The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Sabbath Desecration and David's Unlawful Act

Theology General Theology
#21

Hi Kelly, I said “everyone argues that”, so I read you right, I’m just being unclear (sorry to frustrate). Everyone agrees, probably including the scribes and pharisees, if the cup on the ouside is clean then the inside is too. That’s nothing to anyone. The difference lies at the point of what constitues “cleaning the outside” vs. “cleaning the inside”.
If a person disobey’s God regarding the approved meats, is he dirty inside?

Again everyone agrees murder is not ok - it violates God’s character of love. But eating pork has nothing to do with love but has everything to do with poopoo. It goes in, it comes out. :slight_smile: (yes more humor).

I don’t follow. Perhaps you mean that if our witness looks evil (what maknind knows is wrong) then it’s useless. Except half the earth’s population eats dogs and cats.

All shadows have fulfillment until the heaven and earth pass away. Further, the weightier matters of the law are justice, mercy and faith.

It’s not that simple, I think everyone on this board agrees with that just as I said above. The problem is that Jesus seems to add to the law which isn’t there? I’m not certain Jesus is condemning the pharisees for “adding to God’s word” - the problem I see is they break God’s word - not by adding rules, but by practicing evil on their neighbors. For example, Jesus raises the issue that they break the commando of honoring father and mother. No where in the OT does it ever say turn the other cheek…what it does say is “eye for an eye”. If you say eye for an eye is about justice, then why is Jesus saying BUT I TELL YOU TURN THE OTHER CHEEK. I see Jesus as supporting God’s command but according to the subtext of love. That is it’s ok to break the command of bearing false witness if it’s to protect jews from Nazis. But when I say that I mean they actually UPHELD the law because the law is good. But from a literal stance, it clearly is breaking the hard and fast rule.

So it’s not that anyone here or protestant in general are finding a standard we like better. It’s that we find Jesus as stating that literally foods are not clean or unclean and all God’s creatures he created are good. That food sacrificed to idols is nothing. That circumcision is nothing. That the only thing you can’t do on the sabbath is bad work BUT THATS TRUE OF EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK. That rest is about being in Christ not about sleeping 8 hrs or 7 or sitting on the sabbath. It’s about love and many of the laws like molds, rabbits, mensturation, leporsy, define a person’s character. What matters is love - not food.

#22

Kelly,

On #1, yes there appears a significance difference between you and I, on whether it’s important to critique and reject actions that violate whatever Mosaic Law calls for. And it’s a challenge to engage each others’ Biblical arguments.

E.g. on #3, I provide the text where Jesus endorses “work” on the Sabbath, the very term prohibited in Torah. For me the relevant response would be to point me to where the Torah says “work” is o.k. on the Sabbath. Instead (perhaps because the prohibition against any work is so explicit), you imply that I need to show you where “carrying” a load is prohibited. It seems beyond necessary, but Jeremiah 17:21f says, “This is what the Lord God says: Be careful not to carry a load on the Sabbath day.” Also not to carry one through your doorway, “or do any work on the Sabbath, as I commanded your forfathers!” In Nehemiah 13, those “loading grain” on Sabbath are called wicked desecrators, and shown “no load can be brought.” Hebrew Scripture often presents serious punishment for such things. In Numbers 15:32, those found carrying wood on the Sabbath are executed. So how could any serious Biblical scribe not think it was frightening to see Jesus audacious encouragement of the unnecessary “carrying” you ask about?

I have not said it is bad or legalistic for you to avoid work on Saturdays. I think that can be a wonderfully healthy blessing! But when you say, “Christians sit on their tushes on Sunday because somehow magically,the Sabbath(?) moved,” it sounded like unaffirming ridicule to me. When you now say “any day” is fine for fellowship, are you indeed now affirming the Christian practice as equally good?

On #3, everyone agrees that the outside is clean if the inside is. The problem with your view that this will be evident in keeping the external expressions delineated in the Law, is that the Scripture explicitly says they “no longer apply” and are “obsolete.” So why should I assume that they need to accompany a clean heart? They regularly did not.

On #5, the well-known circumcision of Timothy is irrelevant to my contention that the apostles saw it as disastrous for Gentile believers. Why? Because wasn’t Timothy a Jew for whom the signs of the Old Covenant were applicable? I think you need to respond to St. Paul’s case that circumcision must be refused because it then would disastrously imply that all the rest of the Torah should be obeyed by Christians, which Paul seems to regard as a great mistake. My point that a difference remains here between us is not to say that this makes you a sinner. I am only making the case that your approach seems contradicted by Scripture and our Lord, and that laying out the Biblical argument seems important.

#23

Hi Auggy:

Seems perhaps I have poorly communicated my intended point??

The charge of literalism is, I’ve found as a Sabbath keeper, frequent. It is also however, curious; for the literal versus figurative distinction is really rather blurred it seems to me and hence of limited usefulness.

You, for example, take (I would hope! – as in “expect”…) very literally the commands not to kill or steal or covet or lie and so on. That we no longer live “under law” in no way invites a “figurative” reading whose result would be the precise opposite of the former “law based” ethic.
(I should also state up front that I do not equate law as 10 commandments – which includes the Sabbath – with law as Torah with all it’s cultural and purity and ritual concerns and demands…)

Further, the command to “love” will (eventually) be manifested in some very tangible and, dare I say literal ways. In fact, whether one prefers “love” to be understood as either literal or figurative/metaphoric, I rather imagine the resulting behaviors would be remarkably similar. One wouldn’t dream of claiming of the command not to steal, or kill, ‘Oh, that is to be taken figuratively’; yet that very thing is asserted of the 4th commandment all the time! That’s at least curious isn’t it??

