The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Gay Rights (Theologically Speaking)

My sister is a lesbian. We grew up in a Christian home and she ran away at age 14 so that she could live that lifestyle. My father told her that it was wrong (there were some late 20’s women in the neighborhood that she was hanging out with, drinking, and fooling around and my dad said he wouldn’t allow it). She came back home in her early 20’s and committed her life to Christ and went to counseling to try to overcome her homosexuality. 2 tragic things happened during this time period. First, the president of the ministry, “Desert Streams”, a ministry for overcoming homosexuality, fell into sin and went back to his homosexual lifestyle saying that it was impossible to change. Then, my sisters counselor, who was a woman, had her husband leave her for another man (the husband was a Christian who also happened to be my church history professor in college). These 2 things, back to back, shook my sisters confidence and she gave up and went back to the lifestyle without looking back. That was almost 30 years ago. Things have changed a lot in 30 years. My view used to be unacceptable to the mainstream evangelicals. I thought my sister’s lifestyle was wrong, but I loved her. Her girlfriends were always welcome in my house because I knew that gay people pretty much hung out with gay people and I wanted to be able to be a witness to my sister and her girlfriends. I didn’t really talk about it much because by the time you tell a gay person that it is a sin, it will be the million and sixth time they’ve heard it. So I just left the door open for opportunities to be a good Christian friend in their lives. I was a shoulder to cry on during some break ups and I never used those as “opportunities” to tell her that she was wrong. A broken heart is a broken heart.

Eventually, this was not good enough for my sister. As gay activism advanced, it was no longer acceptable to have the Christian attitude that even though you thought it was wrong, you still loved them. For my sister, I had to either accept that her lifestyle was right or I was no longer allowed to be part of her life. I poured over the scriptures and read tons of stuff “pro-gay” “anti-gay” and everything in between. I read pro-gay arguments using the “clobber texts”, but simply couldn’t see that God thought it was OK. I thought the church had done a terrible job with the gay community. I watched my sister go through anguish as she was in puberty and to call it simply a “choice” was foolishness. It wasn’t as if the pubescent child looked at girls, then guys, then girls and decided on girls. She wished with all her heart that she had no attraction to women so the church’s oversimplification was insulting and alienating as well. Nevertheless, with everything I’ve read, and as much as I would like to give my sister my blessing and say that she is doing nothing wrong (except that she became an atheist), I’m simply not convinced. I think the Christian argument in favor of homosexuality is horribly weak. There is not a single verse in the bible that shed’s any positive light, and every mention, regardless of the context, is negative. It seems to me that the bible calls it a sin. The passage in Leviticus 20 mentions is in context with bestiality, incest, adultery, etc. Food was made clean, but sexual immorality was not, and it seems to be in context with sexual immorality. I’m not homophobic, hateful, bigoted, etc. etc. I would love to give my sister my blessing, but scripture seems to constrain me. Every argument in favor seems really strained and stretching.

It seems to me that the fall of man into sinful nature introduced this issue. We have, as Jeremiah says, a desperately sick heart. Guys would have sex with as many women as possible, if it were allowable. I don’t think man was like this before the fall. I don’t think we lied so easily, or murdered, or coveted, etc. etc. Until I see proof otherwise, it seems as if the bible calls homosexuality a sin that should not be embraced. To this day my sister would still be welcome at my house, with her partner and I will love her to the day she dies whether she chooses to follow Christ or not, but I can’t bless her partnership.

dirtboy,
I am sorry about your situation. I know that must be hurtful. I agree with your post. If, in christian churches and organizations people were taught that “keeping” Torah was important instead of “we’re free from the law” there may have been some responsible believers that could have been an example for your sister instead of being an example of what not to do.
In our state they are trying to push a curriculum in the schools that is reverse gay discrimination. Any child that doesn’t go along with the agenda is a “bully”. Kids will not have the freedom to say they don’t agree with it. The schools are also teaching kids how to be “gay” and encouraging them to “try it”, starting in kindergarten with a “softer” message. No wonder kids think they are “gay” at 13. No wonder they are confused! There was an article recently in which a lesbian couple is giving their 11 year old adopted son hormone treatments. According to them he has wanted to be a boy since he was 3 years old and they are “supporting” his “choice”. It seems all the tolerance talk in the activist groups just means tolerance for them not anyone else. You are correct in saying it is sin. God says it. He tells us what is right and wrong because He knows what is good for us and wants us to enjoy life to the full in Him, in His way. Thank you for sharing your heart with us and thank you for your honesty.

