Sam Bacchiocchi vs. Dale Ratzlaff in Sabbath debate

[ricker]

LEV 24:5 "Take fine flour and bake twelve loaves of bread, using two-tenths of an ephah for each loaf. 6 Set them in two rows, six in each row, on the table of pure gold before the LORD. 7 Along each row put some pure incense as a memorial portion to represent the bread and to be an offering made to the LORD by fire. 8 This bread is to be set out before the LORD regularly, Sabbath after Sabbath, on behalf of the Israelites, as a lasting covenant. 9 It belongs to Aaron and his sons, who are to eat it in a holy place, because it is a most holy part of their regular share of the offerings made to the LORD by fire."​

The bread of the Presence was reserved for the priests alone. It was holy and shouldn't have been allowed to be used for common purposes.


For context, here is the passage that Jesus was referring to when He talked about David's eating the consecrated bread:

1SA 21:1 David went to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech trembled when he met him, and asked, "Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?"​

1SA 21:2 David answered Ahimelech the priest, "The king charged me with a certain matter and said to me, `No one is to know anything about your mission and your instructions.' As for my men, I have told them to meet me at a certain place. 3 Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you can find."​

1SA 21:4 But the priest answered David, "I don't have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread here--provided the men have kept themselves from women."​

1SA 21:5 David replied, "Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual whenever I set out. The men's things are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!" 6 So the priest gave him the consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence that had been removed from before the LORD and replaced by hot bread on the day it was taken away.​

Also, Jesus specifically said that it was unlawful for them to eat the bread:

MT 12:3 He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread--which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, `I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."​

Jesus was pretty clear in rebuking the Pharisees for following the traditions of men. I don't think He would have said that what David did was unlawful if it were only a tradition.

Thanks Sophia7! Ricker

 

[Duck]

Mark 2:23-27

Here we have the occasion of Christ and His disciples going thru the corn fields on the Sabbath where they plucked corn and ate on the Sabbath day. For one thing we know from Jewish tradition that this was allowed for those sojourneying thru the country to harvest what they needed for a meal out of anyone's field. The fact that it was on the Sabbath was where the rub came in. In Christ's response we see where in emergency situations we are allowed to make exceptions to what would be normally forbidden or at least not encouraged. Here the example of David eating the show bread in the sanctuary was not punished because he was in need of food and even on the Sabbath day we can still eat without breaking the sanctity of the day.

Christ finished with the statement that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. We are not to be under bondage to something that was created to be a blessing in the first place at creation. Does that mean we are to go about breaking the Sabbath any time we want? No not at all. We should try to plan not to desecrate the Sabbath but to have things prepared meal wise etc.

Clearly, Christ's disciples needed to eat on the Sabbath and it was not breaking it to do so. The pharasee's had made many man made laws that made the Sabbath a burden. Whereas Christ knew of it's original purpose thus saying the day was made for man not the other way around. Notice Christ never said we were not to observe the Sabbath anymore when He lived on earth.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Just kind of jumping in here and couldn't help but be caught by this bit out of #183 by Jim Larmore.
"Christ finished with the statement that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. We are not to be under bondage to something that was created to be a blessing in the first place at creation. Does that mean we are to go about breaking the Sabbath any time we want? No not at all. We should try to plan not to desecrate the Sabbath but to have things prepared meal wise etc. "

Am I to assume that this "emergency" meal came about because Jesus failed to plan ahead for His and the disciples Sabbath meal?

 

[ricker]

I hope yall don't mind if I jump in the discussion a little more...

Lets think in a more broad sense for a second... Why was there a need for a covenant in the first place? Why did God see fit to call certain people "His people"? What was the point of the old covenant? All of the answers to these questions give us clues of what the old and new are about.

Before the fall Adam and Eve were God's "people". They did not stop being His children when they sinned but it is clear from Gen 3:15 that something had to be done about sin, and God promised a way for them to return to His presence. The way to God was not destroyed with sin because Jesus made a way for us. This was prophesied by God in Gen 3:15.

