working on sabbath, no other gods…).

b) Those who obey God’s 10 premier commands literally from the heart (no adultery, no lying, no murder, no working on sabbath, no other gods…).

c) Those who obey God’s commands spiritually from the heart (to do what is right, justice, mercy and love God and neighbor - meeting all the commands when they are properly understood and summed) .

That seems to me to be the point of disagreement. – perhaps I’m wrong about that –

Aug

Just pondering . . .

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
(1Jn 2:1-6)

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
(Rom 13:8-10)

The commandments in the NT - borrowed from a website:
First Commandment: You shall have no other gods before Me
Matthew 4:10; 6:24; 22:37-38; Luke 4:8; Revelation 14:7.
Second Commandment: Thou shalt not worship Idols
Acts 15:20; 17:16; 29; 1 Corinthians 5:10-11; 6:9; 10:7, 14, 19; 12:2; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Galatians 5:20; Ephesians 5:5; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; 1 Peter 4:3; 1 John 5:21; Revelation 2:14; 9:20; 21:8; 22:15.
Third Commandment: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain
Matthew 5:33-34; 1 Timothy 6:1; James 2:7.
Fourth Commandment: Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it Holy
Matthew 12:8, 12; 24:20; Mark 1:21; 2:27-28; 6:2; Luke 4:16, 31; 6:5; 23:56; Acts 13:14, 42, 44; 15:21; 16:13; 17:1-2; 18:4; Hebrews 4:4, 9-10 (See also Amplified, ASV, BBE, NASB, NIV, RSV and NRSV.)
Fifth Commandment: Honour your father and your mother
Matthew 15:4; 19:19; Mark 7:10; 10:19; Luke 18:20; Romans 1:30; Ephesians 6:1-2; Colossians 3:20; 2 Timothy 3:2.
Sixth Commandment: Thou shalt not Murder
Matthew 5:21-22; 19:18; Mark 7:21; 10:19; Luke 18:20; Romans 1:29; 13:9; Galatians 5:21; 1 Timothy 1:9; James 2:11; 1 Peter 4:15; 1 John 3:15; Revelation 9:21; 21:8; 22:15.
Seventh Commandment: Thou shalt not commit Adultery
Matthew 5:27-28; 19:18; Mark 7:21; 10:11-12, 19; Luke 16:18; 18:20; Acts 21:25; Romans 1:29; 2:22; 7:3; 13:9; 1 Corinthians 5:11; 6:9, 18; 10:8; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Hebrews 13:4; James 2:11; 2 Peter 2:14; Jude 1:7; Revelation 2:14; 2:21-22; 9:21.
Eighth Commandment: Thou shalt not Steal
Matthew 19:18; Mark 7:22; 10:19; Luke 18:20; Romans 2:21; 13:9; 1 Corinthians 5:10-11; 6:10; Ephesians 4:28; 1 Peter 4:15; Revelation 9:21.
Ninth Commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness
Matthew 15:19; 19:18; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; John 8:44; Acts 5:3-4; Romans 1:29; 13:9; Ephesians 4:25; Colossians 3:9; 1 Timothy 4:2; 2 Timothy 3:3; Revelation 21:8; 22:15.
Tenth Commandment: Thou shalt not Covet your neighbour’s things
Mark 7:22; Luke 12:15; Acts 20:33; Romans 1:29; 7:7; 13:9; 1 Corinthians 5:10-11; 6:10; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3, 5; 1 Timothy 6:10; 2 Timothy 3:2; 2 Peter 2:14; Hebrews 13:5.

Greetings Auggy!
Actually no, it isn’t what I said. On the other thread I said God’s law is just law and why not have it as a civil law because, even if all the laws were for all of us, it would be easier to keep the 613 than the thousands more laws, codes, etc. written in American law. If the law wasn’t just then Jesus died for nothing – including your salvation. If the law is unjust, what makes you think you have a chance for salvation? Even to obey all 613 commandments of God is a whole lot easier than following all the US laws. One count I read recently said the US has approximately 1, 298,000 laws. At that rate, how many do each of us break every day? Why aren’t we crying “we’re free from the law” on that? I’ll tell you why, because they come and haul you away if they decide to judge you guilty. YEHOVAH is not “harsh” in His judgments, He is fair and disciplines us for our good not wanting any to perish. Why do we hear the bemoaning of obeying His laws and not these others? How hard can even a full 613 laws be compared to all these others? To now answer your question directly Auggy. The “law” of God is for all people. I think it would be a great civil law to follow as Israel did, it is a lot less oppressive as you can see by the sheer numbers above. Even in America, there is life for life. If you murder, you may be put to death, or spend the rest of your life in prison. What’s the big difference? Except there are a whole lot less of God’s laws. If you don’t pay your taxes you could be “put to death” by the swat team who comes to pick you up at your house. Why is it so much harder to just take the rest God gives you?
So, I see God’s law as just – even now. It is not harder to keep than any other country’s laws. So, yeah, it’s a just civil law. It’s not His law that is unjust but, men who are unjust. That’s where it gets scary. Yes, Christ died for us – because we didn’t keep the law rightly but, that doesn’t make the law bad. If you murder someone, you may “accept Christ” and be forgiven for your sin (crime against God and neighbor) and, you may get away with the crime but, most likely you will have to pay for your crime in any country. How does God saying it is justice make it so much worse? This is why Jesus says to pray for the governing authorities – because they exist as ministers to you for good but if you do evil be afraid for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil (Rom 13: 4).