I was pondering these questions and I just wondered, "why did God divide “clean” and “unclean”? Can anyone help me out with that? Also, (if He did) why did He change it to all is clean? Anyone?

Bob,
I think you should take a closer look at these “laws”. Just from the way you are using them it seems you may not understand what you are quoting. Also, for my part, I don’t see any of the law as “binding”.

Everything in the natural tells us something about the spiritual. Every one of those laws are to point at spiritual applications in us. When the transition came from natural/outside to spiritual/inside the need for the following of the type was no more. The reality had come. Thats the way I see it.

Bob,

You may be misunderstanding me, I believe everything I need to know about living in the Spirit, Loving my Neighbor and even what the bible says about immorality is all right there in the NT epistles.

I think that with the exception of the Sabbath all 10 commandments are universally applicable to all people for all time…and all of these are commanded to be followed even by Gentiles in the NT. I believe the Sabbath is the one exception because this specific command much like the sacrifices was foreshadowing the “day of rest” that Jesus accomplished for all, as the book of Hebrews talks about. Similar to the sacrifices.

I come across alot of people that want to go back to the words of Jesus in the Gospels almost exclusively, in order to understand how to live, and most people just sort of end with…love one another. Therefore as in this thread, people start to question when others make distinctions about what is right or wrong, or immoral or loving, as if Jesus statement of Loving one another (in the Gospels) and this sort of ambiguous meaning people are giving it, should take precedence over how Paul to the Gentiles defines that Love, when speaking through that same Spirit of Jesus himself.

I see a little bit of a problem with that approach. First of all Jesus specifically came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, not Gentiles. Secondly, Jesus spoke of the coming of the Holy Spirit which would lead the believers into all truth. When we read the book of Acts we see that the Holy Spirit was poured out as Jesus predicted and specifically set aside Paul as the Apostle to the Gentiles.We read that Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke by the Spirit. Peter, also tells us that Paul’s Writings were of the Spirit of God and specifically Pauls exhortations regarding living Holy and spotless lives. (2 peter 3:14-16).

So the revelation that Paul received through the Holy Spirit, intended for the gentiles, was written down. And what do we see in these writings of Paul? We see him telling us what is expected of the Gentiles (or as you called it binding) what love is, and how to live righteous lives before God…please notice the emphasis below on the 10 commandments.

As Mr Shepherd points out,

Paul gives us several of the Ten Commandments in the book of Ephesians:

Eph. 4:25 - Wherefore putting off the lie speak ye truth each man with the neighbor of him…

Eph. 4:28 - The one stealing no more let him steal.

Eph. 5:3 - But fornication and uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you…

Eph. 5:4 - no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

Eph. 6:2,3 - “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.”

Aren’t these part of “THE commandments” that you were referring to?

Paul’s teachings are not his - he was given by revelation from Jesus

As some others have pointed out in Romans 13…

8To no one owe anything, except to love one another; for he who is loving the other – law he hath fulfilled,

9for, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false testimony, Thou shalt not covet;' and if there is any other command, in this word it is summed up, in this:Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;’

10the love to the neighbor doth work no ill; the love, therefore, [is] the fulness of law.

11And this, knowing the time, that for us, the hour already [is] to be aroused out of sleep, for now nearer [is] our salvation than when we did believe;

12the night did advance, and the day came nigh; let us lay aside, therefore, the works of the darkness, and let us put on the armour of the light;

13as in day-time, let us walk becomingly; not in revellings and drunkennesses, not in chamberings and lasciviousnesses, not in strife and emulation;

14but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and for the flesh take no forethought – for desires.

