About Sabbath

[Strong in Him]

I am sorry dear friend I have nothing more to say to you. Everything you are asking here and elsewhere has already been addressed through the scriptures in other posts to you

My main question was; how is the charitable, good work that I am allowed to do on the Sabbath different from the charitable, good work that I do throughout the week?

Maybe the reason that it hasn't been answered is that it isn't.
I do voluntary work for charity. That is all my work; I do not have a paid job.
I also make greetings cards which I give away to other people; that is my hobby.
Both of these things are allowed on the Sabbath - so there is no difference between me doing these things on a Saturday, than on a Thursday.
That matter has not been answered from the Scriptures, despite you posting the same verses over and over again.

 

[Strong in Him]

I listed some example of secular activities that we all engage in :

You appear to be saying you never do anything secular -- if that were true then you would be correct that it is all allowed on Sabbath.

Paul said "whatever you do work at it with your whole heart as to the Lord", Colossians 3:23 and "whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to him", Colossians 3:17.
So if ALL is done for the Lord, in the name of the Lord, there is no "secular" work.

 

[Strong in Him]

Like running your leaf blower -- is fine - but not in a context set apart for worship which means even the Sunday keeping Christians are not running leaf blowers in the middle of church services - Col 3:17 or not.

We can worship God in places other than church services, you know.
Why should gardening not be one of the ALL things that we do in the name of the Lord?
God is a gardener, John 15:1.

 

[tall73]

Also no, I did not consider Chrysostom in the mix because his writing are 4th Century well after the time that Hebrews was written and also around the time that Sunday observance we beginning to enter into the Church.

Well, I thought I was done discussing usage, but then you introduced a new criteria in your closing argument. This is the second time you changed the criteria when you realized there was usage that did not agree with you.

You stated that you wanted to look at the usage to see the meaning, and you posted the following examples:

This same consensus of meaning has also already been shown to the meaning and application of sabbatismos, which also appears in other writings, both Christian and non-Christian with some being posted in this thread earlier in reference to “sabbath keeping or sabbath observance” (e.g. fPlutarch, De Superstitione 3, in Moralia 2. 166a; Justin (the Martyr), Dialog with Trypho 23.3; Epiphanius, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis 30.2.2; Martyrium Petri et Pauli 1; Apostolic Constitution 2.36.2; Origen, Celsus 5.59; Origen, Commentarii in Evangelium Joannis 2.33.198; Origen, Prayer 27.16; Origen, Selecta in Exodum 12.289.7; Origen, Excerpta in Psalmos 17.144.31).

In the above usage you put forward Origen's comments as supporting your view. Apparently you had not actually looked at his usage, and didn't realize he did not use it of a traditional sabbath rest. Now that you do realize, you try to remove him because:

You have only shown two quotes written by the same author Origen that has questionable teachings

This again was changing the criteria. We were looking at usage, and now you want to ignore some of the usage because you say he has 'questionable teachings".

But you earlier said you were not looking at teachings, but at usage:

*Note I am not saying I believe or support anything in these extra biblical references. I have only provided them to show application and known meaning of Sabbatismos to "Sabbath keeping" or Sabbath observance" outside of the bible.

So you wanted to put forward Origen's usage, until you realized it disagreed with you.

And now you have revised the criteria again. You have stated that Chrysostom is not admissible because of the late date.

But your own usage examples included Epiphanius, the Martyrium Petri et Pauli and the Apostolic Constitutions which also are dated to a later period.

So when usage came up that did not support your view you again changed the criteria, but that goes against the usage you submitted.

If we go by the early usage you are down the three authors: Plutarch, Justin, and Origen.

You put forward Origen's usage, so there is no reason to try and withdraw it now by changing criteria. It demonstrates that it is not limited to traditional sabbath meanings.

 

[tall73]

Is 66:23 settles it -- because it tells us that for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath, All mankind will come to bow down before Me,” says the Lord.

It is pretty hard to be all that confused about such a simple direct and obvious text IMHO.

