E
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Bible Study A study on the Sabbath
- Thread starter Nathan
- Start date
Hardly!TRUTH over TRADITION
Member
But here is the question. If we would not think of building an idol, or taking God's name in vain, or any of the others; then why do we not think about 'keeping' the Sabbath holy by not working? Did the 'way' in which we remember the Sabbath change? I know that Christ magnified the law as such by saying that hatred in one's heart is the same as murder. This is interesting. My mind is now going on a train of thought. But to keep it interesting I would like for others to share some thoughts on this.
Here is what I find interesting.
Exd 31:13 "You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, 'Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you.
"Above all", that is interesting. But again, we see some more insight into why. That we would know that it is God who sanctifies us.
It is funny how most believe we are to keep the 10 commandments but only pay attention to 9 leaving out that pesky 4th commandment. It's clear that the Sabbath carried a great deal of importance, but does that mean anything for Christians? The 10 commandments should be more accurately called the 10 words of the covenant, and ALL of them represented an agreement national Israel made with God starting at Sinai which set them apart from the nations. Signs of this covenant included Sabbaths, circumcision, as well as other specified ordinances applicable only to those party to the covenant.
Here's what we should be asking. Why was it a sin for those of Israel to work on the Sabbath? The answer is because THEY were in a covenant relationship with GOD which commanded them to honor the 7th day. Before the covenant working on the Sabbath was not an issue, it only became an issue because God placed it as a term of the covenant He had with Israel.
As we look to Jesus kingdom, we are told that the Old Covenant has been fulfilled and thus finished and that a new covenant has been established. The new covenant has no Sabbath ordinance, therefore Sabbath keeping has no relevance for those party to the new covenant. Does that mean that the 7th day is no longer blessed by God, NO, God blessed it in the creation week, BUT it is not a day anyone since the fulfillment of the old covenant has been commissioned to keep.
We must relaize that not only is the Sabbath irrelavant to the new covenant, but so are the other 9 words of the Sinai covenant. But someone might ask: "If that's the case, is it now okay to steal, murder, and commit adultry, etc.?" My response would be, no, and it has always been wrong to do those things even before the Sinai covenant. Remember that sin can be understood without a written law. We are intelligent beings created in the image of an almighty God who has given us a conscience that can know what is right and what is not. God's word tells us that "him who knows what is right and does it not, to him it is sin."
E
Elijah674
Guest
Excellent post, ToverT!
Nothing complicated with being a CHRIST'ian! Christ put it simply..
[IF YE LOVE ME KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS]! And this WAS HE that was IN THE CHURCH IN THE WILDERNESS. Acts 7:38
And who was that of Neh. 9:6-17 who GAVE THEM HIS HOLY SABBATH? (ibid. 12-14 before they too rebelled verse 17!!)
And that ROCK WAS CHRIST that these ones just flat out would NOT FOLLOW! 1 Cor. 10:1-4.
And IGNORANT?? Heb. 6:6 is mostly past/tense for these Rev. 17:1-5 ones all over again. They have heard this for well past their 120 years of the Holy Spirits Striving along with this truth being preached (Gen. 6:3) with the same results.
NOTHING WILL MOVE THEM IT SEEMS? Isa. 5:4! It is still the same old satanic 'fruite' that Cain brought foward for NO OBEDIENCE, except, in this case it is sun worship for God's 7th Day Sabbath REQUIREMENT. What is new? Eccl. 3:15 NOTHING! (see Eze. 8:16-17 with even thumbing the nose at God, such as many postings do!)
--Elijah
cyberjosh
Member
Did Jesus then let the disciples break the sabbath and 'rebel' when they ate grain as they were passing through the field on the sabbath?
E
Elijah674
Guest
No. Not in the least bit. Christ did the Isa. 42:21 'magnification' of the Godheads Eternal law. Surely the cow's were to be milked, and the hungery fed, and healing?? Surely Christ freed these false infringments which were tacked on. And the ox in the ditch thing some mention?? That seems kind of like Heb. 5 to me? Christ taught that it was lawful to do good on His Sabbath day.
Old Israel were even required in the O.T. to not harvest the 'corners of the fields' so the poor could get food. But in this case, there was no basket gatherings. But just enought for them to eat.
