The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Stoning Sabbath Breakers Today?

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

Seems I’m not the only one “frustrated” here am I? No, you are not the frustration per se - you emulate the spirit of our Christ wonderfully Bob! - but I dare say you’ve embodied what I labeled “shiftiness” (ie the inability to be pinned down…) in how you handle my fair, and I think gentle question about the law. You decry the semantics – then employ them?? Semantics such as “not under the law” then go on in your note to defend that expression?

Let me just boil this down and clarify:
Seems I sensed a “gotcha” moment with you trying to get me to "concede that “no” Biblical texts separate Torah’s moral and ceremonial obligations, or even “the 10 and the rest.” – as if that sustains YOUR position and hurts mine! It does nothing of the sort!! Which is why I used the visual “hang”.
— So do we agree that there REALLY IS some kind of moral stratification in the entirety of “the law” in the Torah? And that we accept that the Jewish thinkers would disagree with us BOTH??? (that’s the way it seems to me…)

What I really, REALLY REALLY!!! want to know, and had hoped you’d be able to answer for me, is this expression which has “frustrated” me for nigh on my whole life:
which law is it that you believe you are “no longer under”?
That’s direct bible language so I hope we’re not calling THIS semantics and rhetoric.

And additionally, since we disagree on this, you must believe me to be “under law” in ways you are not… Is that accurate?

So it sounds like you WANT a hierarchy – but don’t have any idea how to arrive at an appropriate one? Yet what I’m trying to get you to admit is that you DO make a hierarchy! You do this when you DEMOTE the 4th commandment to lesser status than the other nine! THIS one is not binding; while the others somehow are. That’s a demotion.

Now THAT is rhetoric. And it’s merely to make the point that, given that you DON’T feel obligated to keep the 7th day Sabbath, for you it WOULD be a chore. Which would mean some sort of feeling that you had to keep it. Yet for me, reading that same command, is a privilege and exciting honor. (And quite honestly, I’m thinking that Kelly feels much the same way about the way SHE keeps the entire thing as an honor and privilege! – that’s part of the POINT I’m making here!)

Absolutely. And I am chagrined to think that I come across and doubting that in any way in your life. You too are moved by the love of God just like the rest of us here on this site.

Well sure, that’s nice of you and all, but how you arrive at the principle without the acceptance of the stated DAY escapes me. I’ll take the principle; but hold the day. Like you’re ordering your burger “my way” someplace. We don’t get to WRITE the 10 commandments! That was already done! So yes; isn’t it obvious you ARE evading the 7th day? And that you DO feel no obligation to it? That just stating your own position. I just don’t get this drive to separate the “way” from the “day”??

But I’m trying to say that the gracious privilege and the moral obligation are the exact same thing here! And that part of that privilege and obligation is the 7th day Sabbath! Which should be incredibly easy to see given it’s right there in the midst of the other moral obligations which are best thought of as privileges.
So in sum, I don’t doubt your sincerity, or honesty, or standing before almighty God or anything like that.
What I DO question is your giving yourself the right to treat the 4th differently from the rest of the 10.

Bobx3

Dear auggy and Bobx1 and the rest reading…

I must say I’m not really comfortable arguing for Sabbath observance here. Not because I don’t believe it with all my heart and soul, but because I fear in so doing I risk sounding like I’m superior, or closer to God, or possess better theology or something… All things which could be construed as prideful. I love your company here, and love your witness for Christ. And don’t believe for a second that your disagreement here with me on this issue reflects for one second means you are in any way inferior or less loved by the Father or anything like that…
It just that I see the Sabbath as an invitation to new paradigms of love and holiness: and so am honestly puzzled by those who seem not to accept the invitation.

It’s as if we all got an invite to a party: I went, you didn’t. I thought the party was great! and wished you would have come too.

Like God has asked me – ME! – for a date… I go on these “dates” every Seventh day Sabbath. And man I wouldn’t give up a single one of them! But lest you imagine that makes me feel better than you, it doesn’t. Just that, as they say, “wish YOU were here!”

