The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Stoning Sabbath Breakers Today?

Seems you’ve at least partially missed my point auggy. For it seems you don’t uphold “those parts” of the law either! That is, you don’t condone stoning for taking God’s name in vain, for adultery, or for dishonoring parents. Yet your unwillingness to stone that sort of lawbreaker in no way negates your respect and honor for the law itself! Why not? You don’t allow your non enforcement of the penalty for breaking commandments 3, 5 and 7 to diminish your embrace of those commandments at all: so why do you insist that I somehow must allow my unwillingness to enforce the “breaking” of the 4th commandment to equate with ignoring that commandment? Why the different set of rules here is all I want to know?

No, that’s actually not what I’m asking you. I’m simply asking why you don’t allow your unwillingness to enforce this commandment by stoning to alter your respect and keeping of that commandment. You don’t stone, yet still endorse the command; why can’t I be able to do that as well with the Sabbath command? And why would you be so eager to exempt yourself from keeping it too? From whence the confidence and initiative to carve that one out from the rest?

You seem to be trying to paint a dilemma for me with the assumption that it’s not a dilemma for you. But if it’s one for me, it is for you as well: that’s all I’m trying to get you to admit.

Have we now ceded the field of ethics and morality to intuition? How’d that work out in Judges – when every man did what what was right in his own eyes? Of course Romans also informs/reminds us that we all have consciences and inner guidance. Still, the “intuition” of the Germans in WW2 was that ridding the world of the Jewish race was a good thing… Something to contemplate…

But I’m bewildered at this idea that there should be any quarrel with the notion that there’s nothing wrong with doing good work on the Sabbath? For me that’s strawman pure and simple: for that’s exactly what Jesus was saying when HE did good on the Sabbath and thereby fulfilled it!

Whose gonna argue with following morality? But if you see in these commandments a shallowness that invites deeper exploration, why assume the same invitation does not exist for the Sabbath command?
Hey! It’s not ME who put it there! That seems to have been God’s idea. So why not see that command as an invitation to deeper understanding of it’s roots in love too?

Which is precisely what we see happening to the Sabbath command when acted out by Jesus… His actions were actually seen as violations – not embrace of the command. So there IS a “heart” behind all these commands; including the Sabbath one…

This insistence on carving out a separate class of respect and reverence for one particular Commandment yet bewilders me. I mean if the 10 represent the great “moral code” why on earth not at least exert effort to trying to discern why this particular one is included therein? That’s bugged me for a long time.

Now there’s another aspect which absolutely puzzles me: and that is this general Christian insistence on the Law somehow being done away with; being nailed to the Cross; new dispensation of grace instead of law and all that.
Hebrews 1 talks about the many and various ways God has spoken to us - but how the message has been perfected in the coming of His Son. To many this seems to convey a different message by the Son. A great many of you talk about a new covenant. As if it’s an entirely different and new message.

But it’s not: it’s the very same thing that mattered to God all along. Check out some of these beautiful passages which sound as if they “belong” in the New Testament…

How can this not be read as the core of what matters to God? An inner transformation of the heart? And the precise thing Jesus taught in the New Testament?
It’s been imagined that Jesus re-articulated the 10 commandments by summing them up as love of God and love of neighbor. No, all He was doing was reminding of already existent Old Testament ideas:

As for a new covenant? Not “new” really, but more like “RE-newed” (that is, in essence the very same one given to Abraham, and Job etc – for even Jeremiah was talking about the great internalizing of the law, which, when internalized we call “Love”.)

So the only way one can really “do away” with the law as I envision it, is to internalize it; to allow it to change our hearts. Which is the very thing God has always sought from those who worship Him!
Now somehow the Sabbath fits into that drama and progression. Whether we like it or not. Why else would it be right there in the midst of the Holy Oracles? I didn’t put it there, God did…
So the better question might be: what on earth could God have intended by placing this seemingly different command right in the midst of all the rest??

Why isn’t anyone asking That question??

Bobx3

(edited so as to not have Jeremiah quoting me! :blush: )

Beautifully said Bobx3! :sunglasses:

Yes, that is exactly what they would say, and it is true. For the original 10 commandments are recorded in Exodus 20:1-17, and there is not a word about giving the death penalty for breaking any of them. The 10 commandments simply instructed the Hebrews as how to live, and many today say this instruction is for all people of all ages.