Sin is the problem, God has provided a way. The covenants are God's promises to us that He will save us. Both covenants were to point people to Jesus. What was faulty with the Old Covenant? Was it God's promises? Or was it the people's promises. The only fault with the old is that the people did not do what they promised. The new is far better, Why? Because in the new what do we promise to do? Nothing, that I can see. God promises to everything in the new, all we have to do is allow God to work in us to do those things He promised.

Back again to the question of why we need God's promises.... We need them because we have sinned, and the penalty is death. This is the heart of the discussion here. We have a sin problem and God has an answer to the sin problem...

Thus the distinction between the 10 commandments and the Law of Moses. The 10 commandments were placed IN the ark, INSIDE the throne of God. The Law of Moses was placed in a different place, Why? Because it serves a different function.

The 10 commandments define righteousness, and on the converse, sin. At the core is love-- both God and Man. You break them and you are condemned under the law. Which brings us to the function of the Law of Moses and the whole sanctuary service. This was God's way of dealing with our sin problem. He devised this system to point the people to Jesus, the savior. They were to do this to deal with their problem of sin.

The new covenant does not do away with the sacrificial system. It doesn't change what the definition of sin is. It is far better because our salvation is realized in what the old pointed to Jesus. Jesus is our sacrifice, High Priest, and mediator. Jesus performs in the heavenly sanctuary what the Priest did in the earthly, for the earthly was only a copy of the heavenly, correct?

I say all of this to point out that there is a definte distinction between the ceremonial law and God's law. Sin is sin, breaking the law of God, this cannot change, for that to happen God would have to change because He is righteousness, which is what the law describes. When we sin we have to deal with it, today we have a perfect High Priest in heaven that offered His blood for our breaking of the law, in the old, the people offered a lamb with an earthly priest officiating in the ceremony both pointing to Jesus.

Briefly, in chapter 7 when it says there was of necessity a change in the law. Which law and why was there a need for a change in it?

Thanks Loveaboveall! Again I don't want to get into a big, drawn out discussion of the law. I believe by the law we are condemned before God, and driven to our Saviour's feet by the Holy Spirit. My questions have been if the Sabbath commandment is still applicable to Christians. It is not always clear to me that the ten are the laws spoken of in Hebrews that are written on our hearts. The Holy Spirit lives in untold numbers of sincere Christians without them being convicted of the keeping the Sabbath day, but by far most of them are not led by the Spirit to commit adultery or kill people. I see a difference. I have seen that discussions of the "law" go round and round with plenty of Bible texts to prove almost any assertion.
My quest is again to see if the Sabbath was a sign given to the Israelites fulfilled at the cross. I do appreciate your knowedgeable input.
God bless! Ricker

 

[ricker]

Absolutely, the new covenant is all about Christ and what He did for us. When you really study the old it is all about Christ as well. Everything about the sanctuary was about Christ and His coming death/sacrifice.



Most of my old baptist friends just use the old excuse that Jesus was resurrected on the first day of the week. Not too many go to the lengths of study as you do. That is why I have a lot of hope for you brother. I studied my way into the Sabbath and you can too. You have already shown you are willing to accept the truth as it is given in the Bible. We just need to work a few more kinks out .



I agree I think that is the case. We adventist's use the Sabbath as a sign of the seal of God as well. I'm not sure this is actually appropriate yet at this point, I am convince it's part of it but it's not the seal of God itself. Anyway, that is a topic for a latter discussion. I hope you enjoy the time you spend with your son's. Be careful out there hunting. There's a lot of nut cases these day's running around with guns in the woods. I no longer kill deer because I have nearly totally given up meat eating but If I did eat meat it would be either fish or venison.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Thanks Jim! I know the covenants are related to one another. I'm not a scholar on the covenants by any means. I do know that there were some things asked of some people that were not asked of us now. I do know God is the same today and yesterday, we just have to sort out what He asks of us today and what has been fulfilled.
God bless! Ricker

 

[Jimlarmore]