And He also told us what the breaking of His Commandments included in James 2:8-12 which come directly from the Eternal Covenant. Heb. 13:20 or Everlasting Gospel of Rev. 14:10. (Ex. 20)
And about what His 7th Day Sabbath keeping required?? (beside Exod. 20) Read Isa. 58:12-14
--Elijah
T
Theofilus
Guest
There is no rule in the law that prohibits plucking a handfull of grain and eating it on the Sabbath. The rules they were breaking were not God's law but man-made rules, which the Pharisees considered to be just as binding as God's law. Whenever you read about the Pharisees accusing Jesus and the diciples of violating the law, it's their law they're talking about, not God's law.
Sissy
Member
Actually, Jesus does does not dispute that the law the Pharisees were speaking of was not valid.
Instead, Jesus points out that the SAME LAW that said only priests were to eat the temple shewbred was also broken to show compassion and mercy.
A priest allowed David and his men to eat the temple shewbread.
It was an act of mercy over the law.
It is my belief that the message Jesus was presenting was that if you put the letter of the law above compassion and mercy, you have missed the mark.
Instead, Jesus points out that the SAME LAW that said only priests were to eat the temple shewbred was also broken to show compassion and mercy.
A priest allowed David and his men to eat the temple shewbread.
It was an act of mercy over the law.
It is my belief that the message Jesus was presenting was that if you put the letter of the law above compassion and mercy, you have missed the mark.
Proverbs 21
(3) To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.
Hosea 6
(6) For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
(3) To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.
Hosea 6
(6) For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
T
Theofilus
Guest
He didn't mention it directly there, but he did elsewhere.
The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)
So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?â€
He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.â€
And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[d] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.†(Mark 7:1-13 NIV)
So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?â€
He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.â€
And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[d] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.†(Mark 7:1-13 NIV)
Sissy
Member
Oh I readily concede that the Pharisees "invented" restrictions for Sabbath keeping.
But I have doubts that this particular one about gathering food on the Sabbath was one of those "inventions".
Not gathering food on the Sabbath has scriptural support.
In the wilderness (when manna fell), the people were to prepare for the Sabbath by gathering enough food on the day before the Sabbath, because they were forbidden to gather their food on the Sabbath day itself.
But I have doubts that this particular one about gathering food on the Sabbath was one of those "inventions".
Not gathering food on the Sabbath has scriptural support.
In the wilderness (when manna fell), the people were to prepare for the Sabbath by gathering enough food on the day before the Sabbath, because they were forbidden to gather their food on the Sabbath day itself.
T
Theofilus
Guest
Gathering manna on the Sabbath wasn't prohibited. There simply was no manna on the Sabbath. Besides, that's not what the Pharisees based this particular rule on. The law prohibits work on the Sabbath, but what exactly is work? The Pharisees defined 39 categories of activities that they determined to be working. Among those activities were harvesting, threshing and winnowing. Up to this point, their rules seem reasonable enough and, in fact, I would agree with them. But here's where they start to go wrong. How much do you have to gather for it to constitute a harvest? Would picking a single fig or grape be harvesting? What about picking a single grain of wheat, rubbing it to separate the grain from the chaff and then blowing the chaff away? Would that be harvesting, threshing and winnowing? It's pretty obvious that it wouldn't, but exactly how much do you have to pick for it to be harvesting, threshing or winnowing? According to the Pharisees, the magic number is 3. If you pick 3 figs, 3 grapes, 3 grains of wheat or 3 of anything else, it constitutes a harvest. If you take 3 grains of wheat, barley or other grain, rub it in your hands to separate the grain from the chaff and then blow the chaff away, then that's threshing and winnowing. This is what the disciples were doing - picking a handfull of grain, rubbing it between the palms of their hands, blowing the chaff away and then eating the grain. According to the Pharisees, they were working.
E
Elijah674
Guest
You are 'spiritually' sweet but need more study!;)
Exod. 16:4 finds God PROVING OBEDIENCE to Him by TESTING them all. And that was on [ONLY HIS 7th DAY SABBATH COMMAND!]
And in verses 26-28?? GOD SAID: 'HOW LONG REFUSE YE TO KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS..?' And the [ONLY ONE that they were Tested on was ONE! Also see James 2:8-12. (and this was the TEST before they were to go into [[THEIR]] Land of Cannan. See Eccl. 3:15 for your Testing!