Not to reduce the discussion down to mechanism here, but I’d like to add that God does everything for a reason. There have been actual scientific studies that show that taking a “sabbath” rest (not what they called it in the studies, but what it amounts to) is actually necessary to the well being of both people and animals. We all function at our best if we set aside one day per week to totally rest, because this is how we’re designed to function. God even set the precedent by resting on the seventh day (regardless of whether you believe it was a literal 24 hour day, the principle still applies).

No need to stone them, they ‘stone’ themselves!

God’s law was given for our benefit, not his. I’m not trying to be legalistic at all, in case anyone was wondering.

Interestingly, the law was given essentially as a substitute for direct communion with God. We don’t need the law when we are in communion with God, and so now that that has been made possible once more through Jesus, we no longer need to rely on the law, but rather on the embodiment of its fulfillment.

But it’s not impossible for God to lie. If it were, then God would not be omnipotent. It’s not that God CAN’T lie, but the He WONT lie, for it’s contrary to his nature. True, Hebrews 6:18 says that God is powerless to lie, but I don’t think that refers to God’s ability, but to His disposition. Lying is contrary to His nature.

On the other hand, if God is so averse to lying, why did He put a lying spirit in the mouth of His prophets to entice Ahab? (2 Kings 22:19-23). Also Rahab the harlot has been put in that great list of heroes and heroines of faith in Hebrews 11. How did she act in faith? She did not disclose the Hebrew spies, but told their pursuers that they had already left, when, in fact, they were hiding under the straw of her house.

John 8:44 declares the devil to be the father of lies, but it does not say that he is the father of ALL lies as you said in your post. Richard Wumrbrand, who was tortured for 14 years in a Romanian prison, wrote that it is RIGHT to lie to the Communists.

So yes, I would lie to the Nazis to save Jewish lives; in fact I would lie to anyone in order to save a life. For our moral obligation to save a life where possible overrides our moral obligation to refrain from lying. If you would not lie to save a life, then you are at least partially responsible for any loss of life which would ensue as a consequence. I think the Lord would hold you responsible for that death in the day of judgment. But if you lied to save save someone’s life, He would say, “Well done! Good and faithful servant!”

Well said Melchi and Paidion!
This is where I merge into the idea that walking in the Spirit with a right heart looks like keeping the commandments. Not that we keep them by the letter but, with a right heart in relationship with our Savior. This is where I’m at. It is hard to say “we don’t have to keep the law” when walking in the Spirit is an automatic keeping of the commandments. I don’t think we are “under the law” but, we uphold it in our relationship with Yeshua. Thanks for the clarity and common sense. Blessings and peace!

i cannot believe you know people that would elevate the “sin” of lying above the sin of murder.
in my view, not giving information to those who have no right to it is NOT lying.
the Nazi’s would have no right to the information that i had Jews hiding in my house, and therefore not giving this information would be right and good and proper.
misleading them would be proper to, as they are claiming rights to information which no one in their right mind could ascribe to them.

seriously worrying that there are people that would betray innocents because they think they are “lying”
that’s disgusting, and lowers them to a level below the nazi’s. and that’s hard to do.
if that’s a personal insult to anyone…i’m actually glad.

in fact, killing nazi’s could not be called murder, because you would be saving lives by doing so.

I appreciate all of the feedback regarding the upholding of morality. While some parts of TV’s points are regarding the issue of the law for today, I’d like to ask that we reserve that for the other thread (David’s unlawful act). I’m trying to leave the issue of obedience of the sabbath to the other thread of David’s unlawful act. So help me out here.

I’ll try to focus on the question of regarding the death penalty for sabbath breakers. I realize that’s being touched on in the other thread, but that thread has a huge menu of indivudal issue, and I believe they need to be addressed individually. I love that thread because it’s almost creating an outline for us for the future. I think we could hold a more formal discussion and have seperate parties (like in a debate) discuss the issues and ONLY allow two individuals like Steve (or TV) and Bob - since they’re so eloquent.

So on to the subject;

because I don’t see the death penalty is relevant to as to whether the command to honor parents or rest on saturdays is moral or not. But if that’s true, then we have to answer the question - is not obeying God’s command to kill the sabbath breaker an endorsement that breaking the sabbath is ok? Why not?