Very few Bible scholars claim that there is any fog at all in that text regarding the 'meaning' of the term "Sabbath" or "from Sabbath to Sabbath" for the author of the text

a. Jewish believers went on keeping the Sabbath per Acts 21. So to see it in any context of all believers is not surprising.

b. There is "fog" about what Isaiah means by new heaven and new earth because of his description of it:


Isa 66:19 and I will set a sign among them. And from them I will send survivors to the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, who draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands far away, that have not heard my fame or seen my glory. And they shall declare my glory among the nations.
Isa 66:20 And they shall bring all your brothers from all the nations as an offering to the LORD, on horses and in chariots and in litters and on mules and on dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the LORD, just as the Israelites bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the LORD.
Isa 66:21 And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the LORD.
Isa 66:22 “For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make shall remain before me, says the LORD, so shall your offspring and your name remain.
Isa 66:23 From new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, declares the LORD.

- you have reference to the new moon which Adventists classify as now ceremonial.

- you have reference to the nations bringing back Israelites from where they are scattered through the nations, rather than descending from heaven with the new Jerusalem.

- you have SOME being priests and Levites, though Hebrews makes clear that all can now approach directly in the new covenant, and Jesus' priesthood is not of the tribe of Levi.

And we find more unusual elements in the broader context which refers to Isaiah's new heavens and new earth:


Isa 65:17 "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.
Isa 65:18 But be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create; for behold, I create Jerusalem to be a joy, and her people to be a gladness.
Isa 65:19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in my people; no more shall be heard in it the sound of weeping and the cry of distress.
Isa 65:20 No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.
Isa 65:21 They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
Isa 65:22 They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be, and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
Isa 65:23 They shall not labor in vain or bear children for calamity, for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the LORD, and their descendants with them.
Isa 65:24 Before they call I will answer; while they are yet speaking I will hear.
Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain," says the LORD.

- you have young men dying at 100 years old.

- you have sinners

- you have his people's days being like a tree.

How do you explain these elements?

They do not agree with Peter's or Johns descriptions of the new heavens and new earth described in 2 Peter 3 and Revelation where there is no more death, no more sinners, etc.

I spelled out a possible explanation at the beginning of the thread, but I am wondering if you have some explanation I have not seen previously.

 

[BobRyan]

a. Jewish believers went on keeping the Sabbath per Acts 21. So to see it in any context of all believers is not surprising.

a. Gentile believers who had just accepted the Gospel ask for more Gospel preaching "the next Sabbath" Acts 13, instead of "tomorrow".

b. There is "fog" about what Isaiah means by new heaven and new earth

Not for John in Rev 21 - where he shows us the application of "New Heaven and New Earth" in Rev 2:1-3. So then "not much fog" there for those reading the Bible today.

Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

So then as I noted "No fog" about what "from Sabbath to Sabbath" would mean to Isaiah and his readers and "no fog" about what "all mankind" would mean to Isaiah and his readers.

- you have reference to the new moon which Adventists classify as now ceremonial.

At the point of Rev 21 there are two creation of Earth events and two cycles for worship - a Sabbath to Sabbath cycle - as Isaiah points out and also a New Moon to New Moon cycle.

- you have young men dying at 100 years old.

Satan is not "The king of Tyre" nor "the King of Babylon" yet Isaiah 14 and Ezek 28 mix in the future for Satan along with nation-of-Israel specific scenarios. This is not "new" in Isaiah 66.

How do you explain these elements?

As I said this "mix" is not new in Isaiah 66, Bible scholars have admitted to this mix for a long time.

 

[BobRyan]

We can worship God in places other than church services, you know.

I use the "Church service" example because it is very easy for both the Saturday and the Sunday groups to see the obvious point that secular activity is not at all appropriate in a "set apart" sanctified context devoted to worship.

Why should gardening not be one of the ALL things that we do in the name of the Lord?

Doing something "in the name of the LORD" is very different from doing something as a child of God. One does not "eat breakfast in the name of the Lord" even though we eat breakfast all 7 days of the week. We are saved saints, children of God as we eat our breakfast - but that has nothing to do with having that be something that one does "In the name of the Lord" whether they keep Saturday or Sunday. It is not relevant to the point of something in harmony with a sanctified "set apart" service devoted solely to worship. Which is the easy point that readers on both sides of the issue can see.

 

[tall73]

a. Gentile believers who had just accepted the Gospel ask for more Gospel preaching "the next Sabbath" Acts 13, instead of "tomorrow".

And Paul when no longer welcome at the synagogue taught daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus.

Not for John in Rev 21 - where he shows us the application of it in Rev 2:1-3.

So then as I noted "No fog" about what "from Sabbath to Sabbath" would mean to Isaiah and his readers and "no fog" about what "all mankind" would mean to Isaiah and his readers.

