Did Abraham observe the Sabbath day?

[BobRyan]

As I've mentioned it is clear that a large body of Mosaic Law is no longer observable or applicable.

So say almost all Christian denominations who affirm ALL TEN still being authoritative as my signature line points out - post after post

[*]The Baptist Confession of Faith section 19
[*]The Westminster Confession of Faith section 19
[*]Voddie Baucham
[*]C.H. Spurgeon
[*]D.L. Moody
[*]Dies Domini by Pope John Paul II
[*]D. James Kennedy
[*]R.C. Sproul
[*]many others as well..

You know better than many the arguments that posit that the 4th Word/Statement is among those laws that are not applicable

false.

They all affirm ALL TEN as noted above - since the Bible does the same thing in places like Eph 6:2.

What they argue for in opposition to those who affirm the undedited Bible Sabbath is that they claim the moral law of God gets "edited"(not deleted) after the cross, such that the Sabbath points to week-day-1 at some point after Christ's death. (or at least the Sabbath obligation gets fulfilled when ignoring the Bible 7th-day Sabbath and choosing week-day-1 instead)

Yet the NT shows that ALL references to the weekly Sabbath day of worship is always the 7th day of the week EVEN AFTER the resurrection. An "inconvenient detail" for those groups -- at best.

AD70 comes into play because that was the final destruction of the OC Jerusalem

irrelevant unless one has a text in OT or NT that says Sabbath was only to be kept in Jerusalem or that Sabbath did not exist at Sinai since Jerusalem had not yet been built - etc.

In other words that off-the-cuff suggestion does not have a lot of life to it.

Which is why none of the groups affirming Sunday in the list above -- or those affirming the unedited Bible Sabbath use such guess-work

You continually point to Sabbath keeping of Jesus. But of course, He lived under and by Mosaic Law.

And Paul also had that same practice according to the book of Acts.

In fact in Acts 18:4 we are told that "EVERY SABBATH" Paul was in the synagogue preaching the Gospel to both gentiles and Jews.

And in Acts 13 gentiles specifically WAIT for all the Jews to leave - then go to Paul and ask for MORE GOSPEL to be presented to them "on the NEXT SABBATH" rather than "on week-day-1 your new weekly day of worship".

All of this is just "more details to be ignored" for some. But to others these details are not so easy to dismiss.

Then you continually point to Sabbath observance by the Apostles while the Jewish system was still in place.

As noted previously that is an ad hoc idea with no support at all in scripture. Even during Babylonian captivity all TEN were valid as even the Sunday groups in the list above will admit.

What is more for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth "From Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship" Is 66:23 puts a dead-end to all the speculation you have offered to this point. Which is why I personally view arguments of that kind to be extremely weak.

Think it over.

When weighing two options try one and see how many obstacles you face from scripture - then try the other side and see if you get opposition from scripture.

I would like to see what happened when you went for the not-edited 10, non-edited Bible Sabbath -- what Bible obstacles did you find when taking the POV that the non-edited TEN, non-edited Bible Sabbath is the right solution???

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Another question: You have referred to the Preparation Day and we can all read the story and lesson about manna. Israel was told not to gather on Shabbat but to gather sufficiently the day before so not to gather on the 7th day. Why do you say plucking and smashing grain is different than gathering manna? Where in Torah is such distinction made? Or did this simply have to do with the fact that He and His disciples were doing God's work on Sabbath and stopped for a snack?

The day before the Sabbath, twice as much manna fell, and the Lord told the children of Israel to gather enough for two days. On the Sabbath day they did not receive any manna. Yeshua and His followers were only eating and not gathering.

 

[BobRyan]

SabbathBlessings said:

Isa 58:13

I'll disregard Isaiah for now.

Disregarding scripture is usually a bad idea.

Is 58 does not say "some day in the future I will tell you to keep the Sabbath" and we both know it.

What is more Is 56:6-8 specifically singles out gentiles in the PRESENT day that Isaiah is writing - calling them to be blessed for Sabbath keeping.

All of these "details matter"... Avoiding details - is the heart and soul of a weak argument.

 

[BobRyan]

Another question: You have referred to the Preparation Day and we can all read the story and lesson about manna. Israel was told not to gather on Shabbat but to gather sufficiently the day before so not to gather on the 7th day. Why do you say plucking and smashing grain is different than gathering manna?

on the contrary - why do you equivocate between someone walking from A-to-B and picking something off the ground and eating it - vs someone else reaping/gathering all morning to gather enough to make meals back home for an entire family?