So it seems inevitable and unavoidable that literal and figurative approaches are in fact to be used hand in hand. One does not say that the meaning of Baptism is figurative therefore it’s not necessary to actually be immersed into/under the water. Or sprinkled if that’s your thing. Same with communion: we literally “do” it, but it figuratively means so very much more. This extended depth of meaning however is in no way an excuse to avoid the “doing” is it?

Also curious to me is that since every day is a gift (they surely are a gift! even as life itself is a gift) that somehow diminishes from the gift of the Sabbath. One may indeed “celebrate” his wedding every day of the year; that does not make those days his “anniversary” however.

Personally, I read great importance into the fact that the Sabbath command – or invitation if you will – is listed right there with all the rest of those commands which appear so unassailable. It may puzzle me that such a seemingly different command is listed right there with the obvious ones but it is. So I don’t get to choose which ones make sense to me and which ones I feel are necessary. It’s there, I’m proceeding on the basis that God put it there, and that it’s reasonable to assume (or believe) that there must be a good reason it’s there. Even if the reason seems less clear when compared to, say, the command not to kill. Somehow the Sabbath command is treated as optional; something simply not allowed with the other commands.

No one says, seriously, that since the law doesn’t save we have the option of ignoring it; for the law was built on the same foundation of ethical values that are the foundation of what has “replaced” the Law. And that is of course the ethics of the Person who gave the law in the first place. The insistence on placing things into literal vs figurative categories thus also forces one into law vs grace categories when in fact law and grace both come from the same place!! So (for example) of course “the ceremonial act of communion is nothing magical” but that doesn’t mean one therefore ceases to do the act.

So too with Sabbath. Of course it’s meaning far transcends the actual keeping of the day; but for me that cannot be equated with therefore not keeping the day. And it was Jesus intent, it seems clear to me, to deepen the meaning of the Sabbath by His acts which were interpreted then as violations by people stuck in literal interpretations. But Jesus wasn’t trying to sweep literalism away; instead He was trying to add the figurative to the literal and thereby transcend the literal; not do away with it.

It seems then to me that you’re falling into the same misunderstanding that the Sanhedrin did; they insisted on the literal, while you, in (rightly I might add) insisting on the figurative are also implicitly accepting that it’s one or the other. To me Jesus is teaching that it’s both. Thus the “works” of Jesus on Sabbath only appear to be a violation to those who refuse to transcend into the deeper figurative aspects as well. And that deeper aspect underlines, as it always should, the value and dignity and worth of our fellow creatures based on the fact of our kinship as created by God. (Which is to say Sabbath was created for man; not man for the Sabbath! – “for man”; that’s where the ‘gift’ idea comes from…)
So to me, you are right to insist on the figurative – but not at the cost of abandoning the literal…

(Thus, adding to the meaning of the Sabbath, it is to become as a bridge to help us understand the flow of law to added grace; the flow of literal to added figurative; the flow of “right thing” to added “right reason”; the flow of “right day” to added “right way” … and so on… Of course it only seems added to us; in reality it was always there in God’s realm…)

Bobx3

#24

Killing and stealing, adultery etc. fall under love your neighbor. If you do one of those you aren’t loving them. Eating pork, or eating any food on a piece of cookware that has ever touched pork or shellfish, doesn’t break the love God or love others. Idolatry breaks the love God command.

This is a general comment because each of the law obeying brethren here (not trying to label you) keep bringing it up, like how do you know not to do those things. Its because they fall under the 2.

#25

TV,

Regarding your note to Gene, it seems to me that the issue raised is not whether there should be a consistent hermaneutic that treats all texts as ‘literal’ or binding, but simply whether the specific Sabbath laws remain applicable to Christians. Indeed it sounds like you sense that this is where our interpretations vary. Of course above and elsewhere I have presented my arguments that they as originally stated should not be expected of Christians.

#26

Auggy and Bob,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to the discussion. I got unusually busy for almost two weeks and am just now getting back to the board.

It looks like there has been alot of discussion regarding the Sabbath and I have not had the chance to read through all of it but plan to eventually sort through it. I did read TotalVictory’s posts and found them to be a blessing however! :slight_smile:

I would like to get back to and address what I believe the original discussion was. Please let me know if I am not representing what I believe you guys were saying.

I believe your position was… as stated by Auggy in the OP… “the LAW ended with Christ”. By this I think you meant that none of the law should be upheld by Gentile Believers.

Regarding The Law Ending with Christ:

  1. As has already been pointed out, all of the 10 commandments with the exception of the Sabbath are re-commanded to gentiles in Pauls Epistles. Can you please explain how you understand this? Why would Paul Recommand all these commandments if the Law ended with Christ means something other than we find in the 9 commandments. In Galatians 6:2 we are told to bear one anothers Burdens so we Fulfill the Law Of Christ. This to me is none other than the Love God and Love one another that Jesus told us summarizes the law…and all the law hangs on. Does not “thou shall not murder” “thou shall not steal” etc define exactly how to love ones neighbor and this law of Christ? My guess is you both agree on this, though I haven’t seen that posted.