All the instructions are outside of where the 10 are listed because it is a summation of Torah.
The Sabbath is a sign of the relationship with Him. I don’t understand the idea that upholding the law is not important. How do you prove to anyone you are a believer in God? Because you are like them and approve of their deeds? As a non believer who knew nothing of this God, I can guarantee you – I wasn’t looking for anyone like me to tell me how to have a relationship with God. I didn’t need the help of someone like me to “show me the way” - I was already walking in it. Yeah, God does loves us but, He doesn’t want to leave us in the stinking hole of sin we are in. If righteousness means whatever seems ok and you approve of and are convinced of in your own mind why the heck do I need your God? Or so the logic may go.

Yes, and if you say we don’t need to keep the sabbath literally then you also say it is permissible to kill a person, or steal from them, commit adultery, etc. Maybe you or someone who listens to you will wake up on death row trying to convince themselves it was reasonable to murder that person and, most likely, crying out WHY GOD! WHY IS THIS HAPPENING TO ME???

This is the crux of what Paul is saying. We should have the Spirit of God in us which would not condone sin (right?). We should be upholding the law (not under it for salvation) but, upholding it because it is just and the just shall live by faith. However, there are those who have never known justice. They need time to come out of sin, to be taught by God and “the elders” in the faith what God desires of His people– which is obedience with a right heart. Otherwise, what makes Him any different than their pagan gods? What does He have to offer that they didn’t already have? So yes, imo, we should uphold the law (as Paul states) but, give each other room to grow. That is why I said spiritually God will judge if our hearts are right with Him at the judgment. But, it is still important here while we are on earth.

Do you hear the church screaming “WE AREN’T UNDER THE LAW!”. Translation = we don’t have to do what God says is right because it doesn’t matter to us – we have all kinds of cool interpretations to keep everyone in sin and still think they are o.k. Do you see the amount of adultery, malicious gossip, theft, etc among those who call themselves “the brethern”? Do you think this pleases God? Do you think it is the “way”? If a person is coming out of the world and has been committing adultery, stealing, or whatever, God still loves him and wants him to be blessed but, He wants the guy to change and do what is right. Don’t ya think?

The “judaizers” were telling everyone that they must be “UNDER THE LAW” to be “saved”. Paul says no, we are “saved” by grace through faith but, we should still uphold the law because it is good, just and holy and spiritual.
JUDAIZERS = MUST BE UNDER THE LAW TO BE SAVED
PAUL = SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH APART FROM THE LAW BUT, BECAUSE OF OUR SALVATION WE SHOULD UPHOLD THE LAW - IT IS HOLY, JUST, GOOD AND SPIRITUAL.

Kelly,
Once again I hear an overture of sematics being repeated over and over. Yes I see some differences but some I don’t.

I challenge you - find me one Protestant or Catholic church which state

  1. we are allowed to worship other gods.
  2. we are allowed to murder.
  3. theft is part of the kingdom of God
  4. Adultery is no longer a sin.

It’s hard to get this through to you but NO CHURCH I’ve ever attended would conceed your view at all. So if you provide that to me I’ll believe you. But I find that to be a GROSS misinterpretation of anything said by the church who does not practice a literal sabbath or who allows eating of pork.

My guess is you will have great difficulty finding any church websites (protestant or catholic) which endorse 1-4 on my list. And there’s a good reason why. They endorse love - and that is why they don’t submit to adultery.

The OP raises questions regarding resting on Saturday’s and it’s moral implication and our instruction to put sabbath breakers to death.

I’m off to bed so I’ll tackle your other points you made,

God bless and have a great night.

Dude, (Auggy)
You are the church saying we don’t have to keep the law. In essence you are saying we can commit adultery without consequence because we don’t have to keep God’s laws that say it’s wrong. You, personally may pick and choose which commandments to keep or not keep but, it doesn’t matter anyway because there is no accountability for sin by your standard.

Chica (Kelly),
That’s not at all what Christians are saying (including me). We make a distinctions between ceremonial laws and moral laws which you can’t seem to do. As I’m understanding you and TV, the way you know what is moral is by the law (so for you it’s all moral). Again, not a pejorative, I’m feeling my way around the elephant.

Saying, “in essence” is false. Critical thinking will teach you that often when things seem either or, it’s not. Things can be complicated and complex and this is one of those ways.

Do you everr encounter others who argue “Kelly, either your saved by grace or by the works of the law so YOUR WRONG!” - I imagine you’ve encountered that type of mentality. If so it’s because they don’t appreciate that YOU DONT THINK YOUR SAVED BY OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW YET YOU UPHOLD THE LAW. For them it’s either or.

So the discussion is what part(s) of the law needs to be upheld or are parts of the law spiritual or symbolic.

In this case of the OP - I see no sense in saying God commands us to not mix fabrics so I won’t. God says don’t eat rabbit, so I won’t. God says to put the death the sabbath breaker, adulterer, homosexual, that’s one I won’t do.