Why use the arugments that Christ's enemies used in your own example (and both sides agree that yours is the argument his enemies used) -- when gross equivocation between those two very different things is so obviously flawed. People on BOTH sides can see the difference between those two things.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Isn't this the reason there is so much referencing and debate on this Sabbath issue?

When it comes to the Sabbath commandment, the one commandment that deals with our time, there's a 101 reasons why people think they do not need to keep the Sabbath. Nothing coming from God saying we no longer need to keep this commandment though, which is who we should follow.

You can't prove to your opponents' satisfaction that Sabbath is valid in the Law of Christ. They can't prove to your satisfaction that it's not. I'm taking the side that it's not valid while being open to the Truth.

Only if we don't believe God's Words, which we are to live by Mat 4:4

What I'm seeing from your side is mainly some weak interpretation and even some error IMO.
As I said, such is not convincing.

I think the feeling is mutual.

The issue re: 70 AD is simple in concept and a lot of work in reality. Some of it is tied into different views of Eschatology which makes it even more challenging.

The Law was changed. Hebrews says this very clearly. If not, then Jesus is not Great High Priest. As I've mentioned it is clear that a large body of Mosaic Law is no longer observable or applicable. You know better than many the arguments that posit that the 4th Word/Statement is among those laws that are not applicable and the reasons for those interpretations.

The law of the priesthood was changed, not the 4th commandment. Hebrews 7. In order to make the argument you're trying to make, one would have to add the Sabbath commandment to this passage, but it's not there.

AD70 comes into play because that was the final destruction of the OC Jerusalem and system. But this destruction was assured when Jesus was resurrected and seated. So, there were approximately 40 years between Jesus being made Messiah and High Priest and the final taking down of the OC system.

And what does this have to do with the Sabbath commandment that started in the Garden of Eden, before an earthy temple. Jesus minsters from a heavenly Temple which the earthy one was a patterned after. Hebrews 8:1-5 the heavenly Temple still has the ark of the covenant. Rev 11:19

You continually point to Sabbath keeping of Jesus. But of course, He lived under and by Mosaic Law.

I see, the text that says we are to follow the example of Jesus 1 John 2:6 who was tempted just like we are Heb 4:15 but was without sin 1 Peter 2:22 which is breaking God's law 1 John 3:4, Romans 7:7 really should say we follow the example of Jesus with the exception of Sabbath-keeping and forget the one commandment He said Remember and that He blessed and made holy. I have yet to run across anything remotely like this in God's Word.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

SabbathBlessings said:

Isa 58:13


Disregarding scripture is usually a bad idea.

Is 58 does not say "some day in the future I will tell you to keep the Sabbath" and we both know it.

What is more Is 56:6-8 specifically singles out gentiles in the PRESENT day that Isaiah is writing - calling them to be blessed for Sabbath keeping.

All of these "details matter"... Avoiding details - is the heart and soul of a weak argument.

I agree, it's a bad idea.

It's also a bad idea once God defines something, especially like He did with the Ten Commandments, scripture written personally by Him, its never a good idea to try to change those definitions, God shows us the path- we need to not deviate from it.

 

[GDL]

You're the one who equated that with what the apostles were doing, "gathering two days' worth of groceries" not me.

And it was in response to your having brough in the manna training in previous posts. Seriously, where does it say that picking and eating grain is allowable on Sabbath and not secular work? You're saying it's not harvesting. Are you making this up?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

And it was in response to your having brough in the manna training in previous posts. Seriously, where does it say that picking and eating grain is allowable on Sabbath and not secular work? You're saying it's not harvesting. Are you making this up?

So now eating is a sin on the Sabbath? They were not harvesting or gathering, they were eating because they were hungry and it's not a sin to eat on the Sabbath.

Mat 12:1 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.

Where does it say they were gathering and harvesting and where in scripture is eating on the Sabbath a sin. How can you not see your line of questioning is the same as the Pharisees, the ones who accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath and not being God. Both false accusations.

 

[BobRyan]

And it was in response to your having brough in the manna training in previous posts. Seriously, where does it say that picking and eating grain is allowable on Sabbath and not secular work? You're saying it's not harvesting. Are you making this up?

Jesus condemned the idea of equating those two. I think we all know the difference between gathering a days with of food for an entire family vs walking across a field and picking a few hand fulls of wheat as you walk.

But as you seem to think it is very difficult for you to tell the difference -- I am happy to say you have free will and can claim not to know the difference if you wish. Everyone has free will.

