# Sabbath breaking occupations



## steadfast7 (Aug 4, 2011)

Is it ok to be employed in a job that requires you to work on Sundays? What is the criteria for saying yes/no?
Here's a list off the top of my head:

- soldiers
- on-call professions: doctors, nurses, vets.
- security guards, police, firefighters, EMS, dispatchers etc.

I think the argument would be that these are "necessary" occupations, but what about a guy who needs to feed his family with the first available job he can find?


----------



## BertMulder (Aug 4, 2011)

the Synod of Dordt defined necessary sunday work as works of mercy, and those of 'present necessity'. For someone to work on sunday to feed his family, he should consider his trust in the Lord's providential care, and also that the care through the diaconate is, in the sense of God's providential care, equal to earning your bread in the sweat of your face.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 4, 2011)

There's anything wrong with any of the above professions. It's not Sabbath breaking to perform works of necessity and mercy. But I think those entering those professions who have convictions about the Lord's Day should count the cost beforehand. It's not a sin, but some may not want to have to make that kind of trade-off when it comes to regularly missing out on the means of grace, even if they are performing much needed acts of mercy and necessity. It may limit what ministry one can be involved in and can limit fellowship with the brethren. Some get into medicine and related professions because there's often a lot of money to be made. Others see it as a profession to which they are called. 

A few years ago I belonged to a Presbyterian congregation in which one of the ruling elders is a doctor who had a lot of responsibility at a local hospital. I can't recall exactly what his position was, but he may have been the chief of staff. It wasn't uncommon for him to have to leave in the middle of worship, sometimes to return a call and others to have to leave altogether. Other times, he wasn't able to attend at all. As I recall it, there was one stretch in which he wasn't able to attend for several weeks. He is a spiritually minded man who evidently applied himself in studying the Word and other substantial theological works and could have taught a lot more if he had the time. Another elder in that congregation is also a doctor, but he is in private practice and seldom if ever had to be away. 

The kind of jobs you seem to be asking about would include retail, working in a restaurant or some other work that cannot reasonably be said to be related to mercy or necessity. 

Some will say that a man should take a job if he needs to and be looking for one that allows him to be off Sundays. (I've heard elders who strongly emphasize Sabbath observance say this is permissible if it is absolutely necessary.) Others will say it shouldn't be done (if it isn't the kind of profession you listed) and that the church should support the family until he can find a job that doesn't require work on the Lord's Day.

To add another wrinkle, I've been in a situation before in which a retail store had been closed on Sun. for a decade or more, ever since it opened its doors. But the owners decided to open on the Lord's Day right after I began working there, even though it had been strongly emphasized in the interview just a week or two before that they were closed on the Lord's Day.


----------



## steadfast7 (Aug 5, 2011)

I find it difficult to define "necessity." Most of us think of the immediate necessity of life-threatening injury or the spiritual work of a pastor. But consider the down and out person struggling to find work in this declining economy. Sometimes a security guard post is the best he can get. I think it's spiritualizing to insist that he simply "trust God to provide."

By the way does anyone on the PB go out for lunch after Sunday service? Isn't this causing restaurant staff to work on Sundays?


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 5, 2011)

If your beast of burden falls into a ditch on a Sunday, you can pull it out. 

If your kids have no bread and are in danger of starvation or severity, this seems more dire than a donkey or ox in a ditch. Praise God for the provision of work. And then, when the severity passes, look for a better job.

Dennis, when I am travelling great distances on Sunday, I often feel it is "necessary" to buy gas, lodging and food and my conscience is not troubled. If I can help it, however, it is good to travel on another day.


----------



## steadfast7 (Aug 5, 2011)

Joshua said:


> So he keeps looking until he finds something. He confers with his elders and tells them his situation. He uses lawful means to gain sustenance. We never do evil (i.e. break the sabbath) so that good may come.


 Would the Lord judge him if he employed wisdom, considered his options, used ordinary means of reason and counsel, and then decided to care for his family by taking the job? 

What about our fellow military personnel? They are taking jobs knowing that there will be many occasions that their services are required on a Sunday. Is there something impious about signing up with this knowledge in hand?