  2. Paul explicitly says that the Law is to be upheld even though a person is justified apart from it. Romans3:31 How do you understand this?

vs28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Regarding Jesus Breaking the Sabbath:

You both seem to be arguing that Jesus Broke the Sabbath in order to “turn the law upside down”. I believe thats how you put it. My understanding is you believe that Jesus broke the Sabbath in order to show that he was doing away with the law. That appears for me, to be incorrect for a few reasons.

  1. We are told in many places in the NT that Jesus was without sin. If he broke the Sabbath, then he was NOT without sin.

1peter 2:22 He commited no sin.
1peter 1:19 with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.
Hebrews 4:26 Jesus is Holy, Blameless, pure, set apart from sinners. (this in the context of Jesus as the perfect sacrifice)
Hebrews 7:14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God.

It seems to me that the above statements harmonize perfectly with the context of the Gospels, Jesus is presented as the fulfillment of the perfect, spotless, sinless lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. In fact at the very onset when Jesus comes to be baptised the first words… behold the lamb of God. We know from Leviticus that this lamb that was being foreshadowed had to be spotless. We see the Gospel Writers emphasize Jesus Temptations, and how he is able to withstand those. We see the emphasis on Jesus words to the pharisees to be those of harsh correction regarding their false teachings for adding onto the law and also missing the intent or spirit of the law which goes beyond external circumcision to internal circumcision of the heart. Beyond thou shall not commit adultery to thou shall not lust etc etc.

  1. Jesus comment on “desecrating” the sabbath and “what is lawful” seems to be easier understood (in my opinion) as Jesus commenting on the pharisees false perspective. This Interpretation makes sense when we see that Jesus called David and his men Innocent.

Matt 12
At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.” He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent?

  1. Jesus justification of healing on the Sabbath was that even their own law (Oral Tradition) allowed provision for animals in need, proving healing on the Sabbath even by their own standard was lawful.

Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! **Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” **

Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.

The same principal is repeated in Mark.

Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.” Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.

The Pharisees oral tradition as recorded in the Mishnah justified the priests sabbath duty in relation to David, it also justified pulling a sheep out of a pit on the sabbath. This makes Jesus statements as I have interpreted in point 2 and point 3 above to make complete sense. It appears the Pharisees completely missed the intent and spirit of the Sabbath which allowed for God’s work (sacrifices etc) and God’s service (traveling to the place of worship, teaching and listening to the Word of God) and replaced it with contradictory do’s and don’t that allowed for some things and prohibited others. This is What Jesus was correcting. Pointing out that God’s Work of healing and feeding those in need when neccessary is completely in line with the intent of the Sabbath, and the Character of God reflected in the Sabbath commands. In The OT we see the Sabbath laws sort of wide open and undefined. The Law was not work 6 days and on day 7 do not even move a finger or get out of bed. It was do your work for 6 days and on day 7 it’s God’s day…a day to celebrate God, to travel to worship, to perform work of sacrifices to God, to speak and hear God’s commands etc. There was work, but it was God’s Work not Man’s work. Day 7 was not for “your work” but that didn’t mean neccessary things couldn’t be done like feeding and watering animals, addressing the sick etc. This is implicitly understood by what they were commanded to do. The Pharisees even in some parts of their laws acknowledged this, and this is what Jesus points out. Even though they dedicated 24 chapters in their law of when and how it was wrong to do something on the Sabbath, they still included things that were OK to be done, like getting your sheep out of a pit, and eating the bread of the temple in David’s case.

I will go back when I get some more time and look at your specific questions to me, I saw more than a couple and would like to address them all as soon as I can gather them all together and get some time to compose my replies!

God Bless!

#27

I want to thank everyone for their participation thus far. It really is a rich discussion and seeing everyone with such diversity really is, for me, a treat.

I think some people are misunderstanding Bob and I. Now Bob and I are not perfectly aligned. I’m sure if it were just he and I, we’d have our differences as well. But this notion of Jesus’ reversal is something we (Bob and I) agree on.

When Bob had emailed Thomas Talbott his paper Talbott replied that [my paraphrase] “from a certain point of view they [Pharisees] were right”. That is something everyone agrees on. But we all agree the Pharisees were wrong, that’s axiomatic. The discussion is orbiting around the cause of the Pharisees views – why did they think washing their hands was an important tradition? Why did they think Jesus broke the Sabbath? What provisions were grounds for work? And Hermeneutics – how do we interpret the law of the OT.

It’s my opinion that Jesus was an antagonist toward the Sanhedrin, causing them to believe he was breaking the law (John 5:18). But even more, he pushes our own contemporary traditions and philosophies. He’s not alone, Paul challenges us as well. On one hand we have a few who believe it’s vital to follow the law in its literal appearance – or as plainly understood. On the other hand we have those who see that the law was made obsolete by a new system not written on stone but on hearts – that is the philosophy of love is king.

In this discussion we’ve continued to beg just about every question; that much is obvious to me. When the literalists think antinomianism is what we’re endorsing, the Philosophicals think legalism is being endorsed by the literalists. This is where the distinctions require careful questions and answers.