I think the issue I’m getting at is where do you see the moral line drawn of what laws are loving (moral) and what laws are not. If I understand Kelly right, she argues THE WHOLE LAW is loving and moral thus the whole must be upheld. But again, without dragging this back to “the law for today” - I’m hoping this thread is short (LOL - yea right) soi I can get a feel between the two diffrenet views, namely Kelly and the partials.

Bob, I see there’s a dillema here for everyone. I’m uncomfortable with saying God’s a liar. So on one hand I uphold God is true and NEVER lies, and on the other hand I agree with Corpselight.

Corpse, I’m not lying at all about people I know who elevate the sin of lying over the sin of murder. It’s a paradox for them - for on one hand God says he’ll never put is in a place where there is no escape (all choices lead to sin). On the other hand they see the command to tell the truth as being real and literal in every possible way - thus she (the person I know) claims she would have faith in God by obeying the commandment and trusting in God to protect the Jews.

Kelly - Thanks for hanging in there and for all that common sense :wink:, but I need more patience from you: Am I misunderstaind you or am I incorrect in saying you believe THE WHOLE LAW is moral and good and needs to be upheld?

– Again, I think these threads are great for outlines and will provide us with the differences we need to hold a real and serious discussion (not that these aren’t serious but they are sloppy and informal) –

with that sort of context, i can …almost see a logic there. at least it’s not monstrous obedience of an evil regime just to salve the conscience of a minor sin (at least in comparison to the far greater sin).

Corpse,
One detail regarding her reason is because in the scenario lying is not set up against murder. In other words, if she lies she breaks the commandment and doesn’t trust in God to protect the Jews. If she tells the truth, SHE IS NOT THE ONE COMMITING MURDER and she trusts God to protect the Jews. Thus she believes that it is right to tell the Nazi’s the truth and trust in God that the Nazi’s will do what is right (or perhaps God will miraculously save them).

TV,
As usual these discussions can get quite confusing. It seems obvious (not that it is) to me that I’m not required to hold stoning for any law because I regard the law as having deeper purpose. I don’t see any value in resting on Saturday any different than resting on Tuesday. Likewise, I see the Sabbath law (as Jesus draws out some parameters for us) that it’s unlawful to do evil work. If I’m really out to lunch on these grounds I’d like to hear why. To me it makes sense but NO ONE ever remarks on this and so I’m starting to think I’m irrational and not making much sense. When I argue that doing evil work is forbidden on the sabbath, and then prese doing evil work is forbidden on ANY day of the week, then I’m clearly stating it’s ok for working on any day of the week. Again, I see no moral argument to say Saturdays are better than Tuesdays because God says so. What if perhaps there was deeper meaning to the Sabbath and we misunderstand it? Nahhhh, our interpretations are flawless and thus the laws should not be questiond???

If someone says IT HAS TO BE SATURDAY, I’m called to test all things (You know Talbott’s paper regarding that). Why not test the law? Why not test the Sabbath? Why not?

I think better explanations of why Sabbath Saturdays are best, require more than just “because God said so”. Sadly it sounds alot like Aaron37 stating that I don’t have a problem with him but with God. But I trust you don’t mean to push that heavily. You know full well we’re not tempting or testing God, we’re testing your views on legal observations.

So back to this issue - I think we’re all in a sort of fog because we all don’t know where to draw this line.
Some argue it’s partial law (9). Some argue it’s the WHOLE THING (letter). Some argue it’s the whole (spiritual).

I feel placing the dillema back at me doesn’t quite get your view off the hook. Simply because I may be inconsistent doesn’t mean you’re not either. We have to dialogue and make sense of where we stand. So as someone who obeserves the Sabbath literally (resting on Saturdays), do you feel stoning should be enforced for Sabbath breakers? If so then would you qualify yourself as someone who believes PART of the law is for today but not every jot and tittle?

I don’t see Auggy saying that rejecting ‘executions’ means that we can’t follow any rules (if so I’d disagree). Just that this reality then requires us to ask for each rule that we think we should follow, “On what basis”? (e.g. like N.T. clarification) In that light, haven’t some traditions perceived that the 4th command is not just endorsed in the N.T. in the same way that the other 9 are? Isn’t that part of the reason that 7th day traditions haven’t predominated?