If you’ve going to obey God’s commands then I would assume it would include the punishmenets for violators.

I don’t think you’ve addressed the weight of my question. You answer that some “new” Christians have to be slowly brought into God’s law - so sabbath and food laws are not required immediatley. But who are you to pick which one’s can be violated and are you adding to the torah when you do so? Were the Apostles adding to the torah when they did so?

Do you think Paul was good with Christians who ensorsed sleeping with their own mother? He excommunicated the person. So what about those who work on the sabbath - especially in light of the fact that the punishment for breaking the sabbath is to put to death the sabbath breaker?

If you can choose and pick what commands are valid for today, why can’t other Christians?

TV has admitted this, I don’t see why you can’t. TV has said “if that’s the hook upon which I hang, then so do you” - Fair enough - I think that’s right. We all hang upon this hook. There’s a rather larger question looming on all of us and one that won’t be easily tackled - how do we understand the nature of scripture and morality (epistemology is lurking). How do you know what is moral - Can you judge for yourself as Jesus says or do you need the law to show you what sin is? Perhaps I’ll start a new thread on that and give this one a break.

Aug

Hi Auggy:

I hope to have more time to follow up on some of this in the next week or so, but there is a reality that I think might explain/solve the dilemma you see in Sabbath keepers not stoning those who “break” the Sabbath… And as I’ve noted several times, neither do you stone those who break the commandments…

… We know – and explicitly so because of Jesus word’s to the subject – that some of what was commanded of old was done so not because it was “final pure truth” but because of the hardness of the hearers hearts. In this realm, hard hearts seem to require hard laws. These hard sayings, or hard laws – and I see the commands to stone lawbreakers as one of these hard laws – are not expressions of the kind of things God prefers from us (justice, mercy, contrite spirit, love, and so on…) but instead are the result of the depths of rebellion and depravity to which His beloved creation had fallen. We don’t like those laws, nor that hardness, and it makes us uncomfortable. But I’m pretty sure God liked them even less than we do; yet seems to have ordered them anyway to effect His ultimate purposes… Seems the only way God could get their attention was to go to these extremes!!

So the question of why God ordered such harsh things is a problem for all Christians and has no special relevance to Sabbath keepers… And I obviously don’t think (and am sure you don’t either) that the Sabbath command, or any of the rest of the 10, are in any way part of these “hard laws”…

Having said that however, you might find this comment quite interesting. Not a direct quote but a very close approximation. It’s from one of our denominations founders from like 150 years ago…

My point is that even though I believe the Decalog is a timeless expression of God’s character of love, I’m thinking it was a sad day for God when He had to thunder from Sinai – PLEASE STOP KILLING! and so on. But He did it anyway because that’s what the people seemed to need at the time…

Just a thought…

Bobx3

TV,
I had a response and lost it :frowning:
I’ll try to shorten up my responses for time conservation for us all :slight_smile:

I understand the appeal to think that sitting down on Saturdays is more than just for the muscle. I just don’t agree with it. If the morality of not working on the sabbath is for a social enviroment of employers not abusing the employee, then he could give Monday’s off. But that would break the sabbath.

As for the hardness of hearts, agreed. But we have hard hearts today, and I’m wondering if that’s how you see us who don’t agree that a literal resting on Saturdays is required? Theh problem with this answer is HEARTS ARE STILL HARD so why is it back in the OT hard hearts required being stoned, but today they don’t? Are you sure your not picking and choosing what is applicable?

I keep asking the question and I don’t accept Kelly’s response (I’ll have to go back and see if you tackled my question).

If a person today WILLFULLY endorses and practices murder, can he be a Christian?
If a person today WILLFULLY endorses and practices breaking the Sabbath, can he be a Christian?
If a person today WILLFULLY endorses and practices worshiping other gods, can he be a Christian?

Here’s what I’ve gathered from Kelly:
Since God’s law is just and it’s easy to follow 613 commands then we don’t have to stone people. Since God is harsh in his judgement (wonder where that came from). Tell that to the guy in Numbers 15. Tell that to Annaniah and Saphira. I’ve never heard of any American SWAT team breaking into a home and killing them due to someone’s failure to pay taxes. Sure they’ll lock you up, but that’s less harsh then lets say…stone the guy who works on saturdays. She didnt’ really adress the question except to espouse God’s law is just (we agree) God’s judgements are not harsh (don’t agree). If I’m too think resting (literally) on Saturdays is a moral obligation then I support stoning on the sabbath. I’m one who says if someone willfully murderes with an intent to harm then capital punishment is good - so I don’t hang on that hook with you do I?

TV’s response:
You don’t support killing adulteres yet you uphold not commiting adultery.

First off, the OP is not why don’t we, who don’t interpret the law literally in every single case, abandon the command to not commit adultery. The OP is why do those who literally interpret sabbath laws remove the punishment for breaking the sabbath?

If the position of following the sabbath is literal and it’s defense is that the law needs to be followed today then that group needs to define the line that tells them that the punishments are not appicable as well. Appealing to failures of other groups does not sustain the position - it’s like arguing from silence - or a red herring.