In the NT (to Gentiles) we see that all 10 commandments (with the exception of the Sabbath) are reiterated…over and over. To be more specific, Paul under the Holy Spirit says to love one another and then proceeds to quote the 10 commandments to define for us How to love our Neighbor. Paul then goes on to tell us to walk in the Spirit (or in Romans 13:14 put on the Lord Jesus Christ) and not fulfill the lusts of the Flesh. He then goes on to detail the deeds of the flesh and what walking in the Spirit is, commonly asserting some of the 10 commandments once again. And always warning to avoid sexually immorality and Idolatry.

We are told not to judge each other regarding what we eat or what day we observe as Sabbath (Romans 14, Collosians 2:16) and in the book of Hebrews we learn that the old covenant (sacrificial system) is abolished.

Paul gets real heated in Romans emphasizing with great warning that we must uphold the law. He is clear that the law does not save. But he is clear that the law is to be upheld.
He tells us to live righteous not sinful lives and even tells us that it is the law that shows us how to live righteous lives before God.

Regarding your last statement…

The Holy Spirit through the Apostles not only tells us to avoid sexual immorality in Acts 15. It’s Romans, Timothy, Ephesians, Collosians, Galatians and many other epistles. It’s the unmistakable command of God’s Word to the Jews and Gentiles.

What the OT says regarding immorality is irrelevant if the NT addresses it, would you not agree?
Do you not agree that the NT addresses this? I am not even sure how this can be debated without a huge stretch of ones imagination and without a deep Bias to make it say what one wants it to say. Would you not agree?

I am open to differing opinions regarding what Romans 1 is talking about, and I pray God to show me if I am misunderstanding it, but is there anything unclear about what Paul under the Spirit of God says here:

Wherefore also God did give them up, in the desires of their hearts, to uncleanness, to dishonour their bodies among themselves;

25who did change the truth of God into a falsehood, and did honour and serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed to the ages. Amen.

26Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature;

27and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.

28And, according as they did not approve of having God in knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mind, to do the things not seemly;

29having been filled with all unrighteousness, whoredom, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil dispositions; whisperers,

30evil-speakers, God-haters, insulting, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31unintelligent, faithless, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful;

32who the righteous judgment of God having known – that those practising such things are worthy of death – not only do them, but also have delight with those practising them.

I agree and think the NT in many places including Hebrews indicates this. There are many laws that were Types and no longer needed. There are other parts that were specifically for the Culture the Hebrews found themselves in and how to uphold justice and peace, and fairness etc for them, so some of those things do not apply to us obviously. I do think however that all the 10 commandments (except sabbath) are universal commands that apply to us since they deal with how to love God and Love one another, in any culture. Each of the 9 Commandments being re-commanded if you will, in the NT, after the pouring out of the Spirit.

9 is the number of the Holy Spirit, so it makes sense that 1 was removed for the New Covenant. Again by removed I mean fulfilled daily as He is our Sabbath.

Steve,

Thanks, you amplify & confirm what I understood as your view, with which I mostly agree, including on the 10 commands as part of THE law, the Eph. texts, and on Rom. 13. I would not put it: “All I need is in the epistles.” I perceive the Gospel accounts are intended as vital to equip Christians. Suggesting Jesus & his Gospel therein is dispensationally not for Gentiles can sound like His Lordship & values are inferior to the apostles. I see them as consistently following Jesus’ lead.

Yes, of course the epistles urge sexual morality. When you say that this makes what the rest of the Bible says ‘irrelevant’ I understand & respect as coherent, the belief that you have sufficient texts there to know God’s ultimate view & mandate. But as one who agrees that many Biblical instructions are troubling and not what we are now convinced believers should practice, or as you put it, “do not apply,” then the totality is ‘relevant’ to me, in that the Bible as a whole suggests that it is not simply a volume that provides grist that is all equally useful for easily formulating an ultimate systematic code. I.e. it urges us to wrestle with hermeneutical questions such as those to which you allude, as to how to see, compare, interpret, and apply the viewpoints that are reflected in such a Book. Views may differ as to how to do that.