Here’s the honest truth of the matter… My years of wrestling with the MEANING of the Sabbath (no, it’s not always easy, nor intuitive, nor natural, and yes, at time it can feel like a total pain… and a chore…) is the precise thing which lead me to the openness to accept UNIVERSALISM as THE all encompassing doctrine about ALL the truths about God that I’d grown to love!!

SABBATH!! – KEEP it! (But how? and isn’t that legalistic??) KEEP it!!
But don’t keep it alone. Extend it to ALL with in your gates – even the traveler. And EVEN to the beasts of burden! Extend it to ALL My creation!
Surely one of THE most inclusive images of all the Old Testament; the keeping of the Sabbath by EVERYONE.

And on Sabbath, celebrate your roots; your origins; celebrate who your family really is. And when you do this, you will see that ALL of those around you ALSO have the same roots and family that YOU have. Community in God; these are our BROTHERS; celebrate your origins, and you celebrate EACH OTHER.
Is not the faint hint of Universalism growing stronger???

But we have fallen – been taken into slavery and oppression. But on Sabbath we remember – and celebrate – our redemption; we have been redeemed and our debts have been paid. We have a NEW Master! A great prefiguring of the enormity of what our Christ accomplished. On the Cross. For EVERYONE. SABBATH is indiscriminate in it’s inclusion: ALL have been reconciled! The Sabbath truth extends even, and maybe especially, to those who have yet to SEE it’s vast generosity. For ALL are in bondage and ALL must experience this redemption – freely given! Please! CELEBRATE that on Sabbath!

But here’s where it gets really crazy aug and Bob… In my denomination, we have come to see the Sabbath as a mark of OUR specialness. Our “chosen-ness”. Our specialness in His eyes. That never made sense to me however; though I didn’t know it THEN, I was breathing, with my wrestlings about what Sabbath meant, the rarified air of UNIVERSALISM.

I know my words with you, in arguing for the Sabbath, have sounded exclusive to you, and maybe judgmental. Which is incredibly unfortunate because that is exactly the opposite from what I believe Sabbath conveys to this saved, redeemed, race. I keep Sabbath to celebrate our brotherhood. In Christ. Who has created us, redeemed us, and some grand day shall gather us at His table and share a meal with us. Sabbath, right along with Universalism, assures me that is going to BE a reality!

Sorry I’ve been so weak in conveying that truth about the Sabbath…

Bobx3

Bob,

1st, I’d thot you’d called saying that we’re not under law was shifty. Now you complain that I then “defended the semantics of that expression.” But I’m left with no idea how you think I should respond, or why supporting that phrase is uncool. You do now say the handling of your “gentle question about the law” is what was shifty. Tell me which question you felt was poorly answered, and I’ll be glad to try to do better.

2nd, you say which Law it is the people think Paul means we’re now released from has frustrated you all your life. I continually modifed it as the Torah’s Mosaic Law, i.e. the codes Jews found in Scripture, esp. the Pentateuch, and considered morally binding(is that clearer) . So, Yes, if I argue that the rule of “Saturday” rest does not mean we need to follow it, I would assume you think we are “under” it differently than I do. Of course I do think we’re under ‘law’ in other senses, such as bound by “the law of Christ.”

You say MY position ALSO “hangs” on Torah separating the 10 commands as moral and the rest as ceremonial. I’m not understanding you here. I thot my view hung on finding them NOT separated like that. IF Scripture indeed declared that most of Moses’ Law was ceremonial and temporary, but the 10 are moral and remain binding, I’m not seeing how I could then challenge #4? My cautionary approach to Torah seems to require precisely seeing them as a corpus in the O.T.

Your term “stratification” is unclear to me. I suppose Jews might think some rules rank higher than others, but I think they saw Scripture as making them ALL morally binding. And my own concern is not with varying “strata,” only whether some guidelines remain valid while others are quite invalid for us.