Thanks Jim! I know the covenants are related to one another. I'm not a scholar on the covenants by any means. I do know that there were some things asked of some people that were not asked of us now. I do know God is the same today and yesterday, we just have to sort out what He asks of us today and what has been fulfilled.
God bless! Ricker

I think the bottom line is this. Either all of the ten commandments are valid and applicable for us today or none of them are. We can't go about picking and choosing which ones we like to keep or obey because of the traditions of man. I think there are and will be a host of folks who will be led to obey the sanctity of the Sabbath now and in the very near future. Nearly all of the ten commandments are tied into man made laws and hold criminal labels on them. For instance beleive it or not it is a crime to comit adultery in some states, you can be fined or jailed for lying under oath. It's certainly a crime to murder or steal. Even the Sunday sabbath has laws called "blue Laws" in some states. The 7th day Sabbath has no such laws in this country that I know of.

My implication for this is this: most of the ten comandments that have to do with man are also laws of the land, but the Sabbath has to do with God and a relationship with Him. Many don't even know about the 7th day Sabbath but again that will change in the near future.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[freeindeed2]

I think the bottom line is this. Either all of the ten commandments are valid and applicable for us today or none of them are. We can't go about picking and choosing which ones we like to keep or obey because of the traditions of man. I think there are and will be a host of folks who will be led to obey the sanctity of the Sabbath now and in the very near future. Nearly all of the ten commandments are tied into man made laws and hold criminal labels on them. For instance beleive it or not it is a crime to comit adultery in some states, you can be fined or jailed for lying under oath. It's certainly a crime to murder or steal. Even the Sunday sabbath has laws called "blue Laws" in some states. The 7th day Sabbath has no such laws in this country that I know of.

My implication for this is this: most of the ten comandments that have to do with man are also laws of the land, but the Sabbath has to do with God and a relationship with Him. Many don't even know about the 7th day Sabbath but again that will change in the near future.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Either the entire law (all of it!) stands and is binding on Israel today, or NONE of it is. It's either fulfilled or it isn't. There's no middle ground through the dissecting of the law. The only picking and choosing being done is from those who want to separate the 10 from the rest along with Levitical tithing laws and some food laws, and maybe a few others.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Either the entire law (all of it!) stands and is binding on Israel today, or NONE of it is. It's either fulfilled or it isn't. There's no middle ground through the dissecting of the law. The only picking and choosing being done is from those who want to separate the 10 from the rest along with Levitical tithing laws and some food laws, and maybe a few others.

I believe based on what I read in the Bible that new covenant Christians are spiritual Israel. Israel is not lost thru out the scriptures clear to the end of time. Even the new city is called the new Jerusalem. Those who accept the new covenant become Abraham's seed and ere of the promise. That makes them spiritual Israel.

Since the literal nation of Israel was rejected shortly after Christ ascended to heaven the gentiles became and are becoming spiritual Israel. We ,God's remnant, are spiritual Israel. That does not mean that a jew cannot become part of this spiritual Israel.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[freeindeed2]

I believe based on what I read in the Bible that new covenant Christians are spiritual Israel. Israel is not lost thru out the scriptures clear to the end of time. Even the new city is called the new Jerusalem. Those who accept the new covenant become Abraham's seed and ere of the promise. That makes them spiritual Israel.

Since the literal nation of Israel was rejected shortly after Christ ascended to heaven the gentiles became and are becoming spiritual Israel. We ,God's remnant, are spiritual Israel. That does not mean that a jew cannot become part of this spiritual Israel.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

There is nether Jew or Gentile...

Then you're obligated to keep the entire law as not 'jot or tittle' will disappear from the law until all is fulfilled. Since heaven and earth are still here, then by your interpretation, NOTHING could possibly have disappeared from the law.

 

[Jimlarmore]

There is nether Jew or Gentile...

Then you're obligated to keep the entire law as not 'jot or tittle' will disappear from the law until all is fulfilled. Since heaven and earth are still here, then by your interpretation, NOTHING could possibly have disappeared from the law.