Good Morning Bob,

When I said “All I need is the Epistles” I didn’t of course mean to suggest that the Epistles were all I or anyone needs for being equipt to live our lives before God. I beleive The Gospels are essential for our understanding.

When I said “All I need is the Epistles” I meant in context, that I don’t need to go back to the OT or the Gospels to show that the 10 commandments are re-commanded so to speak for the Gentile Believers under the new covenant. It was in response to your statement…

It appears to me that Jesus on the Sermon of the Mount reaffirmes the 10 commandments, and also expands on them showing they must be followed at the heart level not just externally.

The exception of the breaking of the Sabbath/washing of hands/unclean foods to me were clear declarations by Jesus of the new age dawning. The time of the Gentiles and the Fading away of the types/symbols. These lessons were speaking of what Jesus had come to accomplish as later confirmed by Paul the apostle in whom the meaning had been revealed (Romans 14, Collosians 2:16)

It seems to me the main arguments that those who want to support homosexuality are making are along these lines:

  1. The OT does not apply to Gentiles under the new covenant.
  2. Jesus abolished the law and even purposely broke the law to show his disdain for it, or his opposition to it.
  3. Jesus idea of Love is something different then how Paul by the filling of the Holy Spirit Defines Love.
  4. Paul says alot of strange things that we should question and we need to go back to Jesus for direction .

I think there is Huge Error and subtle distortions in the above arguements. This new covenant/Time of the Gentiles and Life in the Spirit that Jesus told us was coming, did indeed come and we read scripture tell us that this same Jesus came to Paul the Apostle to give him the revelation to the Gentiles. The Apostles authenticate Paul as having received Apostleship From God to the Gentiles. In 2 Peter, Peter himself confirms this. In the book of Acts God confirms it through the Miracles Paul is able to perform through the Spirit of God witnessed by others. Paul Makes it clear in his Epistles that this Revelation he is given was not taught by men but by God himself. Even Peter had to be corrected in a vision, that this message regarding the Gentiles given to Paul was from God, not man.

Paul constantly reminds that his message is not of man but from God. Here are some samples:

Galatians 1:1
Paul, an apostle – not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father.

Galatians1:12-13
And I make known to you, brethren, the good news that were proclaimed by me, that it is not according to man, for neither did I from man receive it, nor was I taught [it], but through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

When we read Pauls writings He is pretty clear, even redundant… that the 10 commandments are to be upheld (Ephesians, Romans, Galatians etc). Not for Salvation, which is by Grace through Faith, but for Spirit Living. Paul addresses the issue of casting aside the law and living for the Flesh with an unmistakable “Absolutely Not” followed by warnings that those that want to live like that will not inherit the reign of God (which I believe can be shown to refer to the reign of God here and now in our lives vs referring to salvation).

I don’t in any way see Jesus teachings as “inferior” to the apostles. Jesus very words predicted this age of the Gentiles and time of the filling of the Spirit under the New Covenant. But the Fact is Jesus came to the lost sheep of Israel…and even commisioned his Disciples to the lost sheep of Israel…because salvation is first to the Jew and then the Gentile. We see one account of Jesus talking to the Samaritan woman (gentile) and mentioning the time coming where the true Worshippers will worship in spirit and truth. We then see Jesus Promising his disciples the Holy Spirit who will guide them into truth. Followed by Pentecost and the Spirit Filling the Gentiles. This whole age of the Gentiles was planned from eternity, spoken of in the Prophets and OT, and predicted by Jesus. Paul then was Chosen by God and taught by Jesus himself. Paul was then commisioned to reveal this plan. So when we read his writings we can be sure he is not defining Love and living for God of his own, but how he was taught it by Jesus himself, under the filling of the Spirit. So it seems to me that those who have a problem with Pauls words, really have a Problem with God’s words.