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 5, 2011)

Jesus and his disciples picked grain on the Sabbath. If they were really diligent in safeguarding the Sabbath, why didn't they just fast altogether and totally do without food until the end of the Sabbath? After all, Jesus did fast much longer than merely one day prior to this point.

Also, I am both a nurse and was also in the military. It seemed to me that both professions were highly honorable and needful and I would count it pretty silly if someone, in the name of being punctilious in the keeping of the letter of the law, would criticize such vocational choices.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 5, 2011)

Joshua,

Don't worry brother, you are not my target.

I just want to make sure any definition of "necessity" is not so lax as to allow one to define it as "anything that causes a minor inconvenience" nor so strict that one must always define "necessity" as "extreme severity or life-threatening hardship." 

I know many Third World Christians who work on Sundays due to extreme poverty and I do not fault them at all, for not working means little or no food on the table.


----------



## steadfast7 (Aug 5, 2011)

Also, life in many muslim countries means working on Sunday, as it's just another working day of the week. Josh, you're right, the scenarios are many and should be death with case by case, but the situations are not so simple such that only the immediate necessities are included. There are necessities that run over the course of many months and years. Employment to feed your family is certainly one of them.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 5, 2011)

This topic has been thoroughly discussed on previous threads. You may find helpful an advanced search (upper right) of previous discussions.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/keeping-sabbath-going-restaurants-16813/

One example of "necessity" is that the work itself is necessary _to be done at that time._ It's not about the convenience of the one who would do the work.

Examples: A doctor who must operate on a patient that day or the patient might die- that is necessity in terms of work on the sabbath.

A sales clerk who must work on Sunday or he will be demoted is an example of convenience. The work itself is not necessary on that day.

But remember, Dennis, one does not prove a rule by concentrating on finding exceptions.

God commands all His creatures to cease from their ordinary labors and recreations (sabbath) and to prioritize His worship, all day, one day in seven until the end of this world.

Few things will reflect your commitment to obeying God, your own sin, and the delight of God's favor in obedience as the sabbath/Lord's Day because it is so visible, and constant.


----------



## steadfast7 (Aug 5, 2011)

I think we need to understand our privileged economic position when answering this question. While it may be inconvenient for most of us to struggle finding a decent job, or losing one's job, for many others (the majority of people in the world), it is much more than inconvenience, it is utter despair. Coming out of India and now into Malaysia, I realize how privileged the average Malaysian is compared to Indian, where I used to think Malaysians as underprivileged when I lived in Canada.

For many people, if they do not find some kind of work, they will starve. Simple demotion is hardly an option in the developing world. Therefore, I could argue that finding and maintaining a job, _any job_, is a necessity for most people in the world.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 5, 2011)

You are in Malaysia now?


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 5, 2011)

Joshua,

I think you over-spoke in your last post. 

You seem to charge some with disparaging God's law to avoid inconvenience, whereas I believe that you do not fully grasp that many in Dennis' context are in a very poor state. We are not talking of "convenience" here, but of health and necessity. I have never gone 24 hours without a meal and it is easy to charge, or appear to charge, God's saints with a lax attitude towards his law while we sit full and comfortable. 

But I would propose that if we are not careful, we could do the same with Jesus and his disciples who, not wanting to experience a little bit of trifling hunger, picked some grains from a field in order to assuage their hunger when, if they were really devout, they could have inconvenienced themselves by choosing to fast rather than even give the appearance of working on the Sabbath. After all, it is better to suffer the greatest affliction rather than commit the least of sins and the Scripture tells us to abstain from all appearance of evil.

I believe that, due to Jesus' example, our definition of "necessity" versus mere "convenience" ought to allow a little more leeway than many will allow.


----------



## steadfast7 (Aug 5, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> You are in Malaysia now?


 Yup, 6 month visa in India is up. Dalam Malaysia sekarang..