A correct interpretation of the Bible makes it clear that the "laws" that were fulfilled were the ceremonial laws that were a shadow pointing to Christ. There was absolutely nothing about the ten commandments that were "fulfilled" at the cross. The clear distinctions made between the two laws is very clear in the OT. One contained curses and ceremonial ordinances, said to be against the people and was placed in a temporaty place on the side of the ark. The other was called the Law of God and was placed inside the ark right under the mercy seat of God. This was significant and represented permanence.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[freeindeed2]

A correct interpretation of the Bible makes it clear that the "laws" that were fulfilled were the ceremonial laws that were a shadow pointing to Christ.

A distinction that the Bible does not make. The 'law' was ALL of it, including the prophets and the Psalms. Some break it apart into sub-sections, some just to understand it better, others to meet an agenda.

There was absolutely nothing about the ten commandments that were "fulfilled" at the cross.

Don't miss Jesus who came to fulfill the law, a clear reference to the whole law, in Matt. 5. And you're still not addressing the 'jot and tittle' issue.

The clear distinctions made between the two laws is very clear in the OT. One contained curses and ceremonial ordinances, said to be against the people and was placed in a temporaty place on the side of the ark. The other was called the Law of God and was placed inside the ark right under the mercy seat of God. This was significant and represented permanence.

Yes, the covenant that was placed IN the ark of the COVENANT! Seems quite clear to me as well.

 

[Jimlarmore]

A distinction that the Bible does not make. The 'law' was ALL of it, including the prophets and the Psalms. Some break it apart into sub-sections, some just to understand it better, others to meet an agenda.


Don't miss Jesus who came to fulfill the law, a clear reference to the whole law, in Matt. 5. And you're still not addressing the 'jot and tittle' issue.


Yes, the covenant that was placed IN the ark of the COVENANT! Seems quite clear to me as well.

The wording in the Bible like we see in Col 2:14 makes it very clear what law Paul is speaking of. The issue becomes very clear when it is thoughly researched. When the 7th day Sabbath is being referred to the Bible nearly always says " the Lords day" or "God's holy day". When ceremonial sabbaths are being referred to the Bible usually says something like "your day/s". The reason for this is these days were added because of sin and pointed to the sin bearer which is Christ. The Sabbath was instituted before sin ever came into the world.

The jot and tiddle issue? Well think it's clear that there is nothing fulfilled in the ten commandments so they are still very much in effect. The Lord says until they are all fulfilled . The only part of God's laws that have been fulfilled are those that pointed to His sacrifice on the cross.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[freeindeed2]

The wording in the Bible like we see in Col 2:14 makes it very clear what law Paul is speaking of. The issue becomes very clear when it is thoughly researched. When the 7th day Sabbath is being referred to the Bible nearly always says " the Lords day" or "God's holy day". When ceremonial sabbaths are being referred to the Bible usually says something like "your day/s". The reason for this is these days were added because of sin and pointed to the sin bearer which is Christ. The Sabbath was instituted before sin ever came into the world.

The jot and tiddle issue? Well think it's clear that there is nothing fulfilled in the ten commandments so they are still very much in effect. The Lord says until they are all fulfilled . The only part of God's laws that have been fulfilled are those that pointed to His sacrifice on the cross.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

To your opinion, you are entitled.

 

[Duck]

Interesting thoughts. It would seem that if we, Christians, have become "Spiritual Isreal" then we should be under a "Spiritual Law" . As in looking at Jerusalem and New Jerusalem, it may still be Jerusalem but the New Jerusalem certainly would emcompass more. First off we would have to ask, "The Jerusalem of what time period?" Or, would we expect to see wall fragments and ruins of all the past Jerusalems? Maybe this New or Spiritual Jerusalem is really something New.