For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace. (Ephesians 2:14-15)

For me its pretty straightford, Christ came to fill up (literal meaning of the Greek word) the Law. In so doing he abolish the “law of the commandments in regulations (HCSB)” and established the law of the heart. This law is,

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.(Romans 13:8)

Frankly I say do away with the 10 commandments, we only need 2.

  1. Love God with everything
  2. Love others

All the other details are just semantics, the law of of commandments expressed in rules is abolished, now we trust in the law of liberty. Let us take Paul’s words seriously,

Now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. (Romans 7:6)

No more obeying the written code of the Ten, now we are free to love and live in righteousness. Also it is a new covenant with better promises TotalVictory, read Galatians 3 and Hebrews 8. Please forgive me if I have misunderstood your posts :wink:

Dealing with the Sabbath itself Paul definitively answered what we should do when it comes to holy days,

**One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. (Romans 14:5-6) **

Don’t worry about petty things, God has a way of sorting those out. We are simply meant to love and follow the law of the Spirit. Remember, he’s the Spirit of truth(John 16) and his sword is the word of God (Eph 6:17), so following him does no harm to scripture or truth. So as for me I will fall into the arms of grace, carried by the Spirit to do the will of the Father. And dwelling in the love of Christ, I will produce lasting fruit, and is that not more important than all of our doctrinal differences?

No offense meant to any of you in your views. Let us all remember what David wrote, “The sum of your word is truth.”(Ps 119:160) Amen so let us learn from all parts of scripture, even Torah. Christ set us free for the sake of freedom, therefore do not submit yourselves again to a bond of slavery (Gal 5:1).

Awake,
Agreed. I see it as you do. But the challenge works both ways and that’s what they present. I have no issue (as Kelly thinks I do) if they want to hold Saturdays as a special day of the week. For me they’re all the same - permissible to do good work, never to do evil work - even while we work we are at rest (peace) with God.

Bob,
you are correct, I don’t hold to executions for not obeying any commandment. But I’m liberal - I agree with Awake and thus find love is the goal. But the other view is literal and therefore needs to explain or show where the line is drawn that tells us which laws are to be followed and why the others are not.

As an example, people who argue that the 10 are for today will abstain from pork but the food laws are not part of the 10.

So how do literalists (I realize that’s a misleading term, but I think you understand what I mean) avoid executions for law breakers.

Kelly seems to say if someone breaks the sabbath they’ll die anyways. I don’t accept that answer. Imagine if God told moses: “Mo! Take him out of the city and stone him!” to which Moses replies “Naaa! He’s dead anyways!”

If God’s instructiosn are to stone, then why not stone? So I see them as ignoring God’s command to kill lawbreakers even if the person is a) already dead or b) going to die naturally or c) going to die spiritually. Either way God’s command is to stone the sabbath breaker, homosexual, disobedient child, false prophet, god swearing sinner.

I think the line needs to be shown.

The law has been fulfilled by Christ. The OT sabbath was a type and shadow of Jesus.The sabbath is not about a day(Saturday) but what it actually represents.( rest in Jesus) Paul warned the Galatians and Hebrews of trying to mix the law with grace.

Galatians 1:6-9… 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The Greek word for** another** means altered. The Greek word for accursed means estrangement from Christ and of salvation. Paul was warning the Galatian Christian Jews if you mix the law with grace you are altering the gospel and you are to be accursed or in danger of losing your salvation. This teaching or preaching an altered gospel applies to any flavor of UR you might represent and preach. This also applies to the doctrine of inclusion ( let that sink in). Both are altering the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 6:4-6 and Hebrews 10:26-29 are Paul’s warning to the Hebrew Christian Jews. This principle also applies to every Christian.

Sad, but true, you have numerous churches today that are doing the very thing Paul warned not to do.

Acts 23:14
They came to the chief priests and elders, and said, "We have bound ourselves under [loss of our salvation] that we will eat nothing until we have killed Paul.

1 Co 12:3
Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus [loss of salvation] and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

Anathema: to separate as anathema, a consecrated gift. a gift given by vow or in fulfillment of a promise, and a devoted to destruction for God’s sake (Num21:3; Deut 13:16-18); therefore, given up to a curse and destruction, accursed ( Gal1:8-9, 1Cor 12:3; 16:22).** In Romans 9:3, estrangement from Christ and His salvation. **The word does not denote punishment intended as discipline, but a being given over, or devotion to divine condemnation ( Ex 32:32; Gal 3:13). It denotes an indissoluble vow.