For my part - I am fully satisfied that most people see the difference right off the bat.

 

[GDL]

In Matt 5 Jesus condemns the idea that someone would claim his teaching was to disregard the law of God. His enemies often did that very thing as the gospels show us.

I'm not certain why this point keeps being made. Jesus lived and taught the Law. Agreed.

So then we have to keep that context in mind since Jesus makes that Matt 5 statement at the start of His ministry. We can't come back later and claim Jesus was breaking God's law and teaching others to do likewise -- AS IF that is in line with what He told us not to do in Matt 5.

Who is claiming that Jesus was breaking God's Law? I'm not.

So then Jesus is saying that following the Law of God to the letter in the case of the Priests is to do work - to do their work as priests of God in holy office respecting and reverencing the Sabbath

This is irrefutable and all sides of the Sabbath debate can freely admit it.

but if someone were not a priest and was doing their specific secular work on Sabbath it would be Sabbath breaking. -- again just stating the obvious.

so then -- Not once at Sinai or in the 40 years following Moses did God ever charge the Priests with Sabbath breaking because they chose to follow His word to the Letter in offering the sacrifices of God as part of holy worship on the Sabbath - and we all know it.

Again impossible to refute this obvious detail.

By taking his statement out of context one could get to many sorts of contradictions. But if taken in context all the supposed contradictions of Christ vanish.

This still does no address what Jesus actually said.

• NKJ Matt12:5 "Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane/desecrate the Sabbath, and are blameless/innocent?

So, why did Jesus say the Priests desecrate the Sabbath? Why did He simply not say the Priests are commanded of God to do work in the Temple on Sabbath, so in this respect the Sabbath command does not apply to them? And why did Jesus take this course of explanation instead of simply saying His disciples are not breaking Sabbath because nowhere does Torah say that one cannot pluck and crush grain and eat it on Sabbath?

• I personally prefer to deal with what Jesus says and not disregard it and explain around it. There is reason to His words and lessons.

Then it is obviously because those opposing him were trying to accuse him of sin , of rebellion against the Law of God, of what 1 John 3:4 calls "transgression of the Law" since the NT says that is what "sin IS" in 1 John 3.

I'm OK with starting here but apparently this is not as obvious to some. The charge is that His disciples are doing something that is unlawful - sinful as you note.

It's as I've been saying, this is a discussion more about Law than Sabbath. Sabbath is just the circumstance. And Jesus seems to see the same thing as He immediately points to different sections of Law to answer the charge. Letting the ESV notes do the work for me at this level of discussion, it looks like Jesus points to at least 1Sam; Ex; Lev; Num; 1Chron to make His case. This is a Bible lesson from the Master before He even makes the statement about Lord of Sabbath, which is another entire level of response to these Pharisees.

Debating about Sabbath here is not seeing the forest through the trees IMO.

Indeed. In both cases Jesus points to context - arguing that "context matters".

In context - Jesus and his disciples were engaged in Gospel ministry just as the priests of Moses' day were.

I'm not certain why you're speaking of context here the way you are. In both cases Jesus points to Tanakh to make His case. The only real matter of context in this case is let's go to Scripture and see if you guys (Pharisees) can keep up (so to speak).

How does Gospel ministry compare to David eating the Priests's showbread?

Indeed and both side of this discussion admit that the Priests were actually obeying God's law for priests - to the letter, even during the 40 years in the wilderness as they did the work of conducting worship services on Sabbath.

I don't see how that is even a little bit confusing.

Who's confused? I'm very clear about the question I've been asking. Once again, my question to others concerns Jesus' approach in saying the Priests desecrate the Sabbath.

Since we have the luxury of not being placed on the spot like the Pharisees here, how would you have answered Jesus when He asked, "Have you not read" and then how would you have responded to the examples about being unlawful but innocent - desecrating but being innocent? Desecrating is very provocative language tying back to Ex itself.

How well do you know God's Law? IMO that's what Jesus the Lord is getting at here. Matt uses the word "unlawful" 4 times in this area of Scripture. IMO there's a reason.

His point was that "in context" they were engaged in obedience - even though in a different context it would be transgressing God's Law

And at least you are providing some more clear explanation of a contextual concept of "obedience" which is being lawful and not unlawful/ sinful. And we can take what you see and correlate it to a focus on working through God's Law as Jesus was doing.