  1. Ah, semantics! I see you mean by a ‘stratified’ “Hierarchy” that my rejection of the 4th one “demotes” it to a “lower status.” It’s just that I wouldn’t have described rejecting it as indicating a “status” at all.

  2. NO, I’ve never thot keeping the 7th day Sabbath “would be a chore.” What for? It seems like one of the easier ones to me. And everyone I know who practices it testifies what a great blessing it is. Is there a reason to disagree? I simply believe that it is Biblically questionable that it must be kept as originally formed.

  3. But you object that not observing “Saturday” “evasively” violates God’s “stated” will. And of course, you see no “right” or basis to question it as an “obligation.” But of course these threads have been all about hashing out the texts, esp. whether Jesus’ approach encourages us to question such things. Also, of course, are the apostolic references which (in my mind) diminish the essentiality of placing importance on outward practices such as different interpretative convictions about sabbaths and sacred days. Of course, discussing this with Adventists, I realize that interpretations of these texts are strongly defended (that these don’t even refer to “the” sabbath, etc) which allows the Decalogue to all be permanent in a way that the rest of the Law may not be.

Bob,

You are a wonderful brother from who I’ve gained a great deal, and I love your recent interpretation of the Sabbath! I am very glad that you are blessed by the richness of it. Ironically, what you find in it resonates in great similarity with my experience of it in the ways that I interpret and practice it (even though it’s a bit different than yours).

All of God’s best to you,
Bob

TV, indeed you’ve blessed me too. (Kelly as well). I don’t think of you who hold a “literal” resting on the sabbath as legalistic people. This discussion has been one I’ve been really wanting to have for quite some time.

When Bob put the paper “A Cast Against Jesus” together, for me it gave me such a challenge because I find EVERYONE gets baffeled by this man Jesus. Originally, I wanted to hold a debate at church where church members would defend Jesus while Bob and I would prosecute him (Bob’s paper being the template). We never were able to achieve that but the questions it raised were fascinating to me. So meeting Kelly on here and having a friend from hich school who’s much like her, I really wanted to persue it. The discussion on homosexuality launched this topic and for me it’s been enjoyable.

I hope you understand we’re not trashing the sabbath. As Bob stated, we hold it - like most Christians - in Christ. But we certainly don’t think of anyone like Kelly or yourself as being wrong for practicing it or even wanting others to experience what you have. Just don’t be shocked if they don’t - we’re all different.

However, I do tend to wonder just how far this rabbit hole goes and I do intend to persue it further - if not here. I read on Facebook comments where people speak down of Christians who don’t hold the law and I sit there wondering, because they read their bibles is why. Can’t these people see that others read it different than they do? Can’t they see the passages where it AT LEAST appears as if some of these laws are external. But they can’t. I’m afraid some of these people do think it makes them better, and why not? After all an obedient person IS better than a disobedient person. It’s better to love then to murder. Suddenly the thrust of Martin Luther begins to build force regarding works and grace - so that NO MAN may boast.

This forum is better than any place I’ve been to on the internet to hold such discissions. ISIA and Kelly have both been cordially and loving. Somtimes frustrated, but I think it’s mosly due to miscommunication. You guys may think - Auggy thinks we’re legalists - but I don’t. HOWEVER I do think the ideology may be legalistic. It’s hard for me to accept that a sabbath breaker (a top 10 blasphemer) who God commanded must die is just ok if he doesn’t want to endorse it “literally”. In other words, if God commanded the death of a Sabbath breaker, and it’s top 10, then why would you be ok with us who don’t obey it - as you think it should be? Unless, as I suspect, deep down you know there’s something to this whole notion that our rest is LITERALLY being in Christ Jesus and reconciled to God.

I appreciate your endorsing a blessing, but a law is different. And that’s what’s being discussed. But not just the sabbath…Pork. Does Pork defile people? Does God evaluate people based on if they obey his food laws? All of it should be scrutinized.