There is no question that views may differ on how to interpret and apply the bible even Peter mentions that Pauls words contain some things that are hard to understand which ignorant and unstable people distort as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). I think we all need to pray for wisdom and carefully see if our statements and lives match up with scripture. We need to strive to Love as Jesus Loved, that pure love that he displayed in the Gospels(which forgave the greatest of sins with ease and then said to go and sin no more, that threw over tables in the place of worship and also spoke harsh words to the pharisees), the kind of love that is outlined in the 10 commandments and defined by the Holy Spirit in the writings of Paul. The kind of lives that are in humility before God loving and living by the Spirit and giving no provision for the Flesh.

I agree we must wrestle with hermeneutical questions or we can find ourselves doing or believing things that God did not say or intend for us. If we want to understand what Love is we need to ask God to help us understand what true Love is as he has revealed and defined in “ton logon tou theou”. We not only read that Jesus is God’s Spoken Word (John1:1) but Jesus himself calls the commands of God spoken of by Moses “ton logon tou theou” (The word of God). In the Book of Acts we see that the Apostles ministry was moved away from serving tables to the explicit purpose of delivering this same “Word of God”.

The way I see it, God’s revelation of how Jesus loved and lived right before God is 100 percent harmonious with what he commanded in the 10 Commandments and what Paul Describes Spirit filled living and Loving to be in the Epistles. It is the same God speaking the Word of God everywhere.

I pray we all have open minds to challenge our traditions and errors and bring everything back to the Revealed Truth, me included. I also Pray we are filled with the knowledge of God’s Love and seek him out with humble hearts.

Hey Steve! You seem to explain non-epistolary Scripture as ‘irrelevant’ just as I surmised in my paragraph 2. But most of the problem I presented with such language seems to remain.

2nd, I’m saying that once you agree that Jesus presents “exceptions” among the commands, it seems inaccurate to assert that He (or Paul) “reaffirms” them as originally given and never passing away.

I also don’t grasp your argument #2, that others say Jesus’ idea of love differs from Paul’s. How are these said to be different? I argued, especially about love, that Paul consistently gets Jesus, and follows His lead.

I sense that you’re arguing that while other Scriptures present moral demands that we now see shouldn’t be followed, Paul’s own perception that homosexuality is rebelliously immoral is an abiding and authoritative value. You phrase this respected conservative perspective by saying that it was “God’s words.” But of course, e.g. the commandments that supported Peter’s rejection of Gentile behavior are equally ‘God’s words.’

So some less conservative interpreters see Scripture as written by men moved by God’s Spirit, yet still reflecting some of the vantage point of their humaness. It’s often thus seen as offering a “progressive revelation,” wherein writers’ reflection of God’s whole picture remains incomplete. Then, it’s more challenging than citing one given text and insisting that everything else is irrelevant. It could make room for becoming convinced, as in your example of Peter, that through present experience God is revealing a fuller untraditional conclusion, which may involve a way of interpreting which Biblical principles call for pre-eminence in shaping our ultimate understanding of God’s will.

There seems to be a 3 position being argued here. Kelly and Shepherd see ALL the law as applicable, even for the gentile church. Steve seems to take the view that Some of the law is applicable for the church. Bob and I would probably agree that it’s somewhere in the middle.

Steve,
You stated “The exception of the breaking of the Sabbath/washing of hands/unclean foods to me were clear declarations by Jesus of the new age dawning.”

Are you saying Jesus broke the Sabbath or would you say he did not?

Could you tell me where you found Peter’s rejection of Gentile behavior? I want to look it up. :slight_smile:

Hey Steve. I appreciate what you’ve said about keeping the 9 commandments.:smiley: You are very knowledgeable. I can see that you take what the Bible says very seriously and think it’s important. So, thanks for that. There are just a few things I want to ask and a couple things I want to comment on.:wink:

Could you tell me when Jesus broke the Sabbath or when he ever ate something unclean to show his people that the Instructions of God have passed away? (The washing of the hands is irrelevant because it is not in the “law” of God. It was a tradition of the elders, which is an extra-biblical rule that doesn’t have anything to do with what He says.)