Romans 9:3
3 For I could wish that myself were** accursed** from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

estrangement from Christ and His salvation. I said loss of salvation for easy clarification, but I since changed it to its literal meaning. I suggest you study the word out before making comments. :wink:

Yes Paul wishes he would lose his salvation for the sake of his brethren? And wishes he could spend eternity in hell? Or the definition might just possibly be wrong. That maybe whoever wrote that definition read that in there? Ive read the definition thanks for the study tip I never would have thought of that. Lol. Im sure that the pharisees meant they would lose their salvation in christ who they didnt believe in btw when they said they bound themselves to an oath.

Hi auggy (and other participants)
*warning: long post ahead (nearly 2,500 words :blush:)
** parentheses () generally denote material I consider interesting, but perhaps of less central importance to the discussion…

INTRO…
Discussions confusing? and frustrating? Sure: though perhaps in different ways for each of us.
As for focusing only on the issue of killing Sabbath breakers, that seems to me quite an unnatural division; not at all the way my mind approaches the issue… Seems it’s all intimately related.
Oh well.
I’ll try here to be a bit more disciplined and organized in listing various areas of difference between us.

THE TROUBLE WITH LABELS…

Yes, we need to be able to name and identify differences, but a label like “literal” is more meaningless and useless than I think you’ve allowed. You’ve tried to place it on me, but the way you’ve used it (because I keep the Seventh day Sabbath) means that the label also applies to you given that you too “keep” all the surrounding brother and sister commands listed with the Sabbath one. So a label that applies to all of us (which of course it does to varied degrees) becomes quite meaningless…

One Solution:
It’s important to note that the position of Kelly, and my position, are very very different. I argue for the continued importance and relevance of the Sabbath command given it’s place in the “great 10” which no one that I know of actually intends to “do away with.” (Recalling that “doing away” with the law is simply another way of saying “internalizing” the law… Just as destroying sin need not mean destroying the sinner but rather the effect is the same when the sinner is transformed/healed into one who does not sin… that sort of thing…)

ANOTHER UNHELPFUL LABEL…

And that is legalism, or legalistic. Perhaps marginally more useful than the label “literal” (ie everybody expects some things to be literal…). To be called legalistic implies, to me, that one believes his salvation rests upon his keeping of the law; moral, ceremonial, or both. To expect me to accept the term because I keep the Sabbath but not apply the term to yourself (or ones-self) because you (they) don’t lie, kill, commit adultery etc is simply a double standard and therefore easily disregarded…

WHICH LAW??

Unfortunately the term “Law” is a rather elastic one (perhaps like the term “evolution”) and it’s varied meanings and expressions are often badly conflated. For me, the key distinction is, as various people have hinted, boiled down to the Moral Law and the Ceremonial Law, (or perhaps the Mosaic Law). I would argue that the 10 describe, or can be thought of as, the embodiment of the Moral Law, while everything else can be thought of as the Ceremonial Law. I hear Kelly, while she perhaps accepts this distinction, holding that all “Law” remains in effect. I am not part of that thinking.

*(Can one find sensible advice among the hundreds of “laws” contained outside the 10 that seem reasonable to follow today? Of course. While the command to refrain from having sex with animals seems so intuitive as to be unnecessary to actually order, the command to not harvest the corners of ones field also makes some sense given God’s great interest in providing for the needs of the poor. How that command might translate into today’s world should make for fascinating discussion.
And some of the commands sound downright enjoyable!!! For example

But to equate not eating pork with keeping the Sabbath grossly and unnecessarily conflates the two Laws… … I must note however that the notion of following the Ceremonial Law is a more interesting proposition than most Christians allow.)*

TO THE BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US: IS THE SABBATH COMMAND MORAL? OR CEREMONIAL?

To my insistent demands asking you (auggy; and others) why you feel so empowered to wrest the 4th commandment from the 10, your answer condenses into reasons like these:

– it does not appear to have the moral weight or implications of the others;

– it appears arbitrary in that there is no obvious reason (to you) for this particular day to be so honored;

– it must belong to the ceremonial category given that Paul appears to say it’s observance is optional – something he clearly would not say about the other nine;

– it must be Ceremonial because Jesus appears to underline all the rest - but not this one.