I mentioned in another post that one of the more interesting interpretations of this area of Scripture I've read was from a Messianic author. In his view, in essence Jesus is giving a lesson on the hierarchical structure of God's Law which needs to be reasoned through and ultimately understood pursuant to its main focus.

Jesus frequently used attacks and circumstances to not even answer questions directly and go to the heart of matters that attackers didn't even know they had. IMO this is one of those instances.

Does context not appeal to you?

Please stop these type questions. They reflect more about you than me.

So far I have only been stating the obvious.

And missing some that is obvious to me.

 

[BobRyan]

So, why did Jesus say the Priests desecrate the Sabbath? Why did He simply not say the Priests are commanded of God to do work in the Temple on Sabbath, so in this respect the Sabbath command does not apply to them?

1. IT was not "News" to any of the Jews - even Christ's enemies - that the Priests were simply doing what the Word of God commanded them to do on Sabbath - as per the scriptures. You ask why Jesus did not inform the Jews of this AS IF this is the detail they failed to know about. We both know that nothing of the sort is true regarding Jesus' hearers.

2. Jesus is telling Jews who ALREADY know God commanded the priests do work in their Gospel mission on Sabbath - leading out in worship - we both know it. We have no need to "wonder why Jesus did not tell Jews about that fact that they already knew and we already know".

3. What he is reminding them of - is the fact that God DID allow them to do their Gospel work on Sabbath EVEN if it meant engaging in the work of animal sacrifice and offerings. But Jesus was NOT saying that in the OT priests could build houses, mow the lawn, harvest, reap, plant vineyards on Sabbath (IE ignore the Sabbath".

As we both know.

And why did Jesus take this course of explanation instead of simply saying His disciples are not breaking Sabbath because nowhere does Torah say that one cannot pluck and crush grain and eat it on Sabbath?

no Jew had a text saying "if you pick up a piece of grass on Sabbath it is a sin" and they all knew it. In fact Jesus tells a man to "take up your bed and walk" on the Sabbath - that too was not a sin. Anyone could do it.

• I personally prefer to deal with what Jesus says and not disregard it and explain around it.

Sadly you keep ignoring all the details that you can't refute as if that eliminates them.

Fine - you have free will. But that sort of thing is the epitomy of what we call a "weak argument" as noted before.

I'm OK with starting here but apparently this is not as obvious to some. The charge is that His disciples are doing something that is unlawful - sinful as you note.

True that is what His enemies charge Him with, and as you already admitted - Jesus said in Matt 5 that this is the very thing he is not doing as you already admitted.

This leaves you either admitting that the enemies of Christ were falsely accusing He and his disciples of law breaking

OR

agreeing with Christ when HE said "you have condemned the innocent" -- where He claims they were not in fact in violation of God's Word. Raher His claim was that the false accusers were simply bending the Law of God to suit their own false-accusation purposes.

Pick one.

It's as I've been saying, this is a discussion more about Law than Sabbath. Sabbath is just the circumstance.

Agreed as we see in Mark 7:7-13 Jesus flat out condemns them of trading in the actual Law of God for their own "commandments of men" and using their made-up ideas as the new standard - the new law to be followed.

Debating about Sabbath here is not seeing the forest through the trees IMO.

Mark 2:27-28 is specifically about the Sabbath -- no question about it.

Jesus said it is "for all mankind" -- in fact "made for all mankind" and links it directly to the "making of mankind" just as we see in Genesis 1 and 2.

I'm not certain why you're speaking of context here the way you are. In both cases Jesus points to Tanakh to make His case. The only real matter of context in this case is let's go to Scripture and see if you guys (Pharisees) can keep up (so to speak).

How does Gospel ministry compare to David eating the Priests's showbread?

We can all see it in the case of the Priests.

Your question merely turns from that and is focused instead on how the Jews would have viewed David's case of eating sanctified bread in the temple yet not being killed by God for doing so. It shows grace on the part of God but does not show obedience on the part of David.

Who's confused?

The one who says he does not know the difference between walking in a field and picking up a handful of food vs going out and "reaping" to collect enough food for the meals for an entire family for two days -- appears to be at least "a little confused' to most of us.

I'm very clear about the question I've been asking. Once again, my question to others concerns Jesus' approach in saying the Priests desecrate the Sabbath.

It seems you and I already agreed that work in the area of worship and Gospel ministry done on the day of worship (Sabbath) is fully consistent without even a "hint" of a question about it. Or did I miss something?