TV seems to be close to the middle but I’m not comfortable with this engagement of a literal approach that demands sin if broken and acceptance of a philosophical approach which allows one to break the command and be blameless. The philosophical approach butts heads with the literal approach. That is another distinction that must be addressed.

Again, thanks everyone for participating and keep up the great posts. I’ll get to TV and Stands posts but I’m hoping Bob will cover a bit of it before I do – he’s always so careful and succinct.

Auggy

#28

Steve,

A brief response to your gracious restatement so far. No, I’m NOT saying that “nothing” in the law should be “upheld” by believers. And it IS a perfectly good argument to uphold those which the N.T. endorses (e.g. certainly 9 of the 10 commands). But I don’t think Paul means by “uphold the law” that all Mosaic laws are binding. If my evidence is right, that the church rejected following much of the Mosaic code, it’s apparent to me that Paul sees that love may “fulfill” and “uphold” the law’s deep purposes, even if it sometimes can call for violating its’ apparent letter.

You say Jesus can’t do that, because it would be “sin.” That seems like a wholly circular argument to me. I’ve said Jesus had divine authority over the law, so that he is entitled to sinlessly challenge whether its’ literally understood meaning is binding. It seems to me the only way to challenge such a view is to engage the specific exegetical arguments and views. So I’d welcome your take on my recent comments on Jn. 5, O.T. prohibitions on “carrying,” circumcision, etc. Most differences between you and I appear to be minimal & semantic. We both believe Jesus upholds the spirit of the law, but may differ on whether it was reasonable to perceive that he violated the letter. I can easily see why O.T. students were offended.

Grace be with you,
Bob

#29

Steve, 1. To elaborate on one: You state “the intent & spirit of the law goes beyond external circumcision to internal circumcision of the heart.” But I’d say more so, the N.T. suggests, since internal circumcision IS the spirit that matters to God, external circumcision (1) literally is not what God wills (2) calling for it then is contrary to the direction the church should go; (3) in this sense, as with much of the purity & cleanliness codes, it’s “done away with.” Do you agree?

  1. Like you, I love Jesus’ Biblical defense and interpretation of Sabbath’s intent. But as I’ve told Kelly, I don’t see with you that the O.T. Sabbath is so “open and undefined.” Don’t its’ severely punished specific actions appear to encourage religionists’ conservative interpretations and reactions to Jesus?
#30

So it appears that we agree that what Paul recommands/instructs in the NT to gentiles under the New Covenant should be followed.

Regarding other parts of the Mosaic code, I think a strong arguement can be made that some of these instructions were Covenant instructions between God and the People of Israel, and therefore for the people of Israel under the Old covenant. Some were for those people in that culture, some were universally applicable to all, and some were foreshadowing things to come, which did come and therefore done away with them (according to Paul in Hebrews) I think an arguement can also be made that many of these can be followed, and would be good to follow, but that Paul did not require Gentiles to follow them in order to contrast salvation through faith vs keeping of the law.

I can see how you can view Jesus authority to interpret the meaning of the law as rendering my arguement as circular. But that is only true if your interpretation of what Jesus is saying is correct. Your view sees him as stating he is not breaking the Sabbath because under his new nonliteral interpretation (of which he has authority to make) he isn’t. But I don’t interpret him to be saying that. For me the key is understanding what he means by lawful and desecrating. Is he talking about lawful according to scripture or according to the Pharisees. Does he mean desecrating what the Word of God says, or does he means appears to be desecrating as in the pharisees minds. A huge key to understanding his statements and validating the view I am holding (for me) is understanding Jesus comments regarding David’s and his men being innocent as invalidating “desecrating” as the pharisees viewed it. I would like to hear an alternate way of interpreting that sentence that Jesus makes. I am not sure if that makes sense. I would assert that Jesus was upholding the Literal instructions of the Sabbath while clarifying the grey areas or undefined areas. He did this by pointing to the intent of the Law (scripture) that even the Pharisees law (as seen in the Mishnah regarding David) was able to see.

I will take a look at your comments on john 5 in a little bit.

#31

Bob,

I would not deny Jesus was doing work on the Sabbath, and I don’t see any of us denying Jesus was claiming to work. He even says my father has been working everyday and so am I. The Question is …what Kind of work is he doing on the Sabbath? Is he carrying firewood or working the vineyard? No. He is doing God’s Work. The Sabbath Work.

Some of us are making the case that in Exodus and Leviticus it tells us “your work” is what is not allowed. The term “work” may sometimes be employed (in these Exodus/Leviticus passages)when referring back to this same “your work” or as literally translated “work-of-yours” (mlakth·k - exodus 20:9) But if “your work” has already been established in the context then “work” used in these same contexts or even later on in other passages should be expected to be understood as the already established “your work” should it not?

But there is in my opinion more than just sort of wrangling about words as I am doing here. The real proof in the pudding is did God Command any work on the Sabbath? And …did the Pharisees themselves do any work on the Sabbath?

The Answer to both questions appears to me to be YES.

There are examples of “work” that God himeself commands on these Sabbaths that shows us that it’s not “any work” that is prohibited, as you and Auggy seem to be defining the term “work”, but rather just “your work” or normal work.