Here, Paul is telling people not to “judge” others by what they eat or drink. To “judge” is literally to “damn”, “condemn” or “reject that which is inferior” (From the Greek). We are not supposed to judge how people celebrate the Sabbath or what they eat or drink. It is God’s job to judge our works. To say that God’s word says we shouldn’t eat things that He calls unclean is not condemning or saying that those people are damned.

Paul is warning us in verses 20-23 against self-imposed worship and false humility.

So by saying “keep the Sabbath” we are not being judgmental. Just reiterating what the Bible already says.

I don’t see where any of these verses seem to say that a new age is dawning where we don’t have to keep any of the things that God has previously said was important.

Paul is making a point in these verses that we are supposed to keep the feasts not with “do this, do that, don’t do that” rules. But, with sincerity and truth, remembering what Jesus has done for us. It’s all about remembrance and thanksgiving.

What better time to give thanks than an appointed time dedicated to giving thanks and remembering what God has done for his people in time past and what he will do for them in the future? Obviously, not for salvation. It is not supposed to be done with malice or anything evil.
Why do we not want to keep the feasts and the Sabbath?

I pray the same. :slight_smile:
Sincerely,
EvilMIA

Hey Aug,

Sorry for the confusion, I noticed the way I phrased that was horrible and didn’t represent what I meant. I believe Jesus Broke the Sabbath in the eyes of the Pharisees and possibly many other religous people, but not according to the Word of God. I Believe with the New covenant coming Jesus was breaking down walls of falsehood and preparing for people to open up their minds about some changes coming. They had added and diminished what he had told them.

The Sabbath to me is a bit of a complex topic. Here are my thoughts on the Sabbath. I am open to corrections:

  1. Jesus Broke the Sabbath according to the pharisees… but not according to the Word of God.

Jesus was born as an israelite under law (galatians 4:4) and was in every way tested and without sin (2 cor 5:21)

Jesus (as he commonly did) was in my opinion exposing the Pharisees man made traditions regarding the sabbath. Here is the Sabbath command:

Six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work" (Exodus 20:9–10).

As I Believe kelly pointed out earlier on this post, The work forbidden by the Sabbath law is “your work.” The law does not forbid works for God… just normal work. Your work is your Daily work, not the “work of God”. I think context demands this. “Your Work” defines the “no work” mentioned later.

The “work” Jesus did on the sabbath was Feed hungry disciples and heal. This from the perpective of the Pharisees because of their additional man made traditions would be breaking the Sabbath, but from the perspective of the Word of God would NOT have been breaking the Sabbath, as feeding and healing is the “Work of God”.

Notice God’s Word requiring “God Work” on the Sabbath below:

The weekly Sabbaths and the annual Sabbaths were proclaimed to be “Sacred assemblies”. (Leviticus 23)

Yet People were told to gather to hear God’s word taught, and for congregational worship which includes the “work” required to travel to the place of assembly and the “work” of the reading and explaining of God’s Word.

On the Day of Atonement the priests did the “work” of slaying animals and offering sacrifices before God. (Leviticus 16).

  1. The Sabbath was meant to foreshadow things to come

(Romans 14, Collosians 2:16)

Mans struggle with Sin was dealt with in Jesus death and resurrection, though this may be fully realized at a later time.

  1. The Sabbath was part of the Mosaic (Old) covenant between God and the Israelites.

ex 31:16-17, neh 9:14, ezek 20:12

  1. Christians are under the new covenant (2 cor:3, Heb 8)

Christians Began to Worship on Sunday (the day of the ressurection) (matt 28:1, 1 cor 16:2)
Church Fathers confirm this.
There is no NT command (post ressurection) to keep the Sabbath (but all other 9 commandments are re-commanded in the epistles)
The Jerusalem Council (acts 15) did not instruct the gentiles to keep the Sabbath.
Paul teaches that Sabbath Keeping is not a requirement (Romans 14:5-6, gal 4:10-11,col 2:16-17)