Since we have the luxury of not being placed on the spot like the Pharisees here, how would you have answered Jesus when He asked, "Have you not read"

Something like "good point Jesus - it appears we falsely accused you just as you say"

 

[GDL]

SabbathBlessings said:

Can you please post your reference re 70AD and how that changes the 4th commandment and what changes you are implying here? When Jesus died on the cross- He said it is finished- nothing can be added to His covenant.

Jesus could not prove "to his opponents satisfaction" that He was the true Messiah. Even though millions of others free admitted that His proofs were more than enough. This is the same case with the Sabbath topic. Many who oppose it claim "not enough" while millions of others that read the text of scripture and notice the details - freely admit to the obvious about the TEN and the unedited "Commandments of God" containing God's seventh day Sabbath.

You seem to be moving freely in time for your hyperbole. Millions freely admitted His Messiahship by when?

Distributing your hyperbole more evenly, do the "many" who oppose the continuing validity of the Sabbath Word/Statement not also add up to millions?

Your bias is not an argument.

Just as the enemies of Christ could not prove to His satisfaction that His teaching was in error.

Your attempts to turn this into a matter of being an enemy of Christ is about as meaningful as the other convoluted argument about not being a Christian if one doesn't fully agree with the 4th being a part of the Law of Christ.

The fact that "opposers exist" is not proof that something is right or wrong.

It is the "details" of scripture that matter.

Agreed.

Not true of the moral law of God -- which almost every Christian denomination on planet Earth will admit regarding "the TEN" still being authoritative. They still seem to get that detail correct.

Hebrew 7 states that it is specifically speaking of Law regarding who is a valid priest and who is not. Details matter. By skimming over enough of them you could argue almost any idea - but when the details matter to a Bible student they often come to a consistent bible supported conclusion.

Thanks for bringing this up so I didn't have to go back and find out if anyone ever answered it.

Firstly, lets' drop the tiresome "almost every denomination on planet Earth" nonsense. This isn't a democratic issue. If Sabbath threads history repeats itself, and the odds are it will, you'll be identifying denominations soon. If everything was based on such nonsense, then we'd just be turning all exegesis over to a vote and who wins, The Roman nemesis of SDA?

You're not dealing with the number of Laws and areas of Law that were done away with or made unobservable along with the Priesthood of Jesus Christ and the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem. IMO you're the one who is skimming when there is more depth to be considered and dealt with.

Next, please answer this question: If the 4th is a moral Law, then why did God command it be disobeyed by His Priests 1 in 7? And why does God command or allow it be disobeyed when doing His work? Is not the moral Law the eternal righteous unchanging character of God? Is God's moral character only important under certain circumstances?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

SabbathBlessings said:

Can you please post your reference re 70AD and how that changes the 4th commandment and what changes you are implying here? When Jesus died on the cross- He said it is finished- nothing can be added to His covenant.

Jesus could not prove "to his opponents satisfaction" that He was the true Messiah.

Even though millions of others free admitted that His proofs were more than enough.

This is the same case with the Sabbath topic. Many who oppose it claim "not enough" while millions of others that read the text of scripture and notice the details - freely admit to the obvious about the TEN and the unedited "Commandments of God" containing God's seventh day Sabbath.

You seem to be moving freely in time for your hyperbole. Millions freely admitted His Messiahship by when?

To this very day that statement is true. Those who opposed Christ in the gospels are still represented to this very day who argue the same thing against Christ - that they don't believe Him to be the Messiah regardless of the arguments/proofs they find Him giving in the Gospels.

Not sure how this is even a question at this point.

Distributing your hyperbole more evenly, do the "many" who oppose the continuing validity of the Sabbath Word/Statement not also add up to millions?

They do indeed - the point remains. The fact that people can be found who oppose something, claiming the evidence for "Christ was not enough for them" did not prove their opposition to be substantive. You cannot appeal to the "exsistence of their opposition" alone as proof for the validity of their claims - the way you did regarding the Bible Sabbath. As if the fact that someone exists that opposes some Bible teaching , claimng that it failed to convince them -- is sufficient evidence that the Bible teaching is flawed. That is a weak argument.

Your bias is not an argument.

I never argue "my bias in favor Christ and the Bible Sabbath is proof that both are correct" -- as we both know.

Your attempts to turn this into a matter of being an enemy of Christ is about as meaningful as the other convoluted argument

On the contrary - I merely point to examples in the Bible where someone makes a similar claim as you propose. EVEN you do not say "they are not arguing my point" when I bring this up -- so you might need to clarify your point of confusion there.

about not being a Christian if one doesn't fully agree with the 4th being a part of the Law of Christ.