Slaughtering Bulls, Rams, Goats etc
Following specific ritual commands of bathing, sprinking, putting on specific garments (lev16)
Travelling to place of worship
Teaching and explaining the scriptures
Participating in hearing and learning the scriptures
Eating and drinking and sending out food and drink to those without (neh8)
Circumcising
Participating in congregational worship
Clapping your hands, shouting and singing to the Lord and :astonished: Dancing as David mentions.

The work the Priests did was neccessary but were they considered guilty of breaking the sabbath? Of course not! :slight_smile: Why not?? Because this was God’s Work not “Their work”.

You have stated that a literal interpretation of the Sabbath command would lead one to believe that “No work whatsoever” should be done. But that does not appear to be what the Pharisees law taught.

The Pharisees law taught:

It was OK to lead their donkeys and ox’s to water on the sabbath (luke 13)
It was OK to save a Child’s life on the Sabbath (luke 14)
It was OK to circumcize on the Sabbath.
Its was OK to remove a splinter or thorn on the Sabbath.
…and 24 more chapters of contradictory do’s and dont’s regarding the Sabbath Alone.

I believe the above examples of What work God allowed leaves alot of grey areas and undefined areas of what Is Permitted “God Work” on the Sabbath, but let’s look at what “Work” Jesus did on the Sabbath.

Heal the blind and lame
Tell a healed man to pick up his mat allowing others to glorify God on the Sabbath.
Pick grain to nourish the body’s of those in need.

Jesus Points out that even the Pharisees law allowed this work Jesus was doing on the Sabbath, so his question to them is How could this be considered breaking the sabbath if your own Law allows it. He is pointing out the contradiction between what they are presently accusing him of and what their law says. Because even their own Law justified what he was doing.

I would ask two questions:

What would be more work: Picking a few heads of grain or slaughtering a bull as Commanded by God in Leviticus? :slight_smile:

Did Jesus do any Normal work on the Sabbath or did he only do “God Work”? :smiley:

#32

Steve, Forgive me, I know your addressing Bob, but I can’t help myself. My answer to these two would be that the former would fall under “self” work while the latter is God’s work. This seems to me to be consistent with your own view, except because Jesus approves of it, you now see that preparing your food (baking goods, crushing grain) is God’s work.

The confusion from my point of view is that you can’t see Jesus lighting a fire –for that is “your” work. Yet if Jesus would have lit a fire, you would say “it’s God’s work” in other words, ALL types of work are permissible so long as God requires it of us.

I’ve continually stated that we all know there were provisions for the work done. And yes, the Pharisees may have had some understanding of necessary deeds which were permissible (delivering a child, circumcision, sacrifices) but picking grains is hardly necessary and it’s especially for one’s own self. For the disciples could have prepared the grains the day before (hence – do not bake your goods or do not collect manna on the Sabbath).

I’ve argued that that the provisions are expanded. There is nothing wrong with lighting a fire on the Sabbath. What it boils down to is Pauls way of living life, “Foe whatever you do, whether you eat or drink, do all for the glory of God” – this constitutes God’s work. If we cut our lawn, do so unto God. If we bake a pie, do so unto God, giving thanks to him. Sudennly the “your” work is “God’s” work. It is never good or permissible to do bad work on any day of the week – cut your grass NOT unto God and it’s sin – for whatever is not of faith is sin.

But I tend to think legalism comes creeping and I see it in your view when you ask “Was Jesus carrying firewood of working the vineyard” – if God required him to do so would he be in violation? And would you object to his claim that God wants him to do it or would you appeal to the law that it’s “your” work that should have been done – thus I would conclude you would find Jesus guilty- Just as they did.

Again, I’m hoping you’ll answer my question:
Premise 1: Anything that goes into your mouth is digested and defecated.
Premise 2: Since ANYTHING that goes into the stomach does not go into the heart then it cannot defile you.
Conclusion: Nothing that enters your mouth can defile you.

Question: Before Jesus declared all foods clean, did rabbit defile you? Was it unclean when God said it was or is Jesus saying it was never unclean?

#33

Auggy,
You are more then welcome to respond, I’m addressing both Bob and you and everyone else that is representing that side of the view.
I would like to address the clean and unclean foods, but in a seperate later discussion if that’s OK. It’s hard to fully detail and argue one topic when other side topic (though related) are coming in, in my opinion. I already have a seperate one regarding “the Word of God” that I haven’t had the chance to respond to yet.

Some quick claifying notes regarding the Sabbath:

You said “because Jesus approves of it, I now see Jesus crushing grain as God’s Work”. This is not true. Crushing grain is not the disciples work, and in this particular instance it is a neccessity for them. They are employed in the very work of God with the Messiah and need food, so just as David’s men were justified so are they with this exception. They left everything and followed him. They don’t even work their normal jobs anymore, they are the very defenition of exception to the rule.

If Jesus lit a Fire and it was Neccessary for the Work of God then Yes it would be keeping the Sabbath. However if Jesus and his disciples were carrying firewood back and forth on the Sabbath then it would be a seperate issue. But even in that case I think one would have to ask if it was in relation to the ministry of Jesus and his work, which is God’s Work as he stated, or if it’s just to get ahead of normal workload on the Sabbath like other non Ministry, normal israelites were.

