Hi Bob!
I think I know what you mean.
I don’t really have that pathway in my brain (if you will). I really have mostly just read the Bible so my view of God’s law and what Yeshua does or doesn’t do on Sabbath is “the sabbath”. K., not sure if that makes sense. What I mean is, I don’t see a contradiction of what Yeshua does on Sabbath with Torah. Yehovah, though it may seem contradictory, does not make people lawbreakers. So, though it may seem contradictory in a legal situation, He makes allowances on sabbath. He doesn’t eliminate sabbath, only makes allowances for those who would be kept from doing good on the sabbath. He doesn’t want us to “go our own way” but, he still wants us to love Him and one another even if that means in our meeting together a person is in pain and needs healing, or if someone is very hungry and needs to eat, etc.
Every country has seemingly conflicting laws like this. For example, I have the right to privacy but, if I am going into a huge event or flying on an airplane, officials may search my bag or carry ons for the good of all others. These two seem in conflict and yet there they are, and for the good of everyone, including me if say another woman may have been carrying something dangerous. We see these seeming contradictions as workable and accept them as they are. This is where I am with God.
It may just be my ignorance but, my brain doesn’t carry all these contradictions of Torah or how to carry them out. I sometimes feel like I’m missing something when you guys are philosophizing and talking all these theological terms. 
Thank you for taking the time to go back and forth on this subject. I think it is really an important thing to consider. Christianity overall dismisses it, not unlike UR/EU, and I think it would be good to consider in christian circles. Like EU, being able to love someone by doing right by them eliminates the guilt of not always “feeling perfect” all the time, It helps sort out the question of whether we did actually sin against someone or if they are holding us (and themselves) as an emotional hostage in an area for which they need healing and, it allows us to do right by, or “love” our neighbor until our or their feelings are right and it shows that, like Jesus, we didn’t just say we loved - we actually did.
Hi again Bob
– I’ll try the old TGB format in reply to your Dec 12 post:
Bob W: I like your breakdown of positions and associated questions. I’ll 1st address your points with Auggy on Dec. 11.
Bobx3 aka TV: well, it was very hastily written but I tried to be fair and write something you guys would actually agree with!!
Bob W: You support cancelling “hard” laws because Jesus says some were given because of our “hardness of heart.”
TV: Well, not so much “canceling” as trying to understand/explain why such laws – which would later be superseded by Christ – would be there in the first place!
Bob W: But this seems backwards since Jesus was not referring to a ‘law’ that should now be treated as too ‘hard,’ but to Moses’ commands on divorce, which he insists seem too lenient, implying that God allowed a rule that was too soft as a concession to their hardened determination to divorce anyway.
TV: Again, just trying to explain why a ‘law’ that clearly, we learn from Christ later, was not a true expression of what God really wanted, would be there in the first place. Remember, I’m directing this to auggy’s concern about the seeming “hardness” of the law to stone ‘lawbreakers’ – and I’m suggesting that the harshness of those stoning laws was brought about by the ‘harshness of their hearts’.
Also, when I speak of “hard” I speak not of the difficulty in keeping it but in the seeming “harshness” of a command which does not reflect what God really wanted…
Sure Jesus was speaking directly about divorce laws, but isn’t the principle applicable to other laws as well? I think so…
However, this goes to the different question of why God allows Himself to be presented as so harsh in the OT? (something which an atheist like Christopher Hitchens goes to great lengths to condemn!)
Bob W: Thus, doesn’t Jesus actually replace the old rule with a “harder” law?
TV: **You are precisely correct here IMO! **
And this is a very important aspect of the discussion we’ve not yet touched on here.
But it seems to ME that this aspect only makes MY case for Sabbath stronger!!
Here’s how I see that working out…
Consider:
In days of old, the command was not to kill… #6 in the Great TEN… that’s clearly a “moral” command to respect, perhaps even reverence life. But Jesus comes along and claims that merely refraining from killing does not come CLOSE to keeping the commandment properly! To the literal fact of not killing, He ADDS (or maybe “explains”, “enlightens”) the requirement that we may not even “HATE” (surely an “act of the mind”) that person!
So yes! That’s a much higher standard! But the higher standard does not negate, nor alter the original standard, it broadens and deepens it and adds to it!!! But we also can easily see that this standard is not “new” in the New Testament but is the very ideal God has wanted from the beginning! I like to think of Jesus “restoring” the “right heart” or “right motive” aspects to the external command of not killing.
So far then GOOD – seems like we’re in agreement!
But now consider the Sabbath commandment:
In days of old, on the Great Tablet of TEN, the 4th reads
"REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY TO KEEP IT HOLY… SIX DAYS THOU SHALT LABOR AND DO ALL THEY WORK – BUT THE SEVENTH DAY IS THE SABBATH OF THE LORD THY GOD…”
This is also clearly a moral commandment in my eyes (but less so to your eyes) given that it too has not only an emphasis on the value and dignity of Life, but also includes elements of the first 3 commandments and seems as a kind of “bridge” commandment linking the “Love God” section with the “Love neighbor” section. Jesus comes and not only “keeps” the day in that it is set apart, but in ADDING the true nature of it’s intent (ie as an emphasis on how Love of neighbor actually should be lived out) He restores it to it’s original meaning.