So the Sabbath was given under the old covenant law and was between Yahweh and the Children of Israel. This was a very important command as it foreshadowed things to come. Jesus (according to Paul) kept the sabbath as an Israelite born under the law (Mosaic Covenant), Though The Pharisees believed he broke the law. We are told in the NT after Jesus death and resurection that we are under a New Covenant and that we are not required to keep sabbath days and things foreshadowing what had come. All other 9 commandments are re-commanded in the NT and expected to be followed, along with an explanation of the New Covenant which is God’s Law written on our hearts instead of stone, and the filling of the Holy Spirit as Jeremiah had prophesied and The NT writers tell us has come.

Christians under the New Covenant Began to worship, participate in God’s Work and Celebrate the Ressurection on Sunday. I think a case can be made that this sort of replaces the Israelite Sabbath, as long as it’s clear it has nothing to do with Salvation, which is by the Grace of God.

Bob,

Thanks for the reply. Before I respond I’d like to sort through some of arguements made on this thread and reread some of the articles opposing what I currently see scripture to say. I hope to have a better understanding of where you and others are coming from. Also need to get some family time in. Thanks!!

Steve, I figured you meant that :slight_smile: I just had to make sure.

I most certainly disagree with the position that the sabbath was a vocational command. It seems obvious to me to that one has to insert (isogesis) that into the text in order to maintain the idea that Jesus was not in violation of the commandment “thou shalt not do ANY work”.

Tell me, when God sent the manna was it only the cooks who could not collect the manna? The text most clearly forbids people to bake goods, light fires (as if that were a vocation) or to do ANY work.

You seem to be alright with Jesus healing people but what about him telling the man to “pick up your mat” when the commandment states “you shall not carry a load” (jer 17). In Jer did God mean that only particular vocations could not carry a load into Jerusalem? Don’t bring a load our of your houses is part of the command? Is that for movers? And this is what God commanded of their forefathers? Did he? Perhaps God is mistaken about what he told Moses? Where in scripture does God say not to carry a load?

It seems I’ve been ignored on a rather strong point but I’ll drop it again:
If the Disciples were ALREADY eating with dirty hands then why did they not understand Jesus’ parable?
If Jesus’ declaration that you cannot contaminate torah approved foods with dirty hands why are they so perplexed at Jesus’ parable - they were already eating with unwashed hands - THEY KNEW UNWASHED HANDS DID NOT DEFILE THEIR FOOD. So it seems most likely that the catholic and protestant church is right that Mark literally is saying that all foods (jewish and gentile) are for the stomach.
After all if pork can be digested in the stomach just as beef can then what is it about pork that defiles you?

Lastly,
it’s my opinion that you are putting Jesus right there with Bob and I. When Jesus is challenged on the Sabbath laws his response to them is:

**“Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, 4 how he entered the house of God, and (D)they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? 5 Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple [c]break the Sabbath and are innocent?

Now I’ll give you my translation of Jesus’ words: I desecrate the day and yet am blameless. Do you disagree with that? If so then what is his point in using this? If you agree, then he’s as much an antagonist as we are.**

What kind of vocation do you think the Israelite’s had out there in the dessert, Auggy? I don’t think they were shoe salesmen or anything. Their vocation was having enough to eat and moving along when God did.
My example was if you are a postman, a walk may not be rest for you. Walking is not prohibited on the Sabbath.

Jer 17 is more properly “bear no burden”. “Carrying a load into or out of Jerusalem is speaking specifically about doing business. Selling goods or buying goods, which is prohibited on the Sabbath. You can see this more clearly in the book of Nehemiah. Movers? I can’t tell if you are serious here, if you’re trying to confuse the truth or if you just don’t know what the scripture is saying here. I got a pretty good laugh over it anyway, thanks!

The disciples were raised, along with many previous generations to obey the pharisees. The pharisees had this rule (IT WAS NOT TORAH (GOD’S LAW)). Jesus is clearly telling all close enough to hear that the pharisees were wicked in their hearts and their UN TORAH rules were NOT to be obeyed. After learning your whole life to obey the pharisees, they were probably wanting some clarity on Jesus’ words. At least, I would think so.