I know you don’t agree with God’s commandments as He spoke them but, even in a non literal - super spiritual sense - when God tells you to move, you move. When He tells you to be still - you are still. Why do you continue to try to portray those who obey the command to be still as lazy? Perhaps your disobedience is based on not stopping to listen to God or running ahead of Him, or pride - thinking your own way is so much better?

I would appreciate it if you would actually read what I posted before you fire one off yourself. Further, it may serve you better to tell others what you believe and why instead of reinterpreting another person’s view. My view is there for any who care to read it. You don’t have to reinterpret it.

Still, a good and logical question.

IMO, the “red herring” is that you think you don’t need to answer for your logic that allows you to do the same thing you want to hold another accountable for. I think this makes the conversation unbalanced, as well as clouded by verbal gymnastics that do not help at all in speaking truth to one another or trying to truly understand where another is coming from. I know you don’t want to be pinned down and that you do want to “hang” others who want to uphold Torah but, this isn’t a boxing ring for crying out loud. :laughing:
P.S. Please don’t confuse my direct speech with not liking you. I think your awesome and very :sunglasses: . This is just the clearest way I know how to speak.

Kelly, seriously I’m used to you and think I get you. True we’ve only know each other for months but this conv. has broken the ice quite well. And I do appreciate you.

I’m being ambiguous: The reason I state my intepretation is because I’m not sure I understand you. I need to state that directly. You’re response to me was not clear so I tried to make the best sense of it I could. I did it so you could correct me and help to understand you more. But I’ll let that go for now. I’m ready to post up on Act 15 and the decision Peter and the apostles had to make regarding the law and it’s silimarity to those today who believe we are uphold the law in a literal sense.
** and I did read what you posted **

a few comments on your response. No I’m not saying you guys are lazy, silly. I’m saying the rest of the muscle is not moral, so go ahead and work those bones :slight_smile: But do good work.

As for the red herring, I’ll just keep asking:
If a person today WILLFULLY endorses and practices murder, can he be a Christian?

On a major premise that reappears here, my recent posts detailed my case that the Torah never teaches that some sections of God’s law are moral and others are not. Thus, I am not seeing a basis for assuming that Paul’s comments on it are teaching this.

I think the difficulty here is that there are 3 positions held. Kelly would agree with you Bob that it’s all moral (at least I believe she would). So perhaps we shoud focus on just one view? Any thoughts?

Yes is is very confusing – and cripplingly so.

There are not three, but it seems 4 (FOUR) positions:
kelly’s,
mine,
Bobx1’s and
your’s auggy…

my grossly simplified paraphrases might run like this…

—kelly: it’s all law and all moral and all to be taken seriously… law is a reflection of God (indeed comes from God!) so thus is a constant, cannot change, etc etc and there is a great blessing to be had in observing this law; it’s there to protect AND as a practical means to practice our faith. Love is an abstraction; when one lives this love, it looks like law! Entire bible – not just OT – speaks very highly of the law… The Sabbath Law should be kept because they ALL should be kept… (I hope that’s a fair distillation kelly??)

—me, Bobx3 – while realizing all law is from God, given that much of it seems so tied to ancient culture, it seems not unreasonable to place the 10 commandments in a loftier position than all the rest. The distinction between Moral law and ceremonial law, while not perfect, seeks to recognize the difference between the culturally bound ones and the “timeless” ones… That the mere keeping of the law was never what God really wanted is readily seen in the OT verses which point to the ultimate need for changed hearts; the law as love for God and love for neighbor is an OT concept (Lev 19:esp v18) The Sabbath Commandment is to be treated as one of the 10 Moral precepts; hence it’s inclusion in their midst. And it’s inclusion in the great moral 10 is on purpose; that this purpose seems obscure to we moderns is no excuse to reinterpret it. The very act of trying to discern it’s relevance as we seek to “keep it holy” is perfectly compatible with A God who created free creative minds. The words “remember… Sabbath… Holy… in Six days… BUT THE 7TH DAY IS THE SABBATH OF THE LORD THY GOD…” are not as negotiable as auggy and Bob like to say they are…

—Bobx1 – The law is in fact to be given great historical respect. However, with the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, the deeper meanings of ALL the law are made more manifest. And these deeper meanings go far more to the “spirit” of the law than to their actual literal wordings. It is not proper to divide the law into moral vs ceremonial in part because the Jewish scholars didn’t see it that way. At the same time, we are to be encouraged by Paul’s assertion that, in Christ, we are no longer “under the law” but under grace. This emphasis proper motives for using “law” as a means of ordering our lives allows us to read the law more properly with it’s moral intent instead of it’s literal wordings. One may “keep” the Sabbath properly (and thus presumably “obey” the 4th) by embracing and internalizing the “rest” that comes from knowledge of our sure salvation in Christ. (or something like that… Remember, this is Bobx3’s paraphrase of Bobx1!!!)

