The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Stoning Sabbath Breakers Today?

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

TV,

Do I rightly understand your foundational premise is that none of the Torah is moral except the Deacalogue? Wouldn’t Jewish scholars NOT find such a distinction in the Law, and believe that it ALL reflects God’s moral character and values? What then assures you the Decalogue is binding while the rest is not? Are there texts which explain that Mosaic rules about lex talionis, slaves, homosexuality etc. were understood not as a moral issue, but only as ceremonial concerns?

Hi Bob(x1):

The subtle subtext here is that we, you and I, will answer this question differently; or that this question pertains more to me than it does to you. But DOES it?

No, the dividing line between “moral and ceremonial” (or between the “10 and the rest of them”) is incredibly unfortunate, and perhaps of not so much use. Did I make that distinction? Sure. But why did I do that?

Well, lets be honest: am I to place on an equal moral plane killing with the using of two fabrics in the same garment? Good heavens! Don’t we ALL recognize that as absurd?

Of course Jewish scholars would find such a distinction utterly out of line and of little usefulness. Yet don’t you make similar distinctions? Don’t you find not killing to be on a higher moral plane than weaving two fabrics in the same garment? Which of course is the fascinating thing here because the text, as you note, does not make these kinds of distinctions! So no, I’ve go no texts – but neither do YOU! So you are quite right in that this distinction I’ve offered is one of modernity – it is not one made by the folks back then, nor of Jewish scholars who followed.

But if this is a “hook” upon which I hang, I fail to see that you do not hang there with me.

Which of course I hope you realize brings us much closer to the position of Kelly here! For she has said something similar; it is ALL moral and is ALL a reflection of God’s character. (sorry Kelly if that paraphrase is too imprecise)

Here’s what has (ok; I’ll just blurt it out…) “bugged” (ok, to read “frustrated”) me about the line of thought I believe you’ve put forth here (or at least implied): The claim is made you are no longer “under the law” and yet you remain committed to not killing, or stealing, or committing adultery. But isn’t THAT the law? So which exact law are you “no longer under?”
What I don’t “get” is the shiftiness of saying we are no longer under the law, yet still believing it’s pretty reasonable to order our lives under the law; that is, keep the 10. (or the nine for most of you…)

OK: lets do an experiment. Let’s assume that we all can agree that there really is some sort of “hierarchy of morality” (the thing we probably both agree the Jewish scholars DON’T recognize…) and lets make a list. Most important to least; violations of which are most egregious, to the least.

  1. killing
  2. denying/blaspheming/cursing God (theoretically this should be placed first; so maybe 1A and 1B. or switch places. But lets face it: killing is a far more tangible evil that disparaging a distant and unseeable God. Let’s not get hung up here; both are bad!
  3. violating another’s property; disrespecting him by dishonoring his ownership; stealing…
  4. bearing false witness; lying; speaking untruths about another (perhaps a form of “killing” in that one seeks to assassinate another’s character)
  5. committing adultery
  6. envy/coveting (come on! who’s really harmed here?)

seamlessly (?) merge here into the non decalogue portion of “the law”

  1. do not reap the corners of your field (abstract maybe, but a potent visual of giving the poor among us a break; charity; the cup of cold water and all that…)
  2. don’t have sex with animals; don’t draw your drinking water downstream from where you eliminate bodily wastes; (all quite practical, and to good purpose and sensible…)
  3. the seemingly completely irrelevant things like not using two fabrics in the same garment.
    (Please recognize this list as merely for discussions sake!!! I recognize the list will vary in countless ways given countless circumstances!!! This hierarchy is partly what auggy has been bringing our attention to…)

Lets just admit here straight away that it’s unlikely we will endorse a system which equates killing with some of the more mundane and seemingly (to us) irrelevant commands.

And where might I place “violation” of the 4th commandment? Probably down near 5 or 6 to be honest; though higher than you would place it. And I’m guessing you’d place it somewhere below 7, or maybe below 8. I’m not sure.