----------



## deleteduser99 (Aug 5, 2011)

*Spurgeon and Sunday employees*

Dr. Peter Masters is full sabbatarian, though as for Sunday employees in the strain of necessity, he comments this on the history of the Metropolitan--and I have to say, it moves me because it was in part Spurgeon's straightforwardness on the issue of the Sabbath that persuaded me to embrace it:



> In Spurgeon’s day many members of his congregation worked as servants in large Victorian households, and could worship only at one service each week and often less frequently. To leave their work would have left them without references to other employers (a necessity in those days) and destitute. Many of the 600 young women in Mrs Bartlett’s famous Bible Class were maids who could attend only once in every two or three weeks. Today we know of men who are working long shifts in security jobs, and we know how much they would love to be free throughout the Lord's Day, but cannot be. The churches of Jesus Christ support rather than alienate those whose faith must be lived out in difficult circumstances.
> 
> Once in a while a person in normal weekday employment is required to work on Sunday, such as for annual stock taking or audit preparation, and there is no way out. We understand that, especially if that person would be fired if not at work.



Remember the Lord's Day - Is there a


----------



## satz (Aug 5, 2011)

Scott1 said:


> This topic has been thoroughly discussed on previous threads. You may find helpful an advanced search (upper right) of previous discussions.
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/keeping-sabbath-going-restaurants-16813/
> 
> ...



Scott,

How do you get this definition of necessity from the bible?

As Pergamum noted in his post, Jesus' disciples picked grain on the Sabbath just because they were hungry (Matt 12:1). There was no issue of anyone being in danger, and the disciples could surely have simply endured their hunger or waited until they reached a place with prepared food.

If the disciples could pick grain on the Sabbath just because they were hungry, why can't a person work on the Sabbath (assuming its not every Sunday) in order to keep his job (regardless or what type of job it is)?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 5, 2011)

Joshua said:


> I deny that what Jesus and His disciples did was sabbath-breaking. In fact, it's clear that it was a work of necessity/mercy.



You're right, Jesus and His disciples no more broke the Law than did David (who Jesus refered to as a precedent to underscore his critics' hypocrisy). And again, you're right that it was a work of necessity/mercy. 

But I think you're wrong in saying that the comparison doesn't stand. 

The Pharisees thought it wasn't necessary. Yet Jesus deemed that it was. 
Jesus' disciples doing the work of picking some grain to eat could be construed (by some) as a violation of the 4th commandment. Yet it wasn't. Even though there is absolutely no indication that their lives were not in danger from starvation. Pergy is right in that according to one train of thought these men could have merely fasted the day rather than pick grain on the Sabbath. I think the point is that this biblical example indicates that the bar of acceptability for something to be deemed "necessary" should be lower than "immediate and direct threat to life or limb."


----------



## steadfast7 (Aug 5, 2011)

Harley said:


> Dr. Peter Masters is full sabbatarian, though as for Sunday employees in the strain of necessity, he comments this on the history of the Metropolitan--and I have to say, it moves me because it was in part Spurgeon's straightforwardness on the issue of the Sabbath that persuaded me to embrace it:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Thanks Harley. Help me to further understand: as a result of this sympathetic view of those who have to work on Sundays, you embrace the Sabbatarian position?


----------



## deleteduser99 (Aug 5, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> Harley said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Peter Masters is full sabbatarian, though as for Sunday employees in the strain of necessity, he comments this on the history of the Metropolitan--and I have to say, it moves me because it was in part Spurgeon's straightforwardness on the issue of the Sabbath that persuaded me to embrace it:
> ...



I'd be lying if I thought I was a great light to consult on the matter, as I haven't been a Christian very long and still haven't worked out all the issues for myself, which is why for this I deferred to Masters and Spurgeon (who is perhaps one of my top three favorites), though what I meant by straightforwardness was Spurgeon's uncompromising position on the issue--no work, no needless recreation, still in effect today as it was in creation. Perhaps it struck me at the time, "How could such a godly man be such a judaizer [hint of irony]?" I hadn't heard this at the time, the quote I gave in my post. I stumbled on this perhaps six months ago, and I embraced sabbatarianism over a year ago.

Though at the bottom line in this post, Spurgeon obviously saw those things as being an element of necessity, and Dr. Masters seems to hold the same, though knowing Spurgeon, and reading the rest of the article by Dr. Masters, neither would think it excusable if it were an element of necessity.