I hope that’s a fair summary of your responses to my question…??… The Sabbath command is of course different from the rest it appears at first glance: and perhaps delightfully so. And maybe that’s the point! (read on!)
Allow me to make some comments on why I believe it’s both reasonable and compelling to place the Sabbath command not in the Ceremonial category, but the Moral…

**1) THE SABBATH’S PRESENCE IN THE MORAL CODE WAS INTENTIONAL; TO MARK IT AS A MORAL IMPERATIVE. **
The Sabbath belongs in the Moral Code, was placed there deliberately by God, because that’s exactly the emphasis He intended to give it. A command so obviously not up to the vital importance of the rest of the commands should, it seems to me, demand consideration that the impression of it’s minimal moral importance is mistaken.

So, to the question “Why is the 4th even there - if it’s moral weight is so nebulous?” the most obvious answer should be “because it’s moral weight is not nebulous; it’s presence underlines it’s moral importance.”

*(Auggy: this is perhaps where I should note the gross irrelevance of comparing the fact of the 4ths presence in the 10 with the methods of Aaron37; he reads scripture as if his interpretation and God’s are identical. All I’m doing is pointing to the obvious; and thereby reminding you you’ve not dealt with why God might place such a ceremonial command right in the midst of the Moral…) *

I view the conclusion that the 4th commandment is ceremonial as a serious mistake; one which should only be undertaken unless for overwhelmingly good reasons. Barring that, (and I don’t believe such reasons rise to the occasion) the task should not be to determine why a ceremonial law slipped in amongst the moral, (something you’ve not tackled yet) but rather, is there a blessing to be experienced in considering the 4th with the same moral importance as the others?
I’m frankly baffled that more people don’t demand better reasons to ignore a command right there in the middle of the Moral Law.

2) COULD THE SABBATH BE INTENDED AS BRIDGE BETWEEN LAW AND GRACE??
Full disclosure: the main reason that I am not so bothered by the fact that most of you all do not see the importance of the Sabbath is because of this:
There is a unanimous agreement here (and in most Christian circles) the law’s purpose was to bring us to Christ; that what God really wants - and wanted all along - was for hearts (this is as true in the OT as it is in the NT) to be transformed; that the law, when internalized can be seen as Love (to God and man); that the keeping of the Law (moral) does not save us, but instead is a reflection of a heart upon which the dawn of the Son has broken! We are saved by, and in, and through God’s gift of the Christ. His goal is to rebuild us in His image where we do the right because it is right – not because we fear punishment if we don’t.
(Also the fact that no one has tried to argue that the importance of the Sabbath has been “transferred” to Sunday I see as a real positive…)

Further, there is general agreement that the journey in Christ is a progressive one; our awareness of the magnitude of His love, grace, and mercy, and how that impacts our lives with Him only deepens with time spent with Him.
Many here have noted (including auggy) the growing awareness, as they grow in Christ, that the following of a mere law is only the beginning. For there is much more depth to that law, when motivated in and by love, than the mere following of that law. Thus to “keep” the 7th means even mental adultery; to keep the the 6th means not even to wish ill on another. And so on.

Recall Paul’s sober, wistful contemplation of the effect the command not to envy had on him: he realized that only he could know that he was guilty – for envy happens deep in the soul. And thus his very heart needed to be transformed if he hoped to keep that commandment…

I suspect that, in God’s inclusion of the Sabbath command with the Moral, He intended something similar…

3) THE INTENTIONAL “VAGUENESS” OF THE SABBATH COMMAND IS A BRILLIANT INVITATION TO FOREVER CONTEMPLATE THE EVER DEEPER UNION WITH CHRIST THAT GOD HAS PROMISED…

That’s a real mouthful, but consider: God command’s a day of rest, as a memorial of creation (Exodus 20) and redemption (Deuteronomy 5) and tells us to keep it “Holy”. But He doesn’t tell us HOW to do that. My assertion is that this deliberate vagueness was intended to force us (though better to say “invite” us…) to enter into deep and lifelong contemplation of the mysteries of His person, His presence, His power, and what all that has to do with us. Sadly - and the stories are well recorded - this mindset was corrupted by those who, in their eagerness perhaps to comply, insisted on specifics. Lists; rules; tangible actions which they could measure. This of course lead not to, but away from God’s real purpose which has always been to change hearts – not just behaviors…