I never say that. I simply point to similar cases, similar arguments, similar ideas.

Firstly, lets' drop the tiresome "almost every denomination on planet Earth" nonsense. This isn't a democratic issue.

First you say "nonsense" but then knowing that my statement is 100% correct just as I have shown it to be you back away with "this is not a democratic issue". That is nonsense because you yourself will say things like "SDAs say this or that" -- which is a reference to some group taking a position. My point is that some Bible details are so incredibly OBVIOUS that the groups on BOTH sides of a given debated topic admit to them.

You response that we should not notice such indicators of objective measurement - is a weak argument.

If Sabbath threads history repeats itself, and the odds are it will, you'll be identifying denominations soon.

I assumed my list would already have identified a few that AGREE with my point about all TEN remaining as the moral law of God written on the heart under the NEW Covenant and applicable to all mankind since Eden. Are you predicting that I will soon make the point that everyone of my posts has in it - in the signature line?

If everything was based on such nonsense, then we'd just be turning all exegesis over to a vote and who wins

Skimming past the "detail" of objective methods you simply reducing it down to "how many agree" rather than the very substantive point that BOTH SIDEs admit to certain glaringly obvious Bible details. I can see why you might wish to skim past that detail but you should not expect that I would be so quickly inclined to share that need.

, The Roman nemesis of SDA?

I include the Catholic Church in my example of a group AGREEING with the Bible fact that all TEN are included in the moral law of God. Seem signature line.

You're not dealing with the number of Laws and areas of Law that were done away with or made unobservable

On the contrary I point out that the priesthood changed as Heb 7 states.

I am also happy to point out that the "sacrifices and offerings" ended at the cross as Heb 10 clearly states.

Those laws are predictive of future events. But moral laws are prescriptive which is why all those sunday-keeping examples in my signature line agree with us that the TEN are included in the MORAL LAW of God applicable to all mankind to this very day.

the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem.

There was nothing in any text to support your idea of a change in God's Law predicted for 70 AD -- and I suspect we both know it.

Next, please answer this question: If the 4th is a moral Law, then why did God command it be disobeyed by His Priests

There is no indication that preaching on the Sabbath is rebellion against God's Law.
There is no indication that offering the sacrifices used as part of the worship service at Sinai was rebellion against God's Law.

If you have a text that says it is rebellion - state it when you ask that question.

And why does God command or allow it be disobeyed when doing His work?

Seriously?? you are asking why priests would be allowed to lead out in worship on the weekly day of worship??
I find it a bit difficult to take that question seriously -- or am I missing something?

Is not the moral Law

you are simply making that up.

As I said BOTH sides of the Sabbath debate admit that ALL TEN of the TEN commandments are included in the moral law of God. So you can't pin this on "just BobRyan knows that".

As I said before -- when weighing two options give them both a shot. In this case you seem to prefer to oppose all of Christianity in your Bible Sabbath not in the moral law of God ideas. Why pick such a huge uphill slog??

 

[BobRyan]

And why does God command or allow it be disobeyed when doing His work? Is not the moral Law the eternal righteous unchanging character of God? Is God's moral character only important under certain circumstances?

God commands the death penalty in the OT for certain crimes -- is it your argument that this means "thou shalt not kill" is not part of the moral law of God.

Do you actually hear what you are saying?

Weak arguments are those that simply don't work for more than a minute or two.

In any case it is total nonsense to say that if someone is allowed to lead out in worship on God's weekly day of worship and rest -- then God's laws about a weekly day of worship can be set aside. You have free will of course and can choose that sort of weak position if you wish - but a lot of people on BOTH sides of this debate are going to find that sort idea very "unconvincing".

 

[GDL]

1. IT was not "News" to any of the Jews - even Christ's enemies - that the Priests were simply doing what the Word of God commanded them to do on Sabbath - as per the scriptures. You ask why Jesus did not inform the Jews of this AS IF this is the detail they failed to know about. We both know that nothing of the sort is true regarding Jesus' hearers.

2. Jesus is telling Jews who ALREADY know God commanded the priests do work in their Gospel mission on Sabbath - leading out in worship - we both know it. We have no need to "wonder why Jesus did not tell Jews about that fact that they already knew and we already know".

3. What he is reminding them of - is the fact that God DID allow them to do their Gospel work on Sabbath EVEN if it meant engaging in the work of animal sacrifice and offerings. But Jesus was NOT saying that in the OT priests could build houses, mow the lawn, harvest, reap, plant vineyards on Sabbath (IE ignore the Sabbath".