At the point of Rev 21 there are two creation of Earth events and two cycles for worship - a Sabbath to Sabbath cycle - as Isaiah points out and also a New Moon to New Moon cycle.

Satan is not "The king of Tyre" nor "the King of Babylon" yet Isaiah 14 and Ezek 28 mix in the future for Satan along with nation-of-Israel specific scenarios. This is not "new" in Isaiah 66.

As I said this "mix" is not new in Isaiah 66, Bible scholars have admitted to this mix for a long time.

Then you need to explain how sinners, people dying at 100, the nations bringing people back to Jerusalem, Levites, etc. mix in here.

 

[BobRyan]

I have repeatedly given examples of work I do every week including

• shopping,
  
• buying groceries,
  
• fixing something around the house
  
• or with the car,
  
• cleaning up,
  
• leaf blowing etc

that are not appropriate in church during a worship service - and both Saturday and Sunday groups also agree on this detail.

You appear to be saying you never do anything secular -- if that were true then you would be correct that it is all allowed on Sabbath.

As for me - everyone I know engages in secular activity at some point - including items I listed above as well as discussing topics like business, projects, politics, vacation plans you name it... an almost infinite variety of which you apparently are saying you never engage in.

Paul said "whatever you do work at it with your whole heart as to the Lord"

But he did not say it is appropriate to hammer a log in the middle of church service no matter that you would do that "as unto the Lord" in a strictly secular setting otherwise. Conflating the two contexts does not work.

So if ALL is done for the Lord, in the name of the Lord, there is no "secular" work.

That is a great as an example of "you quoting you" but outside of you quoting you -- I find it hard to find even one person claiming "there is no such thing as secular work for a born-again Christian" - no matter their denomination, and certainly no Bible text supports it.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
a. Gentile believers who had just accepted the Gospel ask for more Gospel preaching "the next Sabbath" Acts 13, instead of "tomorrow".

And Paul when not longer welcome at the synagogue taught daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus.

Two different subjects.

The one I point to is the case of gentiles (not Jews) asking for more Gospel preaching "the next Sabbath" instead of "Tomorrow". Your lecture hall of Ttyrannus statement does not address the point at all.

In Acts 13 "the next Sabbath" - "almost the ENTIRE CITY" shows up for that gospel preaching. Not at all limited to "a small number that could fit inside the local synagogue".

You "switched" from the point of "WHEN" - to - "WHERE". As if WHERE one meets "that next Sabbath" would have made any difference at all.

It starts to look like a diversion -- unless I am missing your point.

 

[tall73]

Two different subjects.

The one I point to is the case of gentiles (not Jews) asking for more Gospel preaching "the next Sabbath" instead of "Tomorrow". Your lecture hall of Ttyrannus statement does not address the point at all.

Sure it does, when the synagogue venue was no longer available they met daily.

In Acts 13 "the next Sabbath" - "almost the ENTIRE CITY" shows up for that gospel preaching. Not "only a number that could fit inside a local synagogue".

You "switched" from the point of "WHEN" - to - "WHERE". As if WHERE one meets "that next Sabbath" would have made any difference at all.

They met daily once the venue was lost. So, to put it your way, they met "tomorrow", and the next day, and the next day.


Act_19:9 But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus.

 

[Strong in Him]

I use the "Church service" example because it is very easy for both the Saturday and the Sunday groups to see the obvious point that secular activity is not at all appropriate in a "set apart" sanctified context devoted to worship.

That's just it - you clearly believe that some activity can be "secular"; I don't.
Whatever Jesus, who was God, conceived by the Holy Spirit, was doing between the ages of 12 and 30, do you really believe that it was secular?

Doing something "in the name of the LORD" is very different from doing something as a child of God.

Why?
We are God's children; we bear his name, have his Spirit within us, are called to be his witnesses and salt and light. Wherever we go we are taking Christ with us; and whatever we do we do in his name, with his strength and the gifts that he has given.

One does not "eat breakfast in the name of the Lord" even though we eat breakfast all 7 days of the week.

We are eating in God's presence having given thanks and asked his blessing on our food. Food that he created and provided.

It is not relevant to the point of something in harmony with a sanctified "set apart" service devoted solely to worship.

My point is that whether you are serving God where he has called you to be, using the gifts that he has given us, or are doing "mundane" tasks in a "dead end job", Paul says to do all things in the name of the Lord.
We can glorify him in our work whatever it happens to be; we can rejoice always, pray continuously and give thanks in all circumstances. We can also be his witnesses and be ready to answer for the hope that is in us. Our work can, and I think should, be an act of worship and thankfulness to God.