—Auggy: Not too different from Bobx1’s interpretation… but the fact of the Sabbath’s (4th’s) commands far less obvious grounding in morality, and it’s suspicious similarity to other “rituals” of the law (ie other ‘sabbaths’ etc) plus Paul’s inclusion of it in Romans, mean it is safe to conclude that The Sabbath may safely be interpreted in a less literal way; it’s meaning to be lived, not it’s specifics. (ie this precise day; ie the 7th day) Auggy sees as very helpful to his cause this fact: that today’s 7th day Sabbath keepers no longer insist on enforcing Sabbath breaking by stoning. The implicit argument being (maybe??) that refusal to enforce violations must mean lessened importance of the command itself. (auggy will correct me here if necessary…)

So yes: maybe time to divide this into much smaller bites – as the ones we’ve got seem to be choking ALL of us!! Me included.

So some possible divisions of questions…
— What is the law?
— What law was “done away with” at the cross?
— What law are we “no longer under?”
— What does it mean to “keep” the Sabbath commandment?
— Is it fair, or proper, to describe proper Christian living/behavior as “following the law”?
— Is it possible that one may be following the law, but not with a right heart, and thereby not be keeping the law at all??
— Conversely, is it possible that one may have the “right spirit” and desire, yet appear not to be following the law??
— Can the SAbbath commandment be seen as a moral imperative?? (ie in the same way we see the law not to kill as a moral imperative)
— Is the Sabbath Commandment entirely compatible with, indeed illustrative of, the truth of UR as Bobx3 asserts??

Many many others are possible of course…

Bobx3

Bobx3,

I like your breakdown of positions and associated questions. I’ll 1st address your points with Auggy on Dec. 11. You support cancelling “hard” laws because Jesus says some were given because of our “hardness of heart.” But this seems backwards since Jesus was not referring to a ’law’ that should now be treated as too ‘hard,’ but to Moses’ commands on divorce, which he insists seem too lenient, implying that God allowed a rule that was too soft as a concession to their hardened determination to divorce anyway. Thus, doesn’t Jesus actually replace the old rule with a “harder” law?

You also repeat that not following commands for execution is as much a problem for us who think Torah is not in force, as for you who think we should obey it. I’m lost. Why is dropping it equally problematic for those who believe we’re not under Torah’s codes**?** MY sense, is that unlike Kelly, you decide whether laws on execution or mixing cloth are binding, by picking only the rules that make sense to you. But when others say, we will choose what we think applies, in light of what the N.T. appears to reaffirm, you ask, “how can you dare pick and choose?”

But the rationale which explains why, unlike Kelly, all your focus is on Sabbath rules, is your summary, “it seems not unreasonable to place the 10 commandments in a loftier place” (as the ones ‘moral’ in a “timeless” way). But that kind of assumption seems unlikely to me if I think that when the Bible speaks of the Law it consistently refers to the Torah as a unity. Then it seems some Biblical support for such a dramatic division between the Decalogue and the wider law is required. And if, as the earlier threads have argued, we perceive that Jesus presented as radical a challenge to the understanding of the Sabbath law as he did to other parts of the law such as cleanliness, then (even tho our tradition commonly disputes that Jesus could challenge or reinterpret any of the Torah), for us, making the 4th commandment as THE exception, which must not be evaluated, seems untenable.

TV, close (but no worries, I think we’re all feeling our way around the elephant) but I would also add that if Christ is our rest, then I see either we are to take that literally or metaphorically - thus each has to decide which - for me Christ LITERALLY is our rest. That the Sabbath was always about being in the presence of God and going back to Eden (without the curses and sweating of the brow). So I see Sabbath as Reconciliation. If we are reconciled then do I need to sit down on Saturdays according to God - I would say no, we need to recognize, by living it out in our lives, that he died and rose from the dead to bring us to God.

The question of stoning sabbath breakers is not really “helpful” to my case. It only is a way of feeling around the elephant to find out for those who hold the WHOLE law (Kelly) as being valid for today, where do they cite the torah that we no longer are required to put to death the sabbath breaker.

Aug

Hi Auggy,
If you can accept that you should spiritually and literally keep the commandment to not murder, or commit adultery, or steal - why not take the Sabbath commandment in the same way? What logic allows for the one commandment to be interpreted one way and the other 9 another way?
Further, you don’t truly rest every day. If you did your family would starve, you would be homeless, etc. God literally gives us 6 days to provide for our literal needs and tells us to rest on the 7th day, literally. Can we be “following Christ” and being in communion with Him every day even though we work on the 6? Of course. Were the 1st century Jews, of course. There isn’t a time that people’s faith and work were completely separate. It can’t be done because people can not be divided. Faith and literal work intertwine every day but, Yehovah has said to separate the 7th day unto Him.
We adhere to a literal obedience in the case of murder and theft, etc. why not the Sabbath? If Jesus really is our “sabbath rest” why not make it a holiday - a time of rejoicing and remembering? You make christmas a time of rejoicing, does that mean you never teach your children about when christ was born besides that day. Do you buy them gifts at other times during the year? Do you find joy in christ at other times of the year? I’m guessing you do. So, why is there some other logic applied to the sabbath?

Hey Kelly,

I think my approach thinks of the 4th commandment more literally than Auggy’s (that an actual literal rest can be a tremendous divine gift). But FWIW, it seems a central answer to why I too take it less “literally” than murder & adultery, is how we perceive the N.T. commentary as differing on them. You have seen, that even though it’s not convincing or apparent to you, we think even Jesus did not apply it in what one could think a ‘lliteral’ interpretation might expect.