This is more evasion.

Did Jesus say God's Priests desecrate the Sabbath [and are blameless], or did He not? It's really a simple question.

Would you like me to print the actual Scripture for you again? Was His question as stupid as you seem to think? He's reminding them of what they know when they've made up their own law? You actually think these opponents could stand there and reel through Tanakh and Law as Jesus did? And you actually think they understood the lessons of using Law correctly that the Lawgiver was asking them about? Do you think they understood what God was aiming at in Law that is stated in these verses?

On the one hand all I see is those making the case that the Pharisees had their own law that was not God's Law, and on the other hand saying the Pharisees knew Law so well that Jesus was just asking stupid questions of them.

no Jew had a text saying "if you pick up a piece of grass on Sabbath it is a sin" and they all knew it. In fact Jesus tells a man to "take up your bed and walk" on the Sabbath - that too was not a sin. Anyone could do it.

Yes, of course they all knew it. Thus, ultimately the Mishnah and all of Jesus' battles pertaining to the traditions.

Please Bob, wake up.

Do you really think your arguments are convincing?

Sadly you keep ignoring all the details that you can't refute as if that eliminates them.

Fine - you have free will. But that sort of thing is the epitomy of what we call a "weak argument" as noted before.

What I'll ignore from here on is comments like this. I think you're the SDA attack dog called in to make ad-hominem arguments when things get a little rough for the SDA Sabbath position, which IMO is falling apart as we watch it descend into more and more ad-hominem and clear enough insinuation that opponents do not have the Spirit, meaning they are not Christian.

This is simply extremism spoken against in NC Scripture.

Pick one.

I already did. Please catch up.

Agreed as we see in Mark 7:7-13 Jesus flat out condemns them of trading in the actual Law of God for their own "commandments of men" and using their made-up ideas as the new standard - the new law to be followed.

There's hope! Maybe.

Mark 2:27-28 is specifically about the Sabbath -- no question about it.

Jesus said it is "for all mankind" -- in fact "made for all mankind" and links it directly to the "making of mankind" just as we see in Genesis 1 and 2.

We were discussing Matt12. I'll remain there3 until we're done.

We can all see it in the case of the Priests.

Your question merely turns from that and is focused instead on how the Jews would have viewed David's case of eating sanctified bread in the temple yet not being killed by God for doing so. It shows grace on the part of God but does not show obedience on the part of David.

It may show His Grace but there is more succinctly language used in the context of Jesus' lesson in Matt12. And His Grace is not in conflict with His Law that ultimately has a structure and peak to it as Jesus is teaching.

The focus once again is not mine to turn. The focus is on what Jesus is saying and why.

The one who says he does not know the difference between walking in a field and picking up a handful of food vs going out and "reaping" to collect enough food for the meals for an entire family for two days -- appears to be at least "a little confused' to most of us.

You like the backup game of unknown blindly asserted friends. It goes with your referral to a democratic process of exegeting Scripture and hyperbolic use of numbers on your side. It's all meaningless.

So, you have no Scripture to support your view that plucking, crushing, and eating grain on Sabbath is allowable while not going out and picking up off the ground bread from heaven is? I'm not looking for it. I'm asking the Sabbath experts.

I think you should simply remain with the point of view about doing God's work being a consideration rather than picking at what you cannot support. I also think you should focus on the overall lesson Jesus was providing rather than being stuck in the trees and not seeing the forest, so to speak.

It seems you and I already agreed that work in the area of worship and Gospel ministry done on the day of worship (Sabbath) is fully consistent without even a "hint" of a question about it. Or did I miss something?

I don't think anyone has actually dealt with Jesus saying the Priests desecrate the Sabbath. Like it or not this is shock language - provocation - it is normally used to provoke thought.

Something like "good point Jesus - it appears we falsely accused you just as you say"

Too bad you weren't among them. Maybe God wouldn't have had to send His Son to provoke them.

 

[BobRyan]

This is more evasion.

Did Jesus say God's Priests desecrate the Sabbath [and are blameless], or did He not? It's really a simple question.

That is more evasion in your post.

-- did Jews know that the priests were commissioned by God to lead out in worship services every Sabbath -- even at Sinai and were not charged by God or Moses with "Sabbath breaking"? -- we all know that they knew that.