If anyone is interested in a good Sabbatarian case study on liberty of conscience vs. necessity, try "The Case of Mr. Robertson" from the Sword and the Trowel.


----------



## Matthew Tringali (Aug 5, 2011)

I have thought a lot about this topic over the years and have admittedly waffled back and forth between a fairly strict Sabbatarian and somewhat more loose (although probably strict by most Xn standards) Sabbatarian.

A few points... As for me and my house we personally remain fairly strict in what we allow ourselves to do. I am in a profession where nearly all of my counter-parts work on Sundays, but I do not and make that clear to all of my clients. To date, I think I have only ever lost one client because of that fact, all others are very understanding. In our household we do not do chores on Sunday. We make sure the dishes are clean, laundry is done and house cleaned on Saturday so we can enjoy our Sabbath. Our kids are just now entering the extra-curricular activity age, but we won't be doing sporting events on Sundays. All of that much is easy for me.

Where it becomes more difficult is in other actions I choose to take that may cause more people to work on the Sabbath. The most obvious and direct one is eating out. At a certain point in the past I was very convicted to not eat out on the Sabbath for obvious reasons already hashed out well on the PB. However, why stop there? My rationale went something like this...

Is it ALWAYS breaking the Sabbath to eat out on the Sabbath? What if I am travelling on a Sunday, by necessity, and am in need of food that could not have been planned ahead of time. This is by no means a far stretch to imagine this happening on a very regular basis. A more significant example might be what if I am travelling on a Sunday and am in need of gasoline? Is fuel for my car so much different than fuel for my body? Can I not pull a trailer with extra gallons of gasoline in tow to fill up when I need it, if travelling on a Sunday, so as to keep the as station attendant from working on the Sabbath? Would anyone propose such a thing? Certainly lodging should be open, right? I began to group at least these things together in my mind, food, lodging and gasoline. But, then my mind wandered farther from there... What about television programming, newspapers, radio, etc...? Would any of these at least in part fall under the necessity or mercy provisions? I began to realize something very quickly... This train of thought only leads to one place: Pharisaical thought. Is this not precisely the problem with strict Jewish observance of the Sabbath, even to the extent of not driving, disconnecting power from the house, etc, etc... Clearly they are the most and only true consistent example of strict Sabbatarian observance. They put all good Presbyterians to shame!!! So, at this point, I concluded that, without question, lest I become a Jew, I am making judgment calls on every single small action I take on the Sabbath. (Of course, this doesn't even get into the question of whether or not the Sabbath is sundown to sundown or midnight to midnight.) So, once I realize we are all making subjective judgment calls, I decided to give myself more freedom.

I do go out to eat from time to time, although rare. I fully embrace the paradox. And yet, I think we all make paradoxical judgment calls on the Sabbath every single Sunday, lest you become a strict Jew. I am certainly open to being convinced otherwise though.

---------- Post added at 01:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 PM ----------

Also, where do the strict Sabbatarians draw the line with sports. Obviously you can't watch or even be a fan of the NFL or fantasy football, etc... And not watch any other sporting events on Sundays (golf, tennis, basketball - college or pro, NASCAR, etc...)... But, can you even be a fan of or support a sport or team that plays on Sundays even if you choose to not watch or attend the particular games played on Sundays? And, same question for the restaurants, I suppose. Is not eating on Sunday sufficient protest enough for their sin? Or would you ever choose to not support a business that employs people to work on Sundays ever, even if your specific solicitation is coming on a day other than Sunday? What if it is more complicated that a direct day upon which you make contact with the business. What if you buy something that you know was produced or delivered at least in part on a Sunday, even if you only purchased the product on another day of the week?


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 5, 2011)

satz said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > This topic has been thoroughly discussed on previous threads. You may find helpful an advanced search (upper right) of previous discussions.
> ...



We are not commanded to fast all day, every sabbath.

We are commanded explicitly, implicitly, and by creation ordinance to cease (sabbath) from our ordinary labor. Remember, the command is to work six days, sabbath one, making it "holy" by prioritizing the worship of God, all day, in a way that is not ordinarily possible the other six days.



> Exodus 20
> 
> 8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.