Hi Bob!
I think I know what you mean.
I don’t really have that pathway in my brain (if you will). I really have mostly just read the Bible so my view of God’s law and what Yeshua does or doesn’t do on Sabbath is “the sabbath”. K., not sure if that makes sense. What I mean is, I don’t see a contradiction of what Yeshua does on Sabbath with Torah. Yehovah, though it may seem contradictory, does not make people lawbreakers. So, though it may seem contradictory in a legal situation, He makes allowances on sabbath. He doesn’t eliminate sabbath, only makes allowances for those who would be kept from doing good on the sabbath. He doesn’t want us to “go our own way” but, he still wants us to love Him and one another even if that means in our meeting together a person is in pain and needs healing, or if someone is very hungry and needs to eat, etc.
Every country has seemingly conflicting laws like this. For example, I have the right to privacy but, if I am going into a huge event or flying on an airplane, officials may search my bag or carry ons for the good of all others. These two seem in conflict and yet there they are, and for the good of everyone, including me if say another woman may have been carrying something dangerous. We see these seeming contradictions as workable and accept them as they are. This is where I am with God.
It may just be my ignorance but, my brain doesn’t carry all these contradictions of Torah or how to carry them out. I sometimes feel like I’m missing something when you guys are philosophizing and talking all these theological terms. :blush:
Thank you for taking the time to go back and forth on this subject. I think it is really an important thing to consider. Christianity overall dismisses it, not unlike UR/EU, and I think it would be good to consider in christian circles. Like EU, being able to love someone by doing right by them eliminates the guilt of not always “feeling perfect” all the time, It helps sort out the question of whether we did actually sin against someone or if they are holding us (and themselves) as an emotional hostage in an area for which they need healing and, it allows us to do right by, or “love” our neighbor until our or their feelings are right and it shows that, like Jesus, we didn’t just say we loved - we actually did.

Hi again Bob

– I’ll try the old TGB format in reply to your Dec 12 post:

Bob W: I like your breakdown of positions and associated questions. I’ll 1st address your points with Auggy on Dec. 11.

Bobx3 aka TV: well, it was very hastily written but I tried to be fair and write something you guys would actually agree with!!

Bob W: You support cancelling “hard” laws because Jesus says some were given because of our “hardness of heart.”

TV: Well, not so much “canceling” as trying to understand/explain why such laws – which would later be superseded by Christ – would be there in the first place!

Bob W: But this seems backwards since Jesus was not referring to a ‘law’ that should now be treated as too ‘hard,’ but to Moses’ commands on divorce, which he insists seem too lenient, implying that God allowed a rule that was too soft as a concession to their hardened determination to divorce anyway.

TV: Again, just trying to explain why a ‘law’ that clearly, we learn from Christ later, was not a true expression of what God really wanted, would be there in the first place. Remember, I’m directing this to auggy’s concern about the seeming “hardness” of the law to stone ‘lawbreakers’ – and I’m suggesting that the harshness of those stoning laws was brought about by the ‘harshness of their hearts’.
Also, when I speak of “hard” I speak not of the difficulty in keeping it but in the seeming “harshness” of a command which does not reflect what God really wanted…
Sure Jesus was speaking directly about divorce laws, but isn’t the principle applicable to other laws as well? I think so…
However, this goes to the different question of why God allows Himself to be presented as so harsh in the OT? (something which an atheist like Christopher Hitchens goes to great lengths to condemn!)

Bob W: Thus, doesn’t Jesus actually replace the old rule with a “harder” law?

TV: **You are precisely correct here IMO! **
And this is a very important aspect of the discussion we’ve not yet touched on here.
But it seems to ME that this aspect only makes MY case for Sabbath stronger!!

Here’s how I see that working out…

Consider:

In days of old, the command was not to kill… #6 in the Great TEN… that’s clearly a “moral” command to respect, perhaps even reverence life. But Jesus comes along and claims that merely refraining from killing does not come CLOSE to keeping the commandment properly! To the literal fact of not killing, He ADDS (or maybe “explains”, “enlightens”) the requirement that we may not even “HATE” (surely an “act of the mind”) that person!

So yes! That’s a much higher standard! But the higher standard does not negate, nor alter the original standard, it broadens and deepens it and adds to it!!! But we also can easily see that this standard is not “new” in the New Testament but is the very ideal God has wanted from the beginning! I like to think of Jesus “restoring” the “right heart” or “right motive” aspects to the external command of not killing.

So far then GOOD – seems like we’re in agreement!

But now consider the Sabbath commandment:

In days of old, on the Great Tablet of TEN, the 4th reads
"REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY TO KEEP IT HOLY… SIX DAYS THOU SHALT LABOR AND DO ALL THEY WORK – BUT THE SEVENTH DAY IS THE SABBATH OF THE LORD THY GOD…”

This is also clearly a moral commandment in my eyes (but less so to your eyes) given that it too has not only an emphasis on the value and dignity of Life, but also includes elements of the first 3 commandments and seems as a kind of “bridge” commandment linking the “Love God” section with the “Love neighbor” section. Jesus comes and not only “keeps” the day in that it is set apart, but in ADDING the true nature of it’s intent (ie as an emphasis on how Love of neighbor actually should be lived out) He restores it to it’s original meaning.