You stated “the disciples could have gathered the grain before the Sabbath”. This definitely was the instructions that the Covenant People were given in order to rest on the Sabbath but again let’s look at what the disciples were doing. They had left everything for the Work of God and the Ministry of Jesus. They did not have the 9-5 job and fit in the category of the Covenant people. They were the very Apostles of Jesus doing the Work of the Messiah daily. They were no longer fisherman but fishers of men, they were praying deep into the night, so logically they were already in the exception category. I know the OT does not provide clear details on the exceptions and when it’s OK to deviate, but clearly they were an exception to th rule, and again even the pharisees could see this as they justified even Davids men doing the same. So Jesus isn’t making a new rule, he’s pointing out this is already seen as justified.

I think Paul is the Bearer of the New Covenant and therefore his words regarding the Sabbath and application of it especially for Gentiles should be viewed differently then Jesus approach towards the Sabbath. Jesus came to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, under the law, as Paul himself says, and he fully carryed out that law without blame. Paul however came to the Gentiles speaking of the Sabbath after Jesus had died and been ressurected and ushered in the New Covenant. I believe that’s why we see Peter Caught in the middle of the old and new covenant and Jesus Needing to Appear to him and show him that Paul was indeed given the new covenant revelation and commission.

#34

Steve,
Thanks for the interaction. I’m very confused. I may be wrong but you seem to play both sides of the fence (as well as Kelly). On one hand you believe if Jesus carried logs (for God’s purpose) it’s ok for him to do on the Sabbath. However, you also defend crushing grains of wheat because it’s non-vocational work.

On one hand Jesus can carry logs on the Sabbath (under the provision it’s God’s work). But on the other hand if he did you seem to think you would know better from exegetical analysis that he’s ok to carry logs? The only defense I can make of your view is that you do this because “he’s Jesus”. For if you were in his time with only the OT, what would you do if he did carry logs on the Sabbath and claimed it was God’s work?

Do you disagree that by implication, Jesus is declaring that only bad work is not allowed on the Sabbath? Or would you say that’s reading too much into the text? I would assume you would disagree with me. I’ve argued that the law of the Sabbath is that any work, which is good, can be done on the Sabbath. I understand you to say – NO, REST is what God wants – Good work can be performed IF IT HAS TO BE.

I don’t see why Jesus and disciples could not get food from a neighbor or have gleaned the fields for dinner before the Sabbath. This also raises another issue for me. You seem to articulate that the preists doing God’s work could bake their goods, light fires, carry loads for personal duties because they’re priests. This is why I’ve said LITERALLY the provisions of the preist hood exempt precise duties – in other words, I don’t think the priest could collect wood for his personal fire on the Sabbath simply because God told him he could cut a bull in half for the atonement. You seem to say, because getting your dinner in the fields is part of Jesus’ ministry, it was lawful for him to do so. So then priests could bake their goods at home on the sabbath too?

I think a lot of this had to do with how you exegete the provisions. You see the provisions as stating “God’s work can be done”. But I call that a liberal interpretation. Literally, the priests had provisions, but no where would I have guessed (if I were living in that time) that it meant if God calls me to carrie logs on the Sabbath I would do it. I WOULD TAKE THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION THAT GOD CANNOT COMMAND ME TO CARRIE LOGS ON THE SABBATH FOR GOD WOULD BE COMMANDING ME TO SIN.

So my reservation with the literal approach is that you find Jesus and co. picking grains in the fields as meeting the provisions of the priesthood, where I need that provision spelled out. I see that they can circumcise and even sacrifice, but no where do I see them harvesting their dinner or carrying logs.

#35

:laughing: Sorry Auggy I have to laugh. You and I are now appearing to try to meticulously define what is allowed on the Sabbath just as the Pharisees did, and we are running into the same problem as them it seems. Have you read any of their writings recorded in the Mishnah regarding this? It is pretty laughable.They were working as hard as us (excuse the Sabbath pun) to define what was and was not OK. The funny thing is Jesus justifes his work on the Sabbath by their very Laws that allowed such work. The Gospel Writers (and Paul and Peter) go to great lengths to show us that Jesus was the perfect spotless lamb of God who resisted every temptation and perfectly kept all the law, under the old Covenant. So this idea that he broke the Sabbath doesn’t ring true to me, it doesn’t reflect what is in my opinion clearly shown in the NT Gospels and Epistles. If you are saying that he didn’t break the Sabbath because he was doing allowed “God Work” or allowed “neccessary work” and just sort of clarifying their misunderstandings, them you and I are probably on the same page on this issue.

To me the key in understanding this and forming guidelines is recognizing the difference between now and then, new covenant vs old, God work vs non God work, What a priest was commanded to do vs what a nonpriest(God Worker) was commanded or allowed to do. It seems you are trying to form universal rules that applies to all times to all people, but that, in my opinion does not line up with the complexity of what God has revealed regarding the Sabbath for different people and different covenants. Paul says Jesus came under law and was blameless, but he says gentiles under the new covenant are not under law. Jesus says I did not come to do away with the law but to fulfill, but after and because of his death a new age is clearly ushered in, so we have to rethink what sort of law we are under and how to view the previous law and Covenant that he was under and perfectly followed.

When you make statements like “I’ve argued the law of the Sabbath…” I think you need to define if you are talking about the Old Covenant law for the Israelites or the law of the Sabbath for you and me. I don’t see general statements regarding the Sabbath as possible for the reasons stated above. Therefore when I make statements they may be confusing or contradictory to you because I do see different allowances or applications of the Sabbath for different People and under different covenants.