Yet it seems to me that You (and auggy) interpret Jesus’ actions on Sabbath as “INSTEAD OF” keeping it literally! No, I think the proper method is to treat it just like you do the command not to kill. Just as the deepening of the command not to kill in no way negates that actual command, so too the deepening of the Sabbath command in no way negates what it actually says… It’s not instead of, but in addition to! And that I think is what where kelly and I have had trouble with your interpretation in that you appear to have treated the Sabbath command differently than the rest… Thus the deepened meaning of Sabbath in no way invites or allows a negation of the actual original command. Just like the deepening of the command not to kill in no way negates the command not to kill.
Bob W: You also repeat that not following commands for execution is as much a problem for us who think Torah is not in force, as for you who think we should obey it. I’m lost. Why is dropping it equally problematic for those who believe we’re not under Torah’s codes?
TV: Here’s why it’s problematic Bob… you say “for us who think Torah is not in force” – but that’s clearly NOT what you believe because you DO think that the moral law, and the ten commandments ARE still in force! At least that’s how you order your lives. So you appear to like to SAY they are not in force (I guess this is the “not under law” thing…) when in fact given the way you try to live your life they ARE in force (in that you insist you respect the law not to kill etc). And this is the precise reason I used the word “shifty” earlier which it seems you didn’t appreciate. You want to be seen as respecting the law (I’ve called it the moral law) and still claim you are no longer under the law. That’s why I’ve asked “WHICH LAW are you no longer under?”
(PS and auggy is right in that it’s a much different problem for kelly than it is for me because she holds all law is still in effect which must mean the stoning laws as well)
Bob W: MY sense, is that unlike Kelly, you decide whether laws on execution or mixing cloth are binding, by picking only the rules that make sense to you. But when others say, we will choose what we think applies, in light of what the N.T. appears to reaffirm, you ask, “how can you dare pick and choose?”
TV: Well, that’s not exactly how I see it, but let me clarify… Yes, I HAVE been guilty of “picking and choosing”, if that’s how it is to be phrased, in that I’ve “picked” and “chosen” the 10 commandments as standing head and shoulders above the rest. For many reasons, there is something special about them; being written in stone and all… This doesn’t set me apart from you however because, as noted above, you too hold the 10 in high esteem and worthy of “keeping” if I’m not mistaken. Where I DO part ways with you then is in YOUR picking and choosing from within the 10 themselves!!! The assertion that the NT appears to reaffirm only 9 of the 10 (not affirming the 4th) is one I could not disagree with more. In fact, I read Jesus treatment of Sabbath as going out of His way to affirm this one even more than the rest of them! (So this is a huge point of disagreement between us)
Bob W: But the rationale which explains why, unlike Kelly, all your focus is on Sabbath rules, is your summary, “it seems not unreasonable to place the 10 commandments in a loftier place” (as the ones ‘moral’ in a “timeless” way). But that kind of assumption seems unlikely to me if I think that when the Bible speaks of the Law it consistently refers to the Torah as a unity.
TV: Again Bob, I’ve made no secret that I consider the TEN of a more timeless nature than the rest and, given they are inscribed in stone – a copy of which is said to be in the ark of the covenant! (how cool would it be for archaeologists to find THAT!!) – but I also hear you making no secret of the fact you consider aspects of the law (closest I’ve been able to pin you down is something like the moral aspects… hence your refusal to endorse murder for example) to also occupy a more elevated position; hence you endeavor to keep them… So it’s not just me who see’s a hierarchy of importance here it seems…
Bob W: Then it seems some Biblical support for such a dramatic division between the Decalogue and the wider law is required.
TV: But why should this apply to me, and not to you?? For me, Decalogue and “wider law” IS a very proper division!! For you it isn’t; yet you feel quite OK with what I see as a “dramatic division” in carving away the 4th from the 10!! So, how does claiming moral authority for the nine (but not the 4th!) make your position more tenable than mine?
Bob W: And if, as the earlier threads have argued, we perceive that Jesus presented as radical a challenge to the understanding of the Sabbath law as he did to other parts of the law such as cleanliness, then (even tho our tradition commonly disputes that Jesus could challenge or reinterpret any of the Torah), for us, making the 4th commandment as THE exception, which must not be evaluated, seems untenable.
TV: Well sure – it’s just that your perception of Jesus “radical challenge” is completely different from mine. And in fact takes a completely different course from His “radical challenge” to the other nine as well! That is, His radical challenge of the command not to kill, ADDS to it’s depth of meaning. Yet you’ve interpreted His “radical challenge” of the Sabbath command to be INSTEAD OF the traditional understanding! In this I find you to be unacceptably (for me) inconsistent.
Thus we see Jesus saying, yes, don’t murder AND don’t hate!
Thus I see Jesus saying, Keep the 7th day Sabbath, AND do it like this!
while you appear to see it as “no need to keep the Sabbath as of old, INSTEAD, keep it like I have”.
Why the two different approaches for commands withIN the Decalogue?