Yet it seems to me that You (and auggy) interpret Jesus’ actions on Sabbath as “INSTEAD OF” keeping it literally! No, I think the proper method is to treat it just like you do the command not to kill. Just as the deepening of the command not to kill in no way negates that actual command, so too the deepening of the Sabbath command in no way negates what it actually says… It’s not instead of, but in addition to! And that I think is what where kelly and I have had trouble with your interpretation in that you appear to have treated the Sabbath command differently than the rest… Thus the deepened meaning of Sabbath in no way invites or allows a negation of the actual original command. Just like the deepening of the command not to kill in no way negates the command not to kill.

Bob W: You also repeat that not following commands for execution is as much a problem for us who think Torah is not in force, as for you who think we should obey it. I’m lost. Why is dropping it equally problematic for those who believe we’re not under Torah’s codes?

TV: Here’s why it’s problematic Bob… you say “for us who think Torah is not in force” – but that’s clearly NOT what you believe because you DO think that the moral law, and the ten commandments ARE still in force! At least that’s how you order your lives. So you appear to like to SAY they are not in force (I guess this is the “not under law” thing…) when in fact given the way you try to live your life they ARE in force (in that you insist you respect the law not to kill etc). And this is the precise reason I used the word “shifty” earlier which it seems you didn’t appreciate. You want to be seen as respecting the law (I’ve called it the moral law) and still claim you are no longer under the law. That’s why I’ve asked “WHICH LAW are you no longer under?”
(PS and auggy is right in that it’s a much different problem for kelly than it is for me because she holds all law is still in effect which must mean the stoning laws as well)

Bob W: MY sense, is that unlike Kelly, you decide whether laws on execution or mixing cloth are binding, by picking only the rules that make sense to you. But when others say, we will choose what we think applies, in light of what the N.T. appears to reaffirm, you ask, “how can you dare pick and choose?”

TV: Well, that’s not exactly how I see it, but let me clarify… Yes, I HAVE been guilty of “picking and choosing”, if that’s how it is to be phrased, in that I’ve “picked” and “chosen” the 10 commandments as standing head and shoulders above the rest. For many reasons, there is something special about them; being written in stone and all… This doesn’t set me apart from you however because, as noted above, you too hold the 10 in high esteem and worthy of “keeping” if I’m not mistaken. Where I DO part ways with you then is in YOUR picking and choosing from within the 10 themselves!!! The assertion that the NT appears to reaffirm only 9 of the 10 (not affirming the 4th) is one I could not disagree with more. In fact, I read Jesus treatment of Sabbath as going out of His way to affirm this one even more than the rest of them! (So this is a huge point of disagreement between us)

Bob W: But the rationale which explains why, unlike Kelly, all your focus is on Sabbath rules, is your summary, “it seems not unreasonable to place the 10 commandments in a loftier place” (as the ones ‘moral’ in a “timeless” way). But that kind of assumption seems unlikely to me if I think that when the Bible speaks of the Law it consistently refers to the Torah as a unity.

TV: Again Bob, I’ve made no secret that I consider the TEN of a more timeless nature than the rest and, given they are inscribed in stone – a copy of which is said to be in the ark of the covenant! (how cool would it be for archaeologists to find THAT!!) – but I also hear you making no secret of the fact you consider aspects of the law (closest I’ve been able to pin you down is something like the moral aspects… hence your refusal to endorse murder for example) to also occupy a more elevated position; hence you endeavor to keep them… So it’s not just me who see’s a hierarchy of importance here it seems…

Bob W: Then it seems some Biblical support for such a dramatic division between the Decalogue and the wider law is required.

TV: But why should this apply to me, and not to you?? For me, Decalogue and “wider law” IS a very proper division!! For you it isn’t; yet you feel quite OK with what I see as a “dramatic division” in carving away the 4th from the 10!! So, how does claiming moral authority for the nine (but not the 4th!) make your position more tenable than mine?

Bob W: And if, as the earlier threads have argued, we perceive that Jesus presented as radical a challenge to the understanding of the Sabbath law as he did to other parts of the law such as cleanliness, then (even tho our tradition commonly disputes that Jesus could challenge or reinterpret any of the Torah), for us, making the 4th commandment as THE exception, which must not be evaluated, seems untenable.

TV: Well sure – it’s just that your perception of Jesus “radical challenge” is completely different from mine. And in fact takes a completely different course from His “radical challenge” to the other nine as well! That is, His radical challenge of the command not to kill, ADDS to it’s depth of meaning. Yet you’ve interpreted His “radical challenge” of the Sabbath command to be INSTEAD OF the traditional understanding! In this I find you to be unacceptably (for me) inconsistent.

Thus we see Jesus saying, yes, don’t murder AND don’t hate!
Thus I see Jesus saying, Keep the 7th day Sabbath, AND do it like this!
while you appear to see it as “no need to keep the Sabbath as of old, INSTEAD, keep it like I have”.
Why the two different approaches for commands withIN the Decalogue?
It is YOU who makes the 4th the exception; not me.