In the OT I don't think they had that concept - that God was with them in all things, and IN them and they could work for him always. God gave the Sabbath for OUR benefit; so that we would not make a god out of work but take some time out for ourselves and to remember the One who had given us the work.

 

[BobRyan]

Sure it does, when the synagogue venue was no longer available they met daily.

That is not even in Acts 13 at all - I think we both know you are talking about Acts 19.

Acts 19:9
But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the people, he withdrew from them and took the disciples away with him, and had discussions daily in the school of Tyrannus.

I think we all agree that Paul reasoned in the market place daily and in other places "daily" - but when it comes to Sabbath services and Gospel preaching singled out for mention by the NT writers - the details point to Sabbath after Sabbath services - not "Sunday after Sabbath" or "daily".

they met "every Sabbath" Acts 18:4 for more gospel preaching.

The gentiles specifically ask for more gospel preaching "the next Sabbath" in Acts 13 where almost the entire city shows up.

Acts 17:1-5 Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath and no mention of "and then daily".

There is not one "well then lets meet tomorrow for the next Gospel sermon" in all of the NT for these Sabbath events mentioned -- and I think we both know it.

Your argument is of the form "yes they did say -- well then let's begin meeting on Sundays" or "let's meet again tomorrow" in those Sabbath services but Luke just forgot to mention it.

hmm he did not forget to mention these Sabbath after Sabbath services as such -- but then forgot all the Sunday services???

 

[tall73]

That is not even in Acts 13 at all - I think we both know you are talking about Acts 19.

Acts 19:9
But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the people, he withdrew from them and took the disciples away with him, and had discussions daily in the school of Tyrannus.

I think we all agree that Paul reasoned in the market place daily and in other places "daily" - but when it comes to Sabbath services and Gospel preaching singled out for mention by the NT writers - the details point to Sabbath after Sabbath services - not "Sunday after Sabbath" or "daily".

They met daily once put out of the synagogue. The synagogue is where they would hear the Scriptures. It made sense to meet there, and because there was a built in venue where preaching was possible. Once it was not, they didn't meet every week in the lecture hall on Sabbath, but every day.

Acts 17:1-5 Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath and no mention of "and then daily".

They left that town in that instance.

There is not one "well then lets meet tomorrow for the next Gospel sermon" in all of the NT for these Sabbath events mentioned -- and I think we both know it.

I think we both know they went to the synagogue with a built in audience and reading of Scripture. And when that was denied they found another venue and met daily.

 

[BobRyan]

I have repeatedly given examples of work I do every week including

• shopping,
  
• buying groceries,
  
• fixing something around the house
  
• or with the car,
  
• cleaning up,
  
• leaf blowing etc

that are not appropriate in church during a worship service - and both Saturday and Sunday groups also agree on this detail.

You appear to be saying you never do anything secular -- if that were true then you would be correct that it is all allowed on Sabbath.

As for me - everyone I know engages in secular activity at some point - including items I listed above as well as discussing topics like business, projects, politics, vacation plans you name it... an almost infinite variety of which you apparently are saying you never engage in.

But he did not say it is appropriate to hammer a log in the middle of church service no matter that you would do that "as unto the Lord" in a strictly secular setting otherwise. Conflating the two contexts does not work.

So then let's imagine an "anything goes in church scenario "so long as you are a Christian" - in a church service.

The speaker says "now we would like Joe to come forward and give his testimony. oh wait I see Joe is still working on his taxes as a Christian man - well we will get back to him.

So then how about Mary - please come forward and give your testimony - oh wait I see Mary is working on a crossword puzzle and watching a tennis match as a Christian woman, we will get back to Mary

, and of course Bill is still using that leaf blower as a dedicated Christian man - just outside the door so can't ask him".

That's just it - you clearly believe that some activity can be "secular"; I don't.

Yes - I see that in our particular case we do have a difference in that regard. Everyone has free will and you can choose as you wish.

I am just glad we can present our differences for the readers to see.

 

[tall73]

Satan is not "The king of Tyre" nor "the King of Babylon" yet Isaiah 14 and Ezek 28 mix in the future for Satan along with nation-of-Israel specific scenarios. This is not "new" in Isaiah 66.

As I said this "mix" is not new in Isaiah 66, Bible scholars have admitted to this mix for a long time.