Except there’s something that makes us uneasy about even making a list like this isn’t there? Like maybe we don’t have the “right” to; or maybe in so doing we miss some important truths??? Or maybe wonder if we err in making, if indeed the law is a “transcript of God’s character” (that’s a phrase heard in my denomination) these sorts of divisions to God’s character…

Ah; maybe this is it. Yes; some good Old Testament firmness. Here’s what it says: “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”

That settles it doesn’t it! Break one, you’ve broken all! And isn’t that the kind of thing we’ve said through the years? Old Testament: all about salvation through the law…

Except that’s not Old Testament at all – it’s New! James 2:10. Yup. The same New Testament which supposedly has “done away with” the law.

So what exactly IS it that we both are uncomfortable with in the above scenarios? Yes, we see a reasonable hierarchy, yet no, we also see the unity of God’s law and prescriptions??

Here’s what I think it is Bob:
What’s WRONG with the above is that it asks, in essence, WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO?? What will help me reach the mark? How can I measure up?

But that’s entirely backwards from the transformed heart we have all agreed that God desires.
For the transformed heart asks, instead, WHAT DO I GET TO DO?
It’s like night and day. How may I serve You Master? Not because I must, but because I’m privileged to!

And therein lies, I’m suggesting, the difference between the way YOU approach the 4th commandment and the way I do. You say, why do I have to keep it? I fulfill it in other ways and other days…. (therefore I feel no obligation to it today)
I say, Wow! I GET to keep this day Holy! Cool idea God!

And I think this difference is, in at least good part, why the Jewish scholars so dislike our distinctions…

Does this mean that I am a better Christian than you? or more mature in the faith? or closer to God? or more holy?
Good heavens NO!!
Do I believe I see a piece of the puzzle that you don’t? You bet I do!!! And I thank God for it and wish I could share it with YOU!!

Anyway, getting wordy again… must sign off.
Much more could be said, but that’s kind of the gist of it…

Bobx3

(auggy; I hope this helps answer your above question… If not, can you please rephrase it for me?)

I suppose I can see it as moral as well in light of what I mentioned earlier, but moral in the noun sense (moral of the story)
n. A lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience

To me, following God’s design for man is both right and prudent. Not killing yourself by working 7 days a week seems right and prudent to me! :laughing:
But it is true that we need to look at the heart of the command rather than the letter, because that is the life-giving bit.
The truth is that we can do much physical and spiritual damage to ourselves by missing this stuff…

Mel,
You and Bob have both expressed that and I think I’ve moved in that direction. I’ve said I see no moral essence to resting on the sabbath. But I think there’s a good point to be made that as a society, it would be good for Israel to not work their children in sweat shops. Nor work mothers 14 hours a day rather than raise their children. I can see moral sense there. But where it falls apart for me is seen that one has to rest on saturday as if they’ve done something special in the eyes of God. I think what God finds special is that they do it unto the Lord at all. My point is that it’s good to do it, if done with the right heart. But if one works on that day unto the Lord, he loves that too.

I recently made a post to my friend on FB stating it like this:

Pulling teeth or plucking eyes was about Justice, yet someone special once said “turn the other cheek”. I’m convinced he was telling us that eye for an eye was about justice. But if we can take God’s command and translate it to a “less” literal resolution to injustice, then perhaps we ought to look at the sabbath similarly. If God’s command was a moral institution to keep Israel healthy as a people - to give family the time they need, then perhaps we ought to “turn the other cheek” and realize it’s about rest. period! - not necessarily resting on Saturdays.

Thus once again I see the spirit of the law having great precidence.

Aug

TV,

If it’s true that the 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 (such as yourself), 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 realize you may appeal to mystery and ignorance as to why it’s there present among the 10. But I need that answered for me to elevate it to a moral platform that is level with abstaining from murder.

I see no reason why to see that the 10 were superior to the justice laws (which reside outside for the 10). I see no reason to think that abstaining from sex with animals is less important then coveting your neighbors wife or commiting adultery. On these grounds I agree with Kelly.

So I have to look at each command individually and do my best to figure out which are moral and which are not. But simply appealing to the fact that it is present among the 10 does not cut it for me. And appealing to justice laws not being present amongst the top 10 does not cut if for me to see them as less important - I see those as critical.

