The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Stoning Sabbath Breakers Today?

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

Just pondering . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless and have a great night.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aug

Hi Auggy:

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

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

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

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

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

Just a thought…

Bobx3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still, a good and logical question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes is is very confusing – and cripplingly so.

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

my grossly simplified paraphrases might run like this…

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many many others are possible of course…

Bobx3