Did Jesus claim that Priests should have been charged with Sabbath breaking - since Sinai? WE all know that Jesus did not say that.

This is why I say that "weak arguments" only last about 2 minutes.

Jesus' point that in context the Priests are not actually sinning/breaking God's Law by leading out in worship services even though they are in fact "doing their work" on Sabbath - comes as a revelation/surprise -- to no one.

To keep circling back to this AS IF some discovery/change/defect-in-Sabbath was discovered by admiting that Priests lead out in worship on Sabbath -- so not helping your case in the least.

how is that even a little bit confusing? Give us some answer on that one.

Would you like me to print the actual Scripture for you again?

If you think you can make the case that Jesus was claiming that the priests should be charged with sinning against God's Law (Sabbath) since supposedly leading out in worship on the weekly Sabbath is a sin - go ahead - make your case.

As it is - no one takes that one seriously because Jesus is merely pointing out that in context - it is not sin even though they are doing their work as priests on Sabbath by leading out in worship.

I can repeat this ten more times for you if you wish - but I suspect everyone gets this point no matter which side of the Sabbath debate they are on.

Was His question as stupid as you seem to think?

I never say it is stupid -- I say he is pointing something out that they all know to be true - to make his case and that NO ONE not even Christ is claiming that Priests at Sinai were sinning by leading out in worship on Sabbath... as we all know ... no matter which side of the Sabbath debate one is one.

He's reminding them of what they know when they've made up their own law?

Indeed He is contrasting what they all know to be true in "REAL cases" vs the bogus Jews-made-up-laws-about-handful-of-wheat laws.

Since even in the REAL Bible written Law this is not sin - how much more is it not sin if it is only concemned in Jewish-tradition made-up law such as the ones that Peter references in Acts 10 when he says "you know it is NOT LAWFUL for a man who is a Jew to eat in a gentile's home"

 

[GDL]

There is no indication that preaching on the Sabbath is rebellion against God's Law.
There is no indication that offering the sacrifices used as part of the worship service at Sinai was rebellion against God's Law.

I'll reword this to be a bit broader and not have Jesus' question about profaning/desecration in the background:

If the 4th Word/Statement is God's Eternal Righteous Moral Character, then why does God provide for some to not observe it?

Does God treat any of the other so-called moral law with such provision? As long as you're working for Me, you can murder, steal, lie in court, dishonor parents. covet, commit adultery, etc...

I'm open to any thoughts or discussion that wants to think through the matter of whether or not the 4th is actually an unchanging moral law that speaks of God's righteous character He requires mankind to have.

 

[BobRyan]

I'll reword this to be a bit broader and not have Jesus' question about profaning/desecration in the background:

If the 4th Word/Statement is God's Eternal Righteous Moral Character, then why does God provide for some to not observe it?

IN what way does God tell someone "please don't observe my Holy Sabbath" in your pov?

Or do you mean something like "the Bible says not to make graven images, to bow down before them , to promise to serve them... yet some Christians do that very thing and we don't think they are all lost for doing it --- so maybe that commandment is not in one of God's moral laws"?

Or is it something like "there were golden images of angels on the ark of the Covenant and yet God does not consider that to be a violation of the commandment against making graven images...so maybe that means the command against graven images in not one of God's moral laws"???

 

[GDL]

I say he is pointing something out that they all know to be true

I'm going to cherry-pick (or grain-pick or darnel pick) through your posts. To elaborate, I'm not going to read them in entirety There's simply too much immaterial argument in them and my responding doesn't help. If you'd like me to note something in particular, please make it short and preferably sweet in such a single post. So, you've had the last word in your prior post, and I feel comfortable at this point simply without reading asserting a blanket statement of disagreement.

Now, you say? Then settled!

It's quite an assertion that men who live and rule by oral law tradition fully understood God's Law, its structure, its ultimate intent, in this or most any other matter. I think Jesus pretty well puts to rest such point of view in John5-7 and elsewhere, including Matt15, Mark7, here in Matt12, and Peter mentions it also in 1Pet1.

I'll remain with post #557 for now. I think it's an interesting question. It's not mine but from a series of articles that take a position against the 4th being included in the Law of Christ. Like any honest question, IMO it deserves an honest discussion and answer. I'm going to think about it whether or not anyone else does.

 

[oikonomia]

Saints, a lot of the acrymony, bad feelings, and tension is completely unnecessary if we
all would adhere to the apostle's fellowship. It really is not all that difficult.

One judges one day above another; another judges every day alike. Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind. (Romans 14:5)