---------- Post added at 02:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:26 PM ----------




Matthew Tringali said:


> Is it ALWAYS breaking the Sabbath to eat out on the Sabbath? What if I am travelling on a Sunday, by necessity, and am in need of food that could not have been planned ahead of time. This is by no means a far stretch to imagine this happening on a very regular basis. A more significant example might be what if I am travelling on a Sunday and am in need of gasoline? Is fuel for my car so much different than fuel for my body? Can I not pull a trailer with extra gallons of gasoline in tow to fill up when I need it, if travelling on a Sunday, so as to keep the as station attendant from working on the Sabbath? Would anyone propose such a thing? Certainly lodging should be open, right? I began to group at least these things together in my mind, food, lodging and gasoline. But, then my mind wandered farther from there... What about television programming, newspapers, radio, etc...? Would any of these at least in part fall under the necessity or mercy provisions? I began to realize something very quickly... This train of thought only leads to one place: Pharisaical thought. Is this not precisely the problem with strict Jewish observance of the Sabbath, even to the extent of not driving, disconnecting power from the house, etc, etc... Clearly they are the most and only true consistent example of strict Sabbatarian observance. They put all good Presbyterians to shame!!! So, at this point, I concluded that, without question, lest I become a Jew, I am making judgment calls on every single small action I take on the Sabbath. (Of course, this doesn't even get into the question of whether or not the Sabbath is sundown to sundown or midnight to midnight.) So, once I realize we are all making subjective judgment calls, I decided to give myself more freedom.



All good questions, Matthew.

There have been thoroughgoing discussions of some of these points of earlier threads (see link in earlier post).


Basically, the summary of the doctrine of Scripture:



> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Chapter XXI
> Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day
> ...



Paragraph VII shows how the sabbath regulates our lives, VIII summarizes its observance.

As one who used to eat out in restaurants routinely on the Lord's Day (sabbath), I became convicted of the truth of having to make people earn their living (labor) for my convenience. Now, by God's grace, I let them rest and don't demand their work on Sunday. 

This has turned out to be a blessing in many ways, including more rest time at home, less spending, inviting over needy people and visitors for a home meal on the Lord's Day. But the perceived benefit is never the motive for obedience-

A holy God commands His people rest, break their ordinary pattern of pursuit of money and entertaining themselves. His creatures disobey at their own peril, and not without consequence.

But I have to say, imperfectly as we try to obey, the sabbath is indeed a first order benefit, and a delight.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 5, 2011)

SolaScriptura said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > I deny that what Jesus and His disciples did was sabbath-breaking. In fact, it's clear that it was a work of necessity/mercy.
> ...



I think Jesus was merely restoring the Sabbath to the way it should be kept as against the many Pharisaical rules and legalisms. Gathering a few berries on the way home from Church or sucking on a sweetie aren't Sabbath-breaking.

We don't read that Jesus and his disciples went to a shop or tavern on the Sabbath because that would be employing and encouraging people in their regular, unecessary work. We'd want to avoid that as much as possible, unless there was no other possibility.

The Pharisees had detailed rules rather than broad principles by which they overthrew the Sabbath. When we study them we see what legalism really is, and realise that the most zealous Christian Sabbatarian doesn't come near.

Activities prohibited on Shabbat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 5, 2011)

With regard to the disciples plucking grain on the sabbath and not being condemned by Christ.

This related to civil law, given Israel (expired now with the nation, except insofar as the general equity thereof requires), a provision for the unique Old Testament theocracy, Leviticus 23:6.

If you really study this through, I think what Jesus was saying is that the disciples were not (even) violating that law related to plucking grain at certain times. The Pharisees even misunderstood, misapplied that law both in light of its timing and the Lord fulfilling an aspect of the grain being "waived before the Lord." 

And they tried to bind men's consciences with something not in the Word of God.

Nor was it a case of Jesus excusing the sin of King David (who ate the showbread in the Temple), for clearly David sinned.

Our Lord contrast that the Pharisees would justify the (clear) lawbreaking of King David on one hand, but then misapply that law in another context- in this case toward what the disciples were doing.

But the disciples were not even sinning under the Levitical law (which does not apply to believers today anyway)!