As for the Sabbath and Universalism, I agree. But I see it that we are reconciled and at Sabbath by his death. Israel’s coming out of slavery was a type of ALL MEN being saved - for ALL Men have been bound to Egypt that he might have mercy on them all. But now we see the reality - He’s sweet and perfectly loving and patient. He is that sabbath. He is our reconciliation. He is our Universal Salvation. He is everything and so I agree with you. But just as I see no need to worry about pork or fabrics, I see no need to sit down on saturdays. Instead what I see is our never ceasing prayer and our spiritual act of worship which is not defined by closing our eyes to pray or by going to church on sunday (or sat for some). It’s much deeper. It’s Agape - and if one loves, then one is doing those very things.

I know you appreciate our view as well regarding Christ. Please, don’t see us as judging you. So long as us asking hard questions is not construed as us calling you a legalistic pharisee :slight_smile:

Lots of love and God’s peace to you,

Auggy

Is Romans 14 relevant to this discussion (or have I totally missed the point)?

And a rather off-topic thought occurs to me - even though the context of Romans 14 is one of believers not judging each other over differences of christian practice concerning whether or not something is sinful (it is if you think it is seems to be the gist - and don’t do it if it will cause your brother to stumble even though not sinful for you per se), the quote used in verse 11 is plainly universal in its own context and is just used here to bolster this argument among believers - it in no way limits the utterance of God itself from applying to all humans - a universal rule applies equally to all and a subset (in this case believers). A subset that has a universal rule applied to it does not limit the universal rule. I believe this goes some way to answering Revival’s arguments in other threads that the local context of believers restricts universal principles.

Back to the OT :wink:

I think it definitely applies, Jeff. The key is not causing each other to stumble (showing love).
I also think of (Paul’s, I think) phrase about “all things are lawful, but not all things are profitable”. It seems that there are universal “laws” that apply to everyone (e.g. gravity), just because of the design of the universe, and we can reap natural consequences of violating those laws. But we are not to judge one another with regard to things like the sabbath.

Jeff & Mel,

You both embrace what my own recent response was assuming is relevant, though others may interpret those passages differently.

So to bring it back to the OP (which is not rhetorical): If God’s law is to be upheld - say top 10 - then what about the consequences that God’s law provides instruction for, namely kill the sabbath breaker.

Here are the two responses I’ve gathered:

Paidion seemed to imply that the death penatly laws are external to the top 10.

Kelly argues that spiritual death is impending so following God’s command to put someone to death is met.

here’s my response to those two reasons:
Instructions regarding the sabbath laws are found outside the ten commandments. If all of the regulations, which defind the Sabbath, are a part of the 1 commandment of the 10 - then the death penalty should be as well for it’s a natural function to the commandment if it’s broken.

To Kelly I would say, it seems to me that you are interpreting things the way you want to. If God’s command is that the Sabbath Breaker must be put to death, it seems unlikely that he meant the sabbath breaker will die of old age. If you argue it’s spiritual death, in light of Numbers 15 where God instructs Moses to stone the sabbath breaker, then I would say you’re now spiritualizing the command to kill the sabbath breaker. If spiritualizing the killing part is ok then why not spiritualize the REST?

But more importantly to me is the question I’ve been asking:

For us who don’t obeserve the sabbath as God commands (as seeing by TV and Kelly and others) then are we dead spiritually and can a Christian endorse a twisted sabbath or is perhaps such people are not even Christians.

I would say that if a Christain endorses that since we’re not under the law that we may now commit adultery, murder as we see fit, steal from whomever we please - they cannot be a Christian.

But what about the sabbath?

A real dillema, which deserves a whole other topic, is this issue that on one hand Paul attacks judaizers but on the other hand allows for differeing views on food laws (Rom 14 - as Jeff illustrates). I think this is another angle of which we’re all trying to make sense of.