End of post commentary……

So it seems we have come to sharper focus of our precise areas of disagreement?

Specifically:

– The morality of the Sabbath Commandment:
I see it as moral in nature and intent, while you feel free to reinterpret (when I say reinterpret I mean to delete the actual reading of it…) it because it DOESN’T fit your expectations of what a “moral command” should look like….

– The words/action of Jesus regarding the Sabbath:
for me, they simply return the Sabbath command to it’s originally intended purpose (having been distorted badly by the scribes and pharisee’s) while for you they reinterpret the Sabbath command in a way which allows the ignoring of the actual words of the command…

— What exactly IS the “law” which we are no longer “under”??
This really should be discussed as I’m completely baffled by your position here… You seem to endorse this phrase (no longer under the law) yet are unable to tell me precisely which law this is. You want to be seen as reasonably living under the law that commands us not to murder, yet insist you are under no law. How is that consistent?

– Does Paul actually mean to say the Sabbath Commandment is a shadow, and a matter of personal preference? (you say yes: I say NO WAY!)

These are 4 specific areas which may better focus our differences Bob (and auggy) in future discussions…

… but let me say this. I am overjoyed at your interest in, and insight into, the deeper meanings of the Sabbath. Because of this, I truly am able to feel a real kinship with you, as brothers in Christ, even as we disagree.

Finally, there are two areas of specific interest (apart from all the above) that are relatively new for me right now (Sabbaths been like that to me for many years; always new areas and meanings to explore)

First, as I’ve said, is the Sabbaths unique compatibility with our shared belief in Universalism… (See earlier posts…)

And second, this sheds real light on the question of how we shall interact with our homosexual brethren. The Sabbath is a model of God’s inclusiveness; no exceptions, EVERYONE is to be embraced by this Sabbath time! (What a model for the complete embrace of Christ of the entire human race – given via the Cross!!) Which of course includes the woefully marginalized homosexual community. I’ve been exploring this with my dear friend buddy (formerly of this group) and it’s been a real blessing to be sure. I do realize some may protest that this understanding merely endorses “their particular sin”… But I don’t see, in the Sabbath command, any warrant for exclusion. Could God be saying here, I want you to give EVERYTHING a “rest” on this day: EVEN your judgements against each other??? I think so…

Anyway, God smiles upon me, Bobx1 and auggy, with the gift of your friendship here. I see you, I see God’s smile on me.
Just let me say, THIS is in large measure (there’s more of course!) the kind of peace we share that the Sabbath speaks to…

Blessings,

Bobx3

Bobx3,

Thanks! What a privilege to have brothers and sisters like you here to sharpen my eccentric thinking.

You 1st say we agree precisely that Jesus replaces Torah’s divorce law with a ‘harder’ one. But you defined “hard” as “harsh” in the “sense of not seeming to reflect what God really wants.” (And then argue this bolsters your ‘harder’ interpretation of Sabbath). Yet don’t we agree that Jesus’ higher standard for marriage actually DOES seem to reflect what God really wants? He reaches back to God’s original one-flesh intention at creation, and I think is very convincing that God does ‘hate’ divorce, and thus Moses’ rule is worthy of critique.

So I agree that Jesus deepened many O.T. laws, and esp. by pointing to inward state, magnifies a higher and more difficult standard (and I agree with you that God wanted this from the beginning). The catch for me, when you insist that this trajectory applies to the Sabbath, is that I do NOT glean that Jesus intensifies the literal meaning of every Mosaic law. What I see, is Him critiquing and interpreting them all, making some (like divorce) harder, and mimimizing others (e.g. execution for Sabbath breakers). Thus to me, it’s incorrect that I treat the Sabbath in a uniquely different way than I do the rest, as enumerated by examples of many laws in my original paper.

You keep saying you have no idea which law I think we are not under. I have repeatedly said that I mean the Torah’s Mosaic codes in the Pentateuch. So I have no idea what are asking for. Your contention that I actually believe Torah is “in force” sounds wholly semantic. I think we generally apply its’ rules ONLY when we find them endorsed in our best grasp of the N.T.'s “law of Christ.” For me, that means the mosaic code has no automatic “force.” You can keep saying that I give it intrinsic "moral authority, but I don’t recognize that as how I think of it at all.

But again, you nailed the assumption we differ on. You say because the Decalogue was on stone, it is exempt from what you and I do with the rest of God’s law in seeking to discern in what way or how much they still apply. But you know that I have argued that there is no Biblical clarification for such a bold distinction (closer to Kelly’s reading that God’s law is His law)! Thus, again, it seems to me that you are right that it comes down to you reading the N.T. sabbath texts differently than I do.

You argue a “deep” approach to Sabbath makes outward aspects (e.g. traditional conceptions of ‘work,’ or which day to rest) all the more crucial. I seem unable to see that. But it seems to me that the common ground that it should be decided upon is the appeal to texts on the sabbath, of which especially Jesus’ approach has been debated here in huge detail, esp. with Steve & Kelly (mostly before you entered these threads). It’s no wonder traditions interpret their view of Sabbath differntly.