Waiting for you to explain the mix of sinners, death, Levites, new moons, people being brought by the nations to Jerusalem, etc.

How do you know the sabbath and new moons are not "Israelite-nation-specific" mix material, along with the Levites?

 

[BobRyan]

They met daily once put out of the synagogue. The synagogue is where they would hear the Scriptures. It made sense to meet there, and because there was a built in venue where preaching was possible. Once it was not, they didn't meet every week in the lecture hall on Sabbath, but every day.

Every day would have also been "every Sabbath" - but that is not what Acts 18 says. No text said that since they met every day to debate they were meeting every Sabbath.

Acts 13, 17 and 18 point specifically to "Sabbath after Sabbath" services. Nothing prevented them from daily meeting with whoever happened to be there in the market place.

Acts 17:17
So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be present.

The NT authors are specifically pointing the reader to "Sabbath after Sabbath" services.

 

[BobRyan]

How do you know the sabbath and new moons are not "Israelite-nation-specific" mix material, along with the Levites?

Because all readers can see John show exactly what the "New heaven and new Earth" phrase is - no guessing. Rev 21:1

 

[Strong in Him]

I have repeatedly given examples of work I do every week including

• shopping,
  
• buying groceries,
  
• fixing something around the house
  
• or with the car,
  
• cleaning up,
  
• leaf blowing etc

Yes you have - but my initial question was how do I keep the Sabbath; not how do you keep it.
In fact, no disrespect, but I wasn't even talking to you initially. I asked the question of another forummer - you just jumped in to answer.

that are not appropriate in church during a worship service - and both Saturday and Sunday groups also agree on this detail.

Nobody ever said they were appropriate during a service of worship. I am talking about worship, giving God his worth, in a much wider sense; it's you who are narrowing it down by restricting it to what is done in a formal service on either a Saturday or Sunday.
That is a very narrow definition of worship. The Psalmist repeatedly says "let everything that has breath praise the Lord; shout to the Lord all the earth; praise him all his angels, praise him sun and moon." Another time someone talks of the trees clapping their hands, the heavens declaring the glory of God and shouting his praise from the skies.

You appear to be saying you never do anything secular -- if that were true then you would be correct that it is all allowed on Sabbath.

As for me - everyone I know engages in secular activity at some point

Well you clearly have a different definition of secular than I do.

sec·u·lar
(sĕk′yə-lər)
adj.
1.
a. Worldly rather than spiritual: the secular affairs of the parish.
b. Not relating to religion or to a religious body; nonreligious: secular music.
c. Not bound by the full monastic rule of a religious order. Used of clergy.
2. Relating to or advocating secularism.

secular
sec·u·lar | \ ˈse-kyə-lər \
Definition of secular
(Entry 1 of 2)

1a: of or relating to the worldly or temporalsecular concerns
b: not overtly or specifically religioussecular music
c: not ecclesiastical or clericalsecular courtssecular landowners
2: not bound by monastic vows or rulesspecifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregationa secular priest

If a Christian who bears Christ's name and is filled with his Spirit, is working as a doctor/judge/plumber/artist/teacher/shop assistant or in fact whatever God has called them to do; they are working for him. They may be in a secular, and ungodly, environment; but they are his children in that place.

Some of the things that we all do may seem not particularly to be Christian.
But you can buy groceries with a smile, being kind to the cashier, stopping to listen to someone who has a problem, and be God's child in that place at that time - or you can dash around the store, throwing everything in a trolley and complaining that you have to wait in a queue when you could be doing "Christian" work.
The latter does not glorify God.
You can clean your house while listening to Scripture, teaching or Christian music, praying for the people in your family and any who will visit your home that day - or you can whizz around doing everything half heartedly "because it's only secular work" and moaning about your kids who made such a mess. (Unless you were cleaning in a church, you might then regard that as "Christian".)
The latter does not glorify God.

 

[Strong in Him]

So then in a church service "now we would like Joe to come forward and give his testimony. oh wait I see Joe is still working on his taxes as a Christian man - well we will get back to him.

So then how about Mary - please come forward and give your testimony - oh wait I see Mary is working on a crossword puzzle and watching a tennis match as a Christian woman, we will get back to Mary

, and of course Bill is still using that leaf blower as a dedicated Christian man - just outside the door so can't ask him".

Either you're pretending that you don't understand, you're trying hard not to understand - or you really don't.