Now understand, there were many sabbath related laws in the Levital law, for example concerning offerings. Those have expired for all as a standard of righteousness.

It's not a case of our Lord setting aside the rest aspect of sabbath because we spiritually (only) "rest" in Him, or everything is somehow fulfilled in a generic "love" of God (however that might be defined).

But the underlying sabbath, the Lord's Day, the Christian sabbath in the New Testament applies to all men, in all generations- always has, and will until the end of this world.


----------



## ADKing (Aug 5, 2011)

Since Spurgeon was brought up, I can't help but throw in one of my favorite quotes from him on this topic. I heartily concur with his sentiments, for what it's worth. 

_There are some persons who have been in the habit of carrying on their trade on the Sabbath. But when they have become Christ's disciples, they have shut up their shops on that day, and people have said to them 'You will be ruined. You will never get a living. You know, we must live.' I have often heard that last little sentence, but I do not believe it. I do not see any necessity for us to live. There is a necessity for us to be true to Christ, but not for us to continue to live. It is a great deal better that we should die than that we should do a wrong thing. And we should be prepared at any time to say 'If need be, we will let our trade go, and we will be poor, but we will keep a clear conscience'_ (from 2200 Quotations From the Writings of Charles H Spurgeon). 



Harley said:


> Dr. Peter Masters is full sabbatarian, though as for Sunday employees in the strain of necessity, he comments this on the history of the Metropolitan--and I have to say, it moves me because it was in part Spurgeon's straightforwardness on the issue of the Sabbath that persuaded me to embrace it:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 5, 2011)

Joshua said:


> I deny that what Jesus and His disciples did was sabbath-breaking. In fact, it's clear that it was a work of necessity/mercy. Ergo, the comparison does not stand. I also noted in the last paragraph a need to work through the discussion of the examples and circumstances given. My ultimate point is that we have a duty to work through these things and not just accept them as _status quo_, never seeking to reform and make things better.
> 
> Argh!!!! I broke my word in saying I would post no more. Sorry. No more.



And I deny that working on Sunday due to necessity is Sabbath-breaking.

That is my whole point.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 7, 2011)

comments below



steadfast7 said:


> I think we need to understand our privileged economic position when answering this question. While it may be inconvenient for most of us to struggle finding a decent job, or losing one's job, for many others (the majority of people in the world), it is much more than inconvenience, it is utter despair. Coming out of India and now into Malaysia, I realize how privileged the average Malaysian is compared to Indian, where I used to think Malaysians as underprivileged when I lived in Canada.
> 
> I'm understanding your point to be that standard of living is relative to their economy. But, I'm not sure what that has to do with the underlying point- all creatures are commanded to "sabbath" in whatever culture, whatever standard of living they are in. It's not less applicable to someone with humble means than someone with abundant means.
> 
> ...


----------



## satz (Aug 7, 2011)

Scott1 said:


> We are not commanded to fast all day, every sabbath.
> 
> We are commanded explicitly, implicitly, and by creation ordinance to cease (sabbath) from our ordinary labor. Remember, the command is to work six days, sabbath one, making it "holy" by prioritizing the worship of God, all day, in a way that is not ordinarily possible the other six days.



Scott,

Sorry for taking a long time to reply.

I didn't say that we were commanded to fast every Sabbath, but based on your reasoning that it is better to lose a job than work on the Sabbath, wouldn't it follow that Jesus' disciples were wrong to pick grain on the Sabbath _because they were hungry_?

Again, where do you get the definition of necessity as "whether the labor itself is necessary to be done at that time"?

Jesus allowed his disciples to eat when they were hungry, when he could have asked them to endure and fast if definition of necessity was really so strict that life had to be at stake before it applied.

He healed people from non-urgent medical conditions on the Sabbath instead of waiting for the next day and spoke of people getting their ox out of a ditch or leading their ox to water on the Sabbath.

While God was serious about the Sabbath (as indicated by the stoning to death of the man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath in the OT) the bible references we have do not show that a work of necessity is defined so strictly that a life must be at stake, as you are saying. To protect one's livelihood seems just as valid a work of necessity, given the biblical examples we have.