And what happened to these ones?? Other than the young and Caleb + Joshua. (NUMBERS 14:29-35) Surely 'CONSUMED & DIE' is unstanderable + and 'DOUBTLESS YE SHALL NOT COME INTO THE LAND, CONCERNING WHICH I SWARE TO MAKE YOU YOU DWELL..' (((CONDITIONAL!!)))
Again, the Rev. 17:1-5 ones just flat out WILL NOT OBEY GOD! PERIOD!! And that is the Inspiration of the Godhead! There IS a Rev. 18:4 verse, but what will these ones do with it??? Isa. 4:4 proves that the free choice is yours to make!
--Elijah
Sissy
Member
I can appreciate where you are coming from.
But here is where I'm coming from:
If you have a garden of corn in your yard, the AMOUNT you pick does not determine whether it is a harvest or not.
Every single time you pick an ear of corn from that garden would be considered harvesting, whether you pick 1 a day, 3 a day, or 20 a day.
The reason there was no manna in the fields on the Sabbath was BECAUSE the people were supposed to be resting on the Sabbath (instead of out gathering food).
Exodus 16
(27) And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none.
(28) And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?
(29) See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.
(30) So the people rested on the seventh day.
(27) And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none.
(28) And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?
(29) See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.
(30) So the people rested on the seventh day.
When Jesus and his disciples were gathering food on the Sabbath day, the Pharisees wished to uphold the letter of the law (without regard to any compassion of their hunger).
Jesus then reminds them of the story of the priest giving David the temple bread to eat (which was also against the letter of the law).
Now, why would Jesus immediately follow the Pharisees dispute about breaking the law with the story of the priest and David breaking the law, unless there was a comparison to be made between the two?
Moral of the story ……..
Your compassion toward man takes precedence over the law, not the other way around, as the Pharisees lived.
The Pharisees were so committed to living according to the letter of the law that they even went beyond the law by creating their extra traditions (as a “just in caseâ€) so they could be sure they were not indiscriminately breaking any of the law.
But even with their tremendous zeal to obey the letter of the law, they missed the mark because they placed the letter of the law above mercy and compassion.
T
Theofilus
Guest
I understand what you're saying, but I see a slight problem with it.
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (I John 3:4 KJV)
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (James 2:10 KJV)
Sin is defined as transgressing God's laws. Violating any one commandment, no matter how minor it may seem, makes one guilty of violating the law. If the disciples were, in fact, violating the Sabbath laws, and not just some Phariseic rulings, then they were committing a sing. Was Jesus sinning with them by picking grains on the Sabbath, or was he merely condoning their sin? Do you see the problem? I belive that not only was Jesus without sin, but also that he never condoned or justified the sins of others. How could he then justify the disciples breaking God's laws concerning the Sabbath?
As for why he answered the way he did, it really seems pretty simple to me. Jesus didn't waste his time. He knew that starting a debate with the Pharisees about whether or not rabbinical rulings were binding or had presidence over the written law (which the Pharisees believed they did) would be futile, so he merely pointed out that they themselves justified violating their own rulings under certain conditions and that those conditions existed at that particular time. On another occasion, he pointed out that they believed it was permissible to pull an ox out of a pit on the Sabbath. He was not thereby admitting that healing on the Sabbath was a sin, but simply showing their hypocracy in selectively applying their rules, so that, according to them, it was wrong for Jesus to heal on the Sabbath, while it was OK for them to do manual labor on the same day.
Sissy
Member
Ahhh, now we're getting somewhere!
In other words, there were times when one was actually SUPPOSED TO break the letter of the law because showing mercy and compassion had precedence over the letter of the law.
Which brings us to a profound statement:
Galatians 5
(14) For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
(14) For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
You can actually fulfill the law by breaking the law!
How utterly profound is that!!!!!
Nathan
Member
I appreciate your screen name. It is how I feel most of the time. It seems as though tradition has replaced truth. It used to not be that way, not all the time at least. There was time when tradition, the act of giving up and unto another, was the only way the things of God were taught down through the ages. Tradition was in its very essence teaching by example. We have now come to the point in our lives where hypocrisy, teaching completely separated from example, reigns supreme.