 

[Loveaboveall]

Interesting thoughts. It would seem that if we, Christians, have become "Spiritual Isreal" then we should be under a "Spiritual Law" . As in looking at Jerusalem and New Jerusalem, it may still be Jerusalem but the New Jerusalem certainly would emcompass more. First off we would have to ask, "The Jerusalem of what time period?" Or, would we expect to see wall fragments and ruins of all the past Jerusalems? Maybe this New or Spiritual Jerusalem is really something New.

Has not God's law always been spiritual? If not for the hardness of our hearts God would never have needed to write it on stone.

 

[ricker]

Either the entire law (all of it!) stands and is binding on Israel today, or NONE of it is. It's either fulfilled or it isn't. There's no middle ground through the dissecting of the law. The only picking and choosing being done is from those who want to separate the 10 from the rest along with Levitical tithing laws and some food laws, and maybe a few others.

Hi Freeindeed! Let me quote something from Exodus 34:

15 "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.

17 "Do not make cast idols.
18 "Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in that month you came out of Egypt.
19 "The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.
"No one is to appear before me empty-handed.
21 "Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest. 22 "Celebrate the Feast of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year. 23 Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD, the God of Israel. 24 I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the LORD your God.

I always thought this passage seems to put all law on the same level. It puts of "ceremonial" and "moral" laws together just as Jesus did in Mark 2.
Anyway, thanks and God bless! Ricker

 

[freeindeed2]

Hi Freeindeed! Let me quote something from Exodus 34:


I always thought this passage seems to put all law on the same level. It puts of "ceremonial" and "moral" laws together just as Jesus did in Mark 2.
Anyway, thanks and God bless! Ricker

Exactly the point. All of it was 'THE LAW'. In talking with a few Jewish Rabbi's over the years, they include the whole law, the prophet's writings, and the Psalms as well in 'THE LAW'. Some have certainly broken it down into different 'kinds' of laws, but they still saw it as a 'WHOLE', together. It was 'THE LAW'.

 

[ricker]

Exactly the point. All of it was 'THE LAW'. In talking with a few Jewish Rabbi's over the years, they include the whole law, the prophet's writings, and the Psalms as well in 'THE LAW'. Some have certainly broken it down into different 'kinds' of laws, but they still saw it as a 'WHOLE', together. It was 'THE LAW'.

Could you tell me if there is a difference between God's law and the law of Moses? When it is called different things does it indicate a difference in the laws? If they are different, how do we know which one is being referenced to in any particular text when it says "law"? I was just wondering........
Thanks and God bless! Ricker

 

[Sophia7]

Could you tell me if there is a difference between God's law and the law of Moses? When it is called different things does it indicate a difference in the laws? If they are different, how do we know which one is being referenced to in any particular text when it says "law"? I was just wondering........
Thanks and God bless! Ricker

Last I checked, God gave the law of Moses.

 

[Jimlarmore]

There were clear distinctions made between the hand writing of ordinances that Moses wrote and the commandments of God written on stone by His finger. As I said earlier one was written on stone and placed inside the ark while the other was placed outside the ark. One contained curses and was said to be against the people. The other didn't contain curses or was said to be against the people. All of them made up the torah or what was called the "law" but we find the commandments of God spoken of clear to the very end of time just before He comes back so the idea that they were somehow done away with at the cross is not Biblical.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Duck]

You know this whole 10 Cs, Laws and Sabbath debate would be nonexistent if it were not for an interpetation of strung together Bible texts that claim the whole outcome of good and evil will come down to a day and then the claim by those with the "right" day will be vindicated and blessed while the goats on the left " will go away to eternal punishment".

Now I would propose a solution: Consider what Jesus said the "sheep" will actually be rewarded for, put down the law and working together to take on poverty. Take on the lost and the homeless. Step into the world around you and work for goodness. I would suggest that in the parable Jesus told in Matthew 25:31-46 you won't even find a hint of the Sabbath. Tht does not say there is no value in the Sabbath but in at least this story it is a nonplayer. Neither is the bulk of the law. Jesus summed up the Law by quoting the Law(Torah). Love for God and love for man. Then repeatedly though out His ministry showed that to love God is shown and lived through love for those around us.