As a UR believer, you already know the gentile church has had wrong teachings from the inception of the Catholic “Universal” Church. I know it too. Most of their beliefs and practices line up pretty well with my “historical pagan” influences. The “teachers” and “leaders” in Israel were also corrupt. It really doesn’t matter what they teach. It matters what the Bible says. That is what Jesus was telling His disciples.

Have you done any research on what pork is? They eat garbage, they eat other hogs, they will eat people. They are filthy and filled with parasites. If God told us not to eat swine for no other reason than for the fact that you can be infested with parasites and your eating meat grown by ingesting garbage and other animals, shouldn’t that be enough? Swine meat hasn’t changed except to possibly become worse because our garbage is a lot worse than it used to be.
What kind of foreshadow could the food “laws” be? Well, we are the temple of God. Aren’t we? The real temple is in heaven. Our bodies are a foreshadow. The tabernacle in the wilderness and the temple in Jerusalem were foreshadows also and God forbade unclean animals in the temple. It’s worth thinking about. It may also be worth thinking about the fact that you are saying with one little sentence that Jesus wiped out His own law which had kept His people safe and made them a sign to the nations for the previous thousands of years. I don’t buy it.

Kelly :slight_smile: yes the mover was meant in humor. But the argument I make stands: ANY work is not “vocational” work. If your argument is true that the gift of the sabbath was to rest one day out of the week from your vocational work then I would argue that the Pharisees had a better idea than God - TOTAL REST on the sabbath.

Perhaps you simply misunderstood the point but I’ll make it one last time: You say the Disciples were raised under the tradition of the elders (Pharisees) and that is why they were perplexed at Jesus’ parable that eating torah approved foods did not contaminate the food and defile the person. I don’t buy this because they were already eating their food with unwashed hands. So what perplexed them was exactly what Mark said - ALL FOODS. Now was gentile food “food”. Yes it’s uncelan food. One would have to argue from silence that Jesus MADE them eat with unwashed hands. What we DO KNOW is that they were eating with unwashed hands.

I find it hard to believe you really believe that the kingdom of God is about meat; wild. But to each their own. If you don’t want to eat bacon, have at it. I say go for it. But as for telling people they’re disobeying God because they eat pork, that’s a legalistic approach to righteousness which makes no sense to me.

That is why earlier I asked you if eating pork is immoral. If it’s breaking God’s command to eat bacon then one is unrighteouss for eating meat. And if one is unrighteouss for eating a particular meat, then Paul was wrong when he says that God’s kingdom is not about meat. I too don’t buy the legalistic view.

Circumcision is nothing? Or is it?

Lastly, you always seem to argue that the provision of the sabbath means they weren’t breaking the rules. Yet Jesus says “The preist desecrates the day”. If there are provision for a law, then when those provision are met, the law is not desecrated. So do you think Jesus (like Bob and I) was an antagonist to them by using the phrase “desecrates the day”? What do you think he meant by it? I mentioned my interpretation - I desecrate the day and yet am blameless - do you agree?

No one ever said that eating pork takes away your salvation or that we have to not eat it to be saved. It was always about believing and doing right by faith. Even in the OT. (Rom. 4:2) And you are right, circumcision is of the heart only. Not through works. (Deu 30:6; Romans 2:29)

The Priests desecrated the day to do what God says. For an example, they worked in the temple to offer sacrifices, heal people or do other things commanded (John 7:21-24). They didn’t just ignore the Sabbath so they could do what they want. In all the examples of anyone desecrating the Sabbath and being blameless we never see them “going their own way”. Only doing the work of God.

This shows that keeping the commandments is at least somewhat important to God. Of course, now we don’t have to keep them for salvation (because that would be legalistic) but, if such a big point is made through the whole Bible about God blessing us if we keep it, why do we hate it so much and think it’s so terrible?