I realize you agree that some commands have a higher moral caliber than others. But doesn’t this introduce us to the complexity of this issue and the question at hand: IF THE SABBATH IS TOP 10 AND THE VIOLATING THE SABBATH WARRANTED (BY COMMAND) THAT SABBATH BREAKERS ARE TO BE PUT TO DEATH - then why not carry that on as well? Appealing to why we don’t demand capital punishement according to law is simple - we don’t take the laws literally in every way. Why take the sabbath literally? Why take pork laws literally? Because we take murder literally does not necessitate we take resting on sat. literally.

I’m thinking outloud here so excuse me if I’m completely in coherent :slight_smile: Lots of love,

Aug

T V,

I’m sorry. Though I’m unclear just how, I deeply “frustrated” you! My own frustrated sense is that consternation over semantics such as “not under the Law” (or “literal”) keeps us from engaging the substance of our differing interpretations.

The term you quote is my interpretation that Mosaic Law (or even necessarily all of the Decalogue) is not morally **"binding", i.e. such that we should obey every rule in it. You concede that “no” Biblical texts separate Torah’s moral and ceremonial obligations, or even “the 10 and the rest.” But you then complain that I too distinguish some rules as more “moral” than others. That’s true, in that I argue some are not moral obligations at all. But I’m totally missing why you then say that “hangs” me, or puts me in Kelly’s position that they’re “ALL moral.” :confused: You explain that I’m “shifty” for saying, “we’re no longer under the Law” (which again for me = morally obliged to obey each Mosaic law). Need it be shifty to use the Bible’s own language, “you are no longer under the Law” (Gal. 5:18; Rom. 6:14; 7:7)?? Insisting that I state that we are bound to follow the Mosaic Law, when I believe it does not all apply, seems like misleading language to me.

Next, you say that we can agree that there’s a “hierarchy of morality.” (I haven’t said that, but if I had to prioritize, none of your long list would top it. I’d actually put the Gt. Commandent first.) Yet then you suggest that we both agree “we don’t have the right” to make a “hierarchy.” :confused: But I never proposed making one, only that we seek to distinguish which guidelines remain applicable at all.

You then conclude that it’s “WRONG” to ask (the moral question about) WHAT we should do :confused: Yes, I do indeed think God wants us to seek to discern what’s right. But you emphasize that the real night and day distinction is that Bobx3 (who thankfully sees what I don’t) serves “because I’m privileged to,” whereas Bobx1 does it because you “have to keep it.” WHY do you assume that**?** I see God’s way as what is truly good, a gracious and rich blessing, not something to avoid or evade. And in the thread, I’ve repeatedly specified the Sabbath principle as an esp. wonderful and healthy blessing. E.g. that I was glad Kelly benefitted from practicing it; yesterday I told Steve that Christians desperately need to recover it. What I did do was try to exegete the N.T. merits of Mosaic laws, but you label that a heart that seeks to evade and “feel no obligation.”

Yet what actually “sounds like” my biggest disagreement here is your implication that our ONLY question must be, “WHAT DO I GET TO DO?” It is true that I don’t see following Jesus as only focused on what we get to do (or what you suggest is what our heart already wants). I think, as with our Lord, sometimes we are also called to do things which our heart does not yet feel is a “COOL idea.” I.e. I don’t see embracing our gracious privilege mutually excludes the reality of moral obligation. With Kant, I think we still live under a moral imperative. Thus, I admit I think it is legitimate to raise the question of what our moral calling is. Yet I suspect that your contrary rhetoric doesn’t reflect your view.

Hi auggy:

I had hoped that maybe this answered your question somewhat:

“Does this mean that I am a better Christian than you? or more mature in the faith? or closer to God? or more holy?
Good heavens NO!!”

So I’ll make another try at answering your question…

I find your particular formulation interesting, curious, and puzzling:

Aside from the curious question of “if it’s true that the Sabbath is part of the 10 supreme commands” (are we aware of a list called the “Nine Commandments”? see below… ) there are at least a couple reasons I find it so…

–First, your concern about the distinction between “major and minor” is the kind of question a legalist and/or literalist might be expected to ask; but you see yourself to be neither of those things! I see a real irony here because if we are indeed “no longer under the law” then such a distinction should be rather meaningless shouldn’t it? It’s the kind of distinction a legalist might spend a lot of time trying to figure out…

– Second, and similarly, there seems to be this self-contradiction going on whereby you ask about “major and minor” divisions/categories (which must presume some sort of preexisting hierarchy within morality but then you go on to say:

So which is it? a hierarchy (thus, major/minor distinction) or are they all just as important? I hear you saying both things… If you say there is a hierarchy, then I can understand you a little bit better in that you have prioritized the Sabbath command well down the list and essentially out of the 10. But then you say none are superior. So that sounds contradictory to me.