----------



## Mushroom (Aug 7, 2011)

Scott1 said:


> By the logic you present, if someone's job is working in the poppy field, they must do it, because they need a "job" (let alone they must do it on Sunday).


Huh? Didn't realize that working in a poppy field was prohibited by God's law. Where it is by man's law one could make a case for its sinfulness, but there are plenty of legal poppy fields wherein a christian could labor 6 days a week and not be in sin.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 7, 2011)

comments below.



satz said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > We are not commanded to fast all day, every sabbath.
> ...




---------- Post added at 09:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:30 PM ----------




Brad said:


> Huh? Didn't realize that working in a poppy field was prohibited by God's law. Where it is by man's law one could make a case for its sinfulness, but there are plenty of legal poppy fields



Yes, Brad you are correct. 

Poppy seeds are tasty on bagels and other foods.

The context here, though was intended, "poppy fields" heroine producing drug fields, rampant in certain parts of the world. The point being the end of earning money does not trump the need to obey the fourth commandment.


----------



## ZackF (Aug 24, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> I find it difficult to define "necessity." Most of us think of the immediate necessity of life-threatening injury or the spiritual work of a pastor. But consider the down and out person struggling to find work in this declining economy. Sometimes a security guard post is the best he can get. I think it's spiritualizing to insist that he simply "trust God to provide."
> 
> By the way does anyone on the PB go out for lunch after Sunday service? Isn't this causing restaurant staff to work on Sundays?



I've eaten out Sunday's after lunch. My point here though is the dangerous task picking and choosing of occupations and rating them spiritually. A recipe for judgementalism if there ever is one. For example a family doctor is given "mercy" provision but an assistant manager of a big box retail store _providing_ for his family is not? Likewise does a policeman get a dispensation but not a security guard? Hotel workers? Surely some of the Puritan WCF drafters were or knew godly inn keepers that didn't throw their traveling patrons out on Sundays!


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 24, 2011)

Healing a cripple is not a necessity, especially when that person has been crippled for many years already (can't it wait until Monday, after all)?

Jesus, who fasted 40 days and 40 nights, could have given up food for a single day, yet did not, instead picking grains.

Are we to count a farmer un-dedicated since he counts his livestock more important than the sabbath if one falls into a ditch on the sabbath and he goes and pulls them out?

I know many a farmer who must milk their cows on Sunday. Can milk-farmers be good Christians?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 24, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Healing a cripple is not a necessity, especially when that person has been crippled for many years already (can't it wait until Monday, after all)?
> 
> Jesus, who fasted 40 days and 40 nights, could have given up food for a single day, yet did not, instead picking grains.
> 
> ...



Healing a cripple was a ministry of mercy and for God's glory Pergy. That is a poor example. 

Picking grains is another poor example Pergy. It wasn't a laboring he did on the Sabbath. And eating on the Sabbath is not forbidden.

Missions of mercy for animals and people are explicitly recommended to us Perg. And Milking a cow is very important or the cow suffers. I don't get the reason of your post Perg. Am I missing something? It think your examples are very poor brother. Doing good on the Sabbath Day is commended bother.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 25, 2011)

Working to feed your family is also good on the Sabbath...and necessary sometimes.

---------- Post added at 07:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 AM ----------

In some parts of the world, it is not a mere matter of convenience whether one works or not on the Sabbath, but a matter of life, health and livelihood - as much as or more than a momentary fast insead of eating grains of the milking of cows on Sunday (after all, most farmers COULD find another job if they really were dedicated Christians, right?)


----------



## py3ak (Aug 25, 2011)

Pergamum, I think it would be helpful to know who your target is here. 

For instance, I know of a family where they woke up one Sunday morning with nothing to eat: so the man went out in his taxi, transported a couple people, bought some breakfast, and then they came to church. Now it's possible that there was some lack of planning involved in that, it's possible that if he had remembered the sabbath day throughout the week he would have been better prepared - though I don't know that this is the case. Perhaps his Saturday was very bad and he came home with nothing or perhaps a bill collector stopped by late Saturday evening. But excluding the consideration of how he got to that circumstance, it was plainly necessary for him to do a small amount of work in order to acquire food, or else to communicate with others in the church who would have willingly helped him out. So yes, sometimes working on the Sabbath to feed your family is a necessity, and in that limited sense it is good to do so; but it is unfortunate that it is a necessity, and we should do our part in fighting against such necessities being common.