It is YOU who makes the 4th the exception; not me.
End of post commentary……
So it seems we have come to sharper focus of our precise areas of disagreement?
Specifically:
– The morality of the Sabbath Commandment:
I see it as moral in nature and intent, while you feel free to reinterpret (when I say reinterpret I mean to delete the actual reading of it…) it because it DOESN’T fit your expectations of what a “moral command” should look like….
– The words/action of Jesus regarding the Sabbath:
for me, they simply return the Sabbath command to it’s originally intended purpose (having been distorted badly by the scribes and pharisee’s) while for you they reinterpret the Sabbath command in a way which allows the ignoring of the actual words of the command…
— What exactly IS the “law” which we are no longer “under”??
This really should be discussed as I’m completely baffled by your position here… You seem to endorse this phrase (no longer under the law) yet are unable to tell me precisely which law this is. You want to be seen as reasonably living under the law that commands us not to murder, yet insist you are under no law. How is that consistent?
– Does Paul actually mean to say the Sabbath Commandment is a shadow, and a matter of personal preference? (you say yes: I say NO WAY!)
These are 4 specific areas which may better focus our differences Bob (and auggy) in future discussions…
… but let me say this. I am overjoyed at your interest in, and insight into, the deeper meanings of the Sabbath. Because of this, I truly am able to feel a real kinship with you, as brothers in Christ, even as we disagree.
Finally, there are two areas of specific interest (apart from all the above) that are relatively new for me right now (Sabbaths been like that to me for many years; always new areas and meanings to explore)
First, as I’ve said, is the Sabbaths unique compatibility with our shared belief in Universalism… (See earlier posts…)
And second, this sheds real light on the question of how we shall interact with our homosexual brethren. The Sabbath is a model of God’s inclusiveness; no exceptions, EVERYONE is to be embraced by this Sabbath time! (What a model for the complete embrace of Christ of the entire human race – given via the Cross!!) Which of course includes the woefully marginalized homosexual community. I’ve been exploring this with my dear friend buddy (formerly of this group) and it’s been a real blessing to be sure. I do realize some may protest that this understanding merely endorses “their particular sin”… But I don’t see, in the Sabbath command, any warrant for exclusion. Could God be saying here, I want you to give EVERYTHING a “rest” on this day: EVEN your judgements against each other??? I think so…
Anyway, God smiles upon me, Bobx1 and auggy, with the gift of your friendship here. I see you, I see God’s smile on me.
Just let me say, THIS is in large measure (there’s more of course!) the kind of peace we share that the Sabbath speaks to…
Blessings,
Bobx3
Bobx3,
Thanks! What a privilege to have brothers and sisters like you here to sharpen my eccentric thinking.
You 1st say we agree precisely that Jesus replaces Torah’s divorce law with a ‘harder’ one. But you defined “hard” as “harsh” in the “sense of not seeming to reflect what God really wants.” (And then argue this bolsters your ‘harder’ interpretation of Sabbath). Yet don’t we agree that Jesus’ higher standard for marriage actually DOES seem to reflect what God really wants? He reaches back to God’s original one-flesh intention at creation, and I think is very convincing that God does ‘hate’ divorce, and thus Moses’ rule is worthy of critique.
So I agree that Jesus deepened many O.T. laws, and esp. by pointing to inward state, magnifies a higher and more difficult standard (and I agree with you that God wanted this from the beginning). The catch for me, when you insist that this trajectory applies to the Sabbath, is that I do NOT glean that Jesus intensifies the literal meaning of every Mosaic law. What I see, is Him critiquing and interpreting them all, making some (like divorce) harder, and mimimizing others (e.g. execution for Sabbath breakers). Thus to me, it’s incorrect that I treat the Sabbath in a uniquely different way than I do the rest, as enumerated by examples of many laws in my original paper.
You keep saying you have no idea which law I think we are not under. I have repeatedly said that I mean the Torah’s Mosaic codes in the Pentateuch. So I have no idea what are asking for. Your contention that I actually believe Torah is “in force” sounds wholly semantic. I think we generally apply its’ rules ONLY when we find them endorsed in our best grasp of the N.T.'s “law of Christ.” For me, that means the mosaic code has no automatic “force.” You can keep saying that I give it intrinsic "moral authority, but I don’t recognize that as how I think of it at all.
But again, you nailed the assumption we differ on. You say because the Decalogue was on stone, it is exempt from what you and I do with the rest of God’s law in seeking to discern in what way or how much they still apply. But you know that I have argued that there is no Biblical clarification for such a bold distinction (closer to Kelly’s reading that God’s law is His law)! Thus, again, it seems to me that you are right that it comes down to you reading the N.T. sabbath texts differently than I do.
You argue a “deep” approach to Sabbath makes outward aspects (e.g. traditional conceptions of ‘work,’ or which day to rest) all the more crucial. I seem unable to see that. But it seems to me that the common ground that it should be decided upon is the appeal to texts on the sabbath, of which especially Jesus’ approach has been debated here in huge detail, esp. with Steve & Kelly (mostly before you entered these threads). It’s no wonder traditions interpret their view of Sabbath differntly.