Are you asking me if God sees you, because you don’t keep the 7th day holy and observe the 4th commandment, in just the same way as if you went out and murdered your neighbor??
Wow – that’s asking me to be judge; I think I’ll leave that to HIm! I’ll just say I certainly wouldn’t! I’d far rather you violate #4 than #6!!!
But that simply is not the choice nor does it ask the right questions to my mind.

It becomes apparent that a huge difference between us is how we approach the fact of the 4th’s commandment presence in the 10. In fact if it wasn’t there, we’d be talking about “The Nine Commandments”.
For me the fact it’s there is intentional. So it follows (for me) that since it’s smack dab in the middle of these great moral commands, it’s highly likely that this means it is to be seen with the same moral weight and significance as all the others. So I don’t even give myself the right to decide which commandments “cut it for me” as you effortlessly do!
It’s there! That is not an inconsequential fact! Thus I see as my task to figure out why it’s considered so important; not defend why it’s unnecessary. And I don’t find equating the literalness of keeping a 7th day Holy and the literalness of not killing in any way unreasonable or unwarranted.

(I would however find it interesting, and perhaps informative, for you to speculate on why God would put this command in such a prime location if His intent was not to enshrine it forever as part of a condensed moral code like all those surrounding commands.)

I realize you are convinced that the essence of the Sabbath command has nothing to do with a specific day – despite the specific wording that’s actually there. I just wonder why you don’t give yourself equal liberty with the rest of the 9 commands?

Have I ever wondered why God put this specific command there, right in the middle of the great 10? Do I wonder why? Of course I do: all the time! But that wondering doesn’t invite not doing it! Rather, it invites an ongoing exercise to figure out how to make this particular day “holy” – and in the exercise lies, I believe, a great part of the intended blessing!

Here’s a thought I had last night…

My 17 year old daughter has a project she’s doing for school. And it involves integrating a whole array of creative thinking and writing and craft making. So she’s written a story about an ordinary civil war soldier. The story is told in the soldiers own words in his diary/journal and compilation of the letters he writes home. So she’s written hymns, and poems, and relates tragedy and struggle and conflict. And she’s created a way to make the paper LOOK like it’s literally 160 years old! She figured out how to make a metal name plate for the guys horse. And on and on. And she has never been so enthralled and engaged in anything in her whole life! The time just flies and she can hardy wait to work on the next phase. It’s open ended; skies the limit; let your mind soar kind of creativity.

And it hit me: that’s exactly the kind of creativity God intends the Sabbath to be for. Not a “rule to be kept” (or I’ll get upset and have to punish you etc) but a special time set aside where we can forever create new ways and words and praises by which we worship Him! I think God LOVES that attitude – and I think that’s a huge part of why the Sabbath’s there. Not in addition to the other 9, but as a tangible time to pull the entire moral underpinnings of creation together in ever more meaningful worship. You keep the 6th commandment just because God told you to – you keep it as a form of worship!

So, as I’ve said, I don’t even comprehend the reason why I should consider NOT keeping it this way!

Thus I need to know what it means to “no longer be under the law” when you certainly have a keen vision of the moral relevance of the law. It certainly doesn’t mean one can “pick and choose” among the 10 does it?
Why is it that no longer being under the law means you can worship on any day you want, or that the day itself is irrelevant, but you don’t give yourself such leeway on the rest of the 10? I just don’t get that.
But, you’ll be happy to know, I don’t think it’s a “stoneable” offense either!

(And by the way, I don’t find the stoning criterion helpful at all because that’s just so foreign to us moderns that it frankly seems just barbaric.)

Are we any closer then to understanding each other??

Bobx3