No JeffA (and by the way, quite glad to see your name here more frequently!) this passage is highly relevant to the discussion. I’d guess my take is a bit different from auggy’s however…

In part, here’s what I mean…
Imagine if Paul wrote this:

That seems to fit here wouldn’t it?
– but that’s not at all what Paul says about circumcision in Galatians! Does it make you wonder why Paul didn’t take this precise Romans 14 approach with “the law” of circumcision over in Galatians?

Not sure if that seems as curious to auggy as it does to me…

Or imagine Paul saying this:

I hope that sounds quite dissonant with what Paul is actually saying here in Romans 14. Clearly if we read that statement we’d be quite certain PAUL didn’t write it!

So my point is that there are things about which Paul does say this, and things about which Paul would NOT say this. There is a dividing point. What is that point?

The division of “moral law” (perhaps aka the law of love) versus the rest of them. Aka the ceremonial law; or the sacrificial system law; or the Mosaic law…

So it’s not a totally arbitrary dividing point it seems to me. That seems generally agreed upon here…
As I’ve repeatedly said, for me The Sabbath commandment falls quite logically into the Moral Law category; since it was placed there by it’s author. Yes, I read a whole lot into where it’s placed. That seems a natural reading of the matter.

Others here find that, given this commandments apparent “different” nature, that is, it’s rendering is less obviously grounded in morality, it’s interpretation is more subjective, perhaps more “optional”, it must be treated differently.

As I’ve stated before, I do not believe Paul is here (Romans 14) referring to the Sabbath commandment, but to the ceremonial “sabbaths” of Lev 23… In my view, he would never say such a thing about THE Sabbath, just as he wouldn’t say it about the 10 commandments….

Be that as it may, you are quite correct here to underline the reality that God far prefers actions which proceed from the conviction of faith; not the dreary fulfilling of laws and obligations because we are so ordered. (recall from Matthew, it is possible to do the right thing, but for the wrong reason… To those Christ says depart from Me; you never knew Me…)

Bobx3

Hi Jeff,
Thank you for your input. You may have something here. I am going to take a closer look at it. There are three things that I thought of as I read your quote and I’m not sure how they fit in right now but, something to think about and perhaps discuss;
1.)I don’t think anyone is “judging” their brother here in the way Paul is addressing. To discuss scripture and it’s meaning may make all of us “feel” judged at times because we all see things differently. If indeed differing opinions mean we are judging, we should repent and shut down this forum immediately. I disagree with some on the point of the Sabbath but, I do not judge if they will stand or fall and I praise God that He is able to make us all stand.
2.) This epistle is written to Romans. Their “special days” would have been Saturnalia, Lupercalia, Agonalia, Fontinalia, Meditrinalia, etc. Not the Appointed days of Yehovah, including Sabbath but, the worship and praise of idols in ancient Rome. It does seem logical that Paul was calling them to stop committing idolatry which is also consistent with all of scripture. I don’t celebrate Christmas (which comes from Saturnalia) but, I have many friends and family that do. Some in a religious manner (pagan and christian) and some celebrate without thought of any religious connotation. I don’t judge if they are standing or falling. God is the judge. And He is able to make them stand. I don’t think Paul is saying - so just live in ignorance and defilement for the rest of your life and don’t worry about it but, I think he may be allowing those in the new faith room and telling others not to expect pagans to act like the people God has given the oracles to - that have taught their children and their children for generations. (I’m thankful for that because I understand it). But, are we to believe this text proves that Paul is condoning idol worship? That by proclaiming “don’t judge” we are to assume atrocities, including sacrificing your children to an idol, it is permissible/acceptable as long as the person is “convinced in his own mind”?
3.) A scant 11 verses prior to what you have quoted above, Paul says this;
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.
(Rom 13:8-14)
Paul clearly states that in keeping the commandments, you are loving, that it is equivalent with “putting on the armor of light”, and in keeping the commandments you make no provision for the flesh.
Also, very important to this thread specifically, Paul says " . . . and if there be any other commandment (meaning all) it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". The Sabbath would fall under the “any other commandment” comment.
Just a few thoughts - still have much to consider.
Thank you for your thoughtfulness. Love and peace!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aug