Your statement,
does not sit well with me. I want to believe, and I will, that you do not mean this in a way that it can be taken. The Sabbath, along with the other 9 'words', are very relevant to the new covenant. The idea that because we are not physically of Jewish decent does not impart that we are not spiritually Israel. The 10 words were not addressed to only a physical nation, but a spiritual one.
Paul made this abundantly clear in Romans when he makes the statement he does in chapter 2. Then in chapter 10 he speaks of the man who "keeps" the law for righteousness sake and not for simple obedience. In fact, even in the the second chapter of Romans is dealing with the fact that gentiles 'judged' "Jewish" people for 'breaking' the law of God. They took comfort in the fact that they were not of that lineage, therefore they were not "under" the same set of rules.
There is the profound statement he makes in verse 11, followed by the rest of the chapter. The law is an eternal thing. Its all in how one "interprets" it. Therefore, just as murder, adultery, lying, stealing, etc, are still "against" the things of God, so then direct opposition to God's Sabbath is also the same. For to stumble in one point is to stumble in them all. We cannot seperate 9 commands from one, and say that 9 of them were "common sense" sins before Sinai, but when it came to that point in time God just 'tacked' on another for good measure.
There is very deep and wholesome truth in the regard of what the Sabbath is and why it was given. And it is interesting to study that it indeed was the only one of the 10 that was a 'sign' of faith in God. Notice that. It was a sign of faith. There are profound implications to its merit in todays culture. And sadly enough "tradition" has said that Sunday has taken over for the Sabbath. But, I would have to say that seeing how its better to be cold than lukewarm, then not believing the Sabbath has any merit today in the life of a Christian is better than watering down its meaning, creating a lukewarm understanding of it.
Where we need to get to in our spiritual growth is an understanding of what the Sabbath is. What does the Sabbath mean for the believer today? Jesus came and magnified the law. And because not one bit of it will be abolished till He comes again, it is still in effect. And we know from His teaching that the law is "deeper" than what meets the eye. Murder was no longer only a physical act, but a spiritual one. Adultery was not only a physical act, but a spiritual one. Therefore, it would stand to reason, that Sabbath keeping would not only be a physical act but a spiritual one.
I know we have covered this before, but it begs the topic of conversation to become what is the spiritual application of the Sabbath day keeping. What ever we do, we must not try and strike out the law, teaching that it does not matter anymore. Instead, we must take the spiritual teachings of Christ and interpret spiritual things to those who are spiritual. But this we can only do when we leave the fleshly things behind and pursue the solid food of Christ. This all has to be done on the very cornerstone, the foundation of Christ and His teachings. Christ never said He abolished the law, and He never said it was for a specific group of people, therefore we have no right to "build on another foundation".
Last edited by a moderator:
T
Theofilus
Guest
That's not what I said. I said:
Loving your neighbor fulfills the law, it doesn't violate it. I can easily see how love could prompt someone to violate various rabbinical ruling (Jesus seems to have made a point of violating them sometimes), but I have a harder time seeing how it could prompt someone to go against something the Bible actually says. The command to love God and love your neighbor don't replace the law. The law tells us how to love God and our neighbor.
cyberjosh
Member
Thank you for the response, but are you implying that we as Christians are obligated to observe the sabbath still? I don't always understand your posts as well as I would like.
God Bless,
~Josh
Nathan
Member
I am in no way wanting to speak for Elijah, but I would like to make a comment in general about this if I may.
I would not say we are "obligated" but rather able to do so in purity of faith. It would almost be like asking the question, "Are we obligated to have no other gods but The Lord?". I think it goes without saying it would be a ridiculous statement to say that having other gods is alright. Its a given. What's crazy is that there are indeed some now in the train of thought that it's ok to have "other" gods, name them what you like, as long as we agree that there is "A" God.
Whether we like it or not the Sabbath is a part of the law of God. But the question that would be best asked is how should we observe the Sabbath. I guess the question could still be asked, do we just disregard the 4th as a whole, but how can we do that?
"18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Heaven and earth has not yet passed away. And we know that not yet have all things been accomplished. Our Lord made this statement before going into a discourse about the law and His magnification of it. We are not obligated, but shouldn't we do so from a desire to love Him and all that He has created?