But to answer the question regarding Jesus(who held the office of a priest under the old covenant law), I think if Jesus was doing normal work on the Sabbath that had nothing to do with Gods work, such as carrying firewood back and forth all day, and this had nothing to do with neccesity (replentishing the Body for Gods work) or healing/glorifying God work, then I would see a very strong arguement that could be made that he is indeed breaking the Sabbath. At that point I would have to come to your side of the fence (i would imagine) and point out that he is able to rewrite the laws because he is the Son of God and ushering in the New Covenant.

But We don’t see him doing such things. We see him perfectly following the law at all points as seen in his temptations where he resists them by identifying precisely what God has actually said regarding his situation. I see him doing the same with the Sabbath, pointing back to scripure as his justification (David and his Men) and showing the Pharisees that even their own Law justified what he was doing on the Sabbath, and that even their very actions (Ox out of a pit) show they justify what he is doing.

God Bless Auggy and sorry if I am confusing, I do appreciate the discussion!

#36

I am so confused, by this thread now :blush: Could the main players outline their arguments, or what they are trying to say again. ISIA, I thought you were arguing for us keeping the sabbath, and other OC laws??

Here’s my position: that we shouldn’t be trying to put ourselves under that dispensation because it has changed. The old is done with the new has come, the old was useless, is hanged on the cross. The law of Love God and Love your Neighbor is the law we are to follow, and by doing those we uphold the law as Paul said. Possibly the 9 are still in order because they have been reiterated in the NT, and because they were instituted before the levitical priesthood was brought about, when there is a change of priesthood there is a change in laws, it went Melchizedek-Levite-Melchizedek, the Sabbath is everyday for us as Christ is our rest.

Also ISIA, how was Jesus a priest under the mosaic law? He is from the tribe of Judah, only levites were priests under OC. He is a priest of the new order for sure.

#37

Steve,
I appreciate it too. First off I think we’re all very close in our view and yet there remain distinctions that are beginning to emerge. I believe Bob is right when he mentioned much of this is semantics.

You are right about the “meticulously defining” that’s beginning to take shape. That’s the nature of law. Just as in U.S. Law it grows larger and larger, the same was with God’s. They’re “mishna” is problematic in this sense, you appear to support their argument that they were right that taking a sheep out of a pit or David eating bread which God clearly states ONLY a priest (or his purchased servant) could do, was correctly defined as legal. But Kelly support that they were adding to the law. So were they adding and who’s to say it was right or wrong. When God decrees the death of the Sabbath breaker in Num 15 for collecting wood, I hope you recognize this was a major offense and thus the Rabbinic system had to define what constitutes work. Again, they most assuredly saw that the priests had provisions, but not some guy out in a field harvesting grain for dinner.

At this point I think you’re recognizing what Bob has said all along; we would not say Jesus broke God’s commands. We would say FROM A CERTAIN POINT OF VIEW – namely the Pharisees - he did. It’s that view that we’re analyzing. And from an OT only exegesis, I would bet that everyone who does not see the weight of the philosophical value of the law would have sided with the Sanhedrin. For Kelly literally loving is abstaining from pork, or sitting down – for that is obedience to her. For me it’s that we’ve entered into that (Sabbath) rest and WHILE were in that rest we’re going about our business doing “OUR WORK” – yet is God’s work for everything we do, work or rest, is unto the Lord. The value of the philosophical is too weighty for me to take the literal serious.

The case against Jesus is not to say Jesus was defaming God. It’s to show how revolutionary he was that he was turning upside down the system of his time – and that’s because they were not philosophical but literal – for resting on the Sabbath was being good, abstaining from pork was good – for if the outside of the cup is clean then so is the inside. But Jesus comes along and does things WE ALL are uncomfortable with. And again, I would venture to say, if he was carrying logs and claiming he was doing God ministry, you would have searched the OT and found nothing to support him. In fact, I venture to say that you would have found him guilty because God would NEVER command anyone to carry logs on the Sabbath because that would be breaking his command to rest.

But, you now have the luxury of being post-new testament so you see that Jesus was right. And I think people falsely assume that they would have sided with Jesus, especially when they see the value of the law, in its literal interpretation, rather than understanding the philosophical. “beware of the yeast of the Pharisees” – the disciples were learning to break away from literal when they realized it’s HYPOCRISY.

So we’re close in this: Yes we agree Jesus was not sinning. What we I don’t agree on is that to break a “literal” command does not equate to sin – hence – “desecrate the day and are blameless” and “unlawful”.

As I’ve stated, I firmly believe, though the command of God (one of the 10) is not to bear false witness, I would say that if one bears false witness to Nazis to hide Jews, one is breaking the command (in its literal approach) but not breaking God’s will (philosophical approach) because the command is showing us to do what is Good. This is why Rahab is commended for her faith. Yes she lied. But she did so because she protected the spies from being killed. Did she sin, I would say not. Did she desecrate the command – I would say yes “from a literalist point of view” but the command is to do what is right; she did just that.

One other point is that we probably have disagreements on dispensationalism. You seem to be a Dispensationalist. Am I wrong about that?