Could one protest that “I’m fully capable of learning and discerning those deeper aspects of God’s character without the Sabbath!”?? Well of course one could: but the mind boggles as to why such a path would even be considered - much less desired…

4) JESUS’ OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH EMPHASIZES THE “CHANGED HEART” ASPECTS OF HIS COMMANDMENTS AND OF HIS MISSION; NOT HIS DISMISSAL OF IT’S MORAL SIGNIFICANCE…
My belief in the moral significance of the Sabbath commandment (albeit “moral” in a less obvious and direct sense than one might prefer; see above) allows me to interpret Jesus’ treatment of the Sabbath as wresting it away from the legalistic Jewish rulers and thereby returning it to it’s originally intended moral high ground. I simply cannot see Jesus’ Sabbath observance as intending to minimize it’s importance; quite the contrary. He was doing with the Sabbath command much the same as He did with the commands not to kill, or commit adultery: return them to the original depth of meaning that God all along intended.

That the Sabbath was “made for man” and that Jesus urges “pray ye that your flight be not on winter, neither on the Sabbath day” speaks far more of the Sabbaths continued existence and relevance – not it’s anticipated extinction.

**5) THE SABBATH’S MEANING - FROM THE BEGINNING! - AS MEMORIAL OF A)CREATION & B)REDEMPTION FROM SLAVERY DISQUALIFIES IT AS CANDIDATE FOR BEING A “SHADOW” **

In Paul’s Colossians 2 statement many translations make the distinction of sabbath “days.” Which days are those? You can read all about ‘em in Leviticus 23. The fact is that lots of days were given the moniker of “sabbaths” and were to been seen as “holy” but which don’t have the same meaning or pedigree as “THE Sabbath” which predated these ceremonial ones. The conflation of all these days into “sabbaths” is simply not warranted.

6) OUR CODES OF CHRISTIAN LIVING CLEARLY SHOULD HAVE AMPLE ROOM FOR THE SABBATH…

That Christians are comfortable in ascribing great meaning (abstract, metaphorical) to literal actions that may not make intuitive or logical sense to us seems axiomatic.

For example:
– Naaman asked the same thing: why wash in THAT dirty river? and why 7 times? Didn’t make sense, yet we have no trouble seeing it’s intent…
– We practice the new command of Baptism because our Lord did. Yet isn’t Baptism merely a reflection of an inner change and commitment of the heart which we all recognize as important? Who prefers to just skip that action part and go right to the heart change we all KNOW baptism is about? Yet many Christians do just that with the Sabbath!!
– We imagine eating of the Tree of Life someday: but don’t we see that as a highly symbolic act? (I suppose some read the ACTUAL fruit and the ACTUAL leaves as carrying Life instead of seeing that Life as coming from God…) Can we imagine anyone insisting “Life doesn’t come from those leaves and fruits; I’m skipping that part as proof that I know it’s just symbolic…) And yet many chose to “skip” the blessing and meaning of the Sabbath…

As I say, bewildering to me…

Lastly, I’ve never made a secret of my preference to discuss, on this site, things pertaining to Universal Reconciliation. And wouldn’t you know it, I believe that truth of The Sabbath fits perfectly with the truth of UR! A memorial of Creation; reminding us of (and celebrating too!) not only our true identity (as both product AND object of His Love!) but of our common heritage with God as our Father. Herein the foundational reason why God would want to save all. More, The Sabbath is constant reminder of our Redemption from Slavery; the slavery from sin and towards grace.

So then Auggy, blessings upon you my friend – and sorry for the length of this but I hope I’ve stated a bit more clearly how this all works for me and why I have pressed you as I have.

Bobx3

(Oops; almost forgot to answer this… why NOT stone Sabbath breakers? Given the sad reality that the nature of God’s early handling of mankind’s intransigence
involved a lot of violence that we often find puzzling today, I think it’s reasonable to allow that God dealt with different peoples in different ways. And the ways He dealt with them are more a reflection of their immaturity and depravity than of God’s inconsistence. Besides, living in a Theocracy was a far different paradigm from where we are today. But the puzzling violence of the Old Testament need not in any way detract from the ongoing validity of the Sabbath…That I don’t stone sabbath-breakers says nothing of the validity of Sabbath Keeping – just as your refraining from stoning adulterers says nothing of the validity of not committing adultery…)

TV. That was delicious. And I applaud you, even if I don’t agree with everything you state. Well written and as long as it was, wonderful to read.

I agree with you regarding labels, I simply don’t know of better words. I don’t know what else to use but am open to any suggestion (external vs. internal, symbolic vs literal, spiritual vs natural - whatever works). Legalistic comes to mind because if I say murder, adultery and idol worship are not moral and not for today and that God is ok with us lying, murdering, and worshiping other gods, can I be a Christian? The sabbath along with secondary commands carried some hefty punishements. So if it’s true that Sabbath is part of the 10 supreme commands, and one does not obey such a command nor teach that it is, is this a minor or a major violation? Even if stoning is not observed by a sabbath keeper, what about being a Christian who rejects resting on the sabbath as being moral even after his brothers tells him it is. I need you to answer that. If you say it’s not a major violation (like murdering your neighbor - see corpslight’s comment on lying vs. murder) you’ll have to explain why it’s presence in the supreme commands is weak compared to the others.

I’ll say that I can respect your appeal to mystery of the morality. But respecting it and accepting it are two different things. I’m still not convinced that resting on Saturdays is moral. When someone can spell out how it works, well I’m all ears. I can clearly see that not killing my neighbor is a good thing. But I don’t see anything at all about resting on Saturdays. It’s true I don’t defend a Sunday sabbath, but only because I defend a constant sabbath - even while we’re working.

What I really think your right about, which Bob and I have been inquiring on, is this line that people (including us) draw as to what commandments make it in and which one’s dont. I think you agree. This is perhaps the primary difference as to why we all come to our different views. So I think everyone needs to draw out why we accept some laws and why not others (A hefty task indeed, you’re right about that).

I also agree that eating pork and sabbath observance should not be conflated. I’m not trying to compare the two as being equally moral. I only mean to show that some people may observe that indeed eating pork is unclean for us. This is why “literal” comes to mind. For God’s exact words are “it is unclean for you” and requires cleansing. I see no reason why “literal” is not an important word. It might not be for the sabbath but I’m trying to make sense of legal ramifications and parameters that surround us all. So if it’s possible (and I think logically it is) that pork was a symbol then could it be that Sabbath was even if it is amongst the 10? I think it’s logically possible.

Here’s a reservation I have with God commanding us to keep something holy and being ambiguous. It seems backwards to me to command a supreme command (top 10) and make it so it’s hard to reason why? Now I do see some moral implication that Bob has expressed on the other thread and I’m good with that. But it sort of demolishes the literal holding of resting on Saturdays (but nevermind that). I guess I just don’t resonate with saying this command is top 10 and it’s also unexplainable why.

I never thought of Jesus as “minimizing” his obeservances of the law. Bob and I have argued he revolutionized it because we didn’t get it - and we’re arguing we still don’t in many ways. See my commend on lying to Nazis to save jews.

No I agree, Jesus didn’t come to extinct it or eradicate the sabbath. Again I think you think we’re pushing antinomianism; we’re not. My belief is Jesus shows us that the sabbath (HE) is for man. That Jesus brings us rest (noah) and reconciles us back to the place of rest (Eden) away from the sweating of the brow from ground with thorns and thistles. So I believe Jesus fulfills it by BEING IT.

I agree- there’s nothing wrong with observing the sabbath “literally”. But I also agree there’s nothing wrong with observing it “spiritually” and working on Saturday’s (as unto the Lord) for good work is permissible on the sabbath.

I love it that you see the sabbath as a part of UR - I hope to learn from you. Don’t think I’m poopooing your views. Again the most major concern is making sense of avoiding legalism (much how I look at libertarian free will and seeing it attached to arrogance). I’m not saying you or Kelly or anyone is legalistic (though you might be). I’m saying perhaps you are and you just don’t know it. And I think it’s good for us as EU to learn this to be better prepared for who ever we meet to share the gospel. I have a friend from high school very much like Kelly. He thinks I’m crazy for U. So it’s good for me to rough it out here amongst those who can handle it. I hope you understand that.

Blessings to you as well TV, and wonderfully written. I wish I could write as good as you.

My problem with God dealing with people in different ways is Anninias and Saphira - what gives with that? LOL! People often say “Well the God of the OT was violent” to which I reply “So is the God of the NT!”

Aug