#38

Redhot,
Yes I think we’re all a bit confused because of definitions and even uncertainty on the very subject of the nature of the law. No doubt, it’s debated by smarter men than ourselves :slight_smile:

#39

Jesus in many ways filled the role of Priest as The NT writers constantly point out. I don’t mean he is a priest of the Mosaic law :laughing: sorry for that confusion. I meant he was born under the age of law as an israelite, and required to carry out the law. And seperately he is our Priest.

I think it would be helpful to outline our arguements and I am willing to do that to avoid being accused of being contradicting myself and or using circular reasoning which I think I have not :slight_smile: I will try to do this a little later, barring time.

I am in favor of us keeping the Sabbath and some other Old Covenant laws. There are other things to discuss and consider which brings this whole arguement full circle back to the issue of whether Paul’s Romans 1 statements are outdated or based on Principles that always apply to God’s People in the same way the 10 commandments do. But as I have said before, I do see a distinction between some things that were for Those in the Old Covenant only and other things that were for them and us also under the new covenant. But the Heart of my arguement will be what does Paul as the Apostle of this New Covenant command or instruct those under the new covenant to follow. He commands many things regarding the sins of the flesh and the fruit of the spirit, he commands all 9 of the 10 commandments, He might not explicitly command the Sabbath but I think a strong arguement can be made that it is expected to still be upheld.

There is also a new understanding of Grace and law revealed in this New Covenant, so we see nothing is literally binding for salvation but many things are beneficial, and if we are God’s people we should of course walk in his ways and bear fruits reflecting the Work of God in our hearts. For me we can’t just say Love God and Love one another without defining what Loving Others is, thats what Moses had to do and I see Paul doing the same.

We also see Paul battling the Judaisers who are trying to bring people back under the law. So his instructions regarding many things must be take in that light. He is not Fighting following the law, he is fighting the Judaisers who are emphasizing the Law over Christ. And he goes to extreems to make his point which can be confusing until he comes back later and says…so should we do away with the law? Absolutely not!! we uphold it! But it does not save us so we are not enslaved to it.

Not to make it more confusing but consider this, the OT wisdom give us many good an helpful principles, for example dont overeat or be slothful. Do I need to follow that? Paul and Jesus say Food is irrelevant right! Well if you don’t pay attention to your Diet you can have physical problems, possibly finanical and marital problems and ultimately mental and spiritual problems, so should I keep those Old covenant words of advice? absolutely, God made us he knows the road to the abundant life and he is trying to share those with us, so it make sense to follow them.

#40

Hey Steve!

Thanks for your engagement! Here’s a few reactions to your original response to my last clarification:

Paragraph 1: Yes I agree that the Law sometimes not applying for us needn’t mean that what Paul recommends is wrong. Yet, I think saying that his recommendations must be “followed” is more complex, esp. if these historical developments reflect that revelation has a ‘progressive’ nature. Then, we’d also need to consider if what “Paul recommends” is more relevant in his cultural situation than ours (would you e.g. require his recommendations on cutting hair, women’s silence, etc),and even that God may still reveal a fuller picture of what matters in our context. As I see it, we can’t escape wrestling with how love and the various approaches in Scripture should be integrated and applied.

Par. 2: I agree that “some” parts of the Mosaic code can be “good to follow.” My point is only that we can’t assume that it must be right to follow any particular rule just because it’s in the Torah.

Par. 3: Sure, saying Jesus can’t be breaking Sabbath rules because that would be sin is only circular if I’m right that Jesus is authorized to interpret it less literally. But you argue that it’s Jesus who was “literal,” since he says that David could “desecrate” the Sabbath, only in the sense that it “appeared” that way to Pharisees.

The semantics here seem tricky. I too assume Jesus is recognizing their view, but implying that harvesting understandably ‘appears’ to violate the literal instruction against any work. Yet he appeals to a counter-text that suggests a less rigid (or literal)j interpretation. So we read it similarly, both seeing no sin, nor violation of God’s Law in the profoundest sense. But I’m comfortable sympathizing with the Pharisees, and with seeing Jesus as the one who, amid Scripture’s complexity, pushes beyond what arguably could be defended as the command’s (literal) letter, and the typical O.T. applications concerning violations of it.

In your followup, I know you claim the O.T. is awful sketchy on Sabbath, but that you can distinguish that harvesting was necessary and divine, while providing a fire or carrying wood would be labor (and presumably subject to capital punishment?). Frankly, that sort of knowledge sounds like the kind of legalistic distinctions that I perceive Pharisees to specialize in, to me an ugly approach to religion, and far from the grace that I believe Jesus intended to introduce.

Of course you later say that while Jesus couldn’t mess with “Old Covenant Law,” Paul was able to show that we are now indeed under a whole “different covenant.” That sounds to me like our difference is in who to credit as the author of our Christian faith. I prefer to think Paul just followed Jesus who was the revolutionary who pioneered the changes with which you seem to agree.

If you are right that Jesus can’t suggest changes concerning a literal Sabbath, why can’t Kelly or someone else then argue that it then must remain deadly if we don’t literally observe Saturdays? And are you convinced that Jesus couldn’t suggest any other changes in Mosaic Law, e.g. where he declares all foods clean? Yet, if he set a precedent there, why is it not possible that he was also more radical concernning the Sabbath?