I think, though, that some of the examples you give demonstrate a certain amount of confusion which is likely unhelpful to sorting through the dilemmas. And what we must bear in mind is that whatever odd circumstances may arise, our desire cannot be to use odd circumstances to set aside God's law; the Sabbath is a benefit for man, and it should be our desire to see everyone enabled to derive the fullest possible benefit from that day, by being able to take the time they would devote on an ordinary day to the works of their calling, and instead devote it to the worship of God. God has been very gracious to set a day aside when we may lawfully pursue the contemplation of His marvellous works, without any guilt over the neglect of our ordinary callings. I think our desire then should be to preserve that day in such a way that as many people as possible may be freed from the odious necessity of returning to their ordinary calling on that day. Again, perhaps Reformed people should be in the forefront of robotics research.

But to be precise, you say that healing a cripple is not a necessity; perhaps not, but it is a work of mercy. And the Confessional position is that _necessity_ is a reason why work, ordinarily unacceptable, may be performed; and _mercy_ is another, quite distinct reason why work may be performed. So that if it is _mercy_ it does not have to be _necessary_; it is enough that it is mercy. And if it is _necessary_ it does not have to be _mercy_; it is enough that it is necessary. "Necessary" is not defined as "life-threatening"; but I do think it's a higher bar than "Monday is going to be busy if I don't do this Sunday".

Milk-farmers can be excellent Christians.


----------



## Andres (Aug 25, 2011)

KS_Presby said:


> My point here though is the dangerous task picking and choosing of occupations and rating them spiritually. A recipe for judgementalism if there ever is one.



That's not a very fair assessment of what's happening in this thread or in general when people consider the implications of an occupation that works on the Lord's Day. Rather than "picking and choosing of occupations and rating them spiritually" it's a matter of properly trying to honor the Lord's Day and obey the 4th commandment. Both of those desires are commendable by men, but more importantly, expected by God.

---------- Post added at 08:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:15 AM ----------




py3ak said:


> But to be precise, you say that healing a cripple is not a necessity; perhaps not, but it is a work of mercy. And the Confessional position is that necessity is a reason why work, ordinarily unacceptable, may be performed; and mercy is another, quite distinct reason why work may be performed. So that if it is mercy it does not have to be necessary; it is enough that it is mercy. And if it is necessary it does not have to be mercy; it is enough that it is necessary. "Necessary" is not defined as "life-threatening"; but I do think it's a higher bar than "Monday is going to be busy if I don't do this Sunday".


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 25, 2011)

Good questions, many are likely thinking this through. A few quick thoughts:



Pergamum said:


> Healing a cripple is not a necessity, especially when that person has been crippled for many years already (can't it wait until Monday, after all)?
> 
> Exceptions of necessity _and mercy_ are established as part of the Fourth Commandment.
> 
> ...



Part of keeping the sabbath is advance preparation. The ordinary tasks, e.g. groceries, ATM draws, laundry, cow milking, are done by Saturday night so they do not distract from the holiness of the sabbath.

Ordinarily, these can be ordered in advance- and there is great blessing in doing so.


----------



## satz (Aug 25, 2011)

Scott1 said:


> Are we to count a farmer un-dedicated since he counts his livestock more important than the sabbath if one falls into a ditch on the sabbath and he goes and pulls them out?
> 
> This works of necessity was explicit in the Levitical law. To God's people today, by application of principle.



If you allow a farmer to help his lifestock on the Sabbath, why won't you allow an officer work to go to work on the Sabbath when his boss insists? 

In both cases the person is defending their source of livelihood.


----------



## TimV (Aug 25, 2011)

> Part of keeping the sabbath is advance preparation. The ordinary tasks, e.g. groceries, ATM draws, laundry, cow milking, are done by Saturday night so they do not distract from the holiness of the sabbath.



Argh. Dude, if you don't milk a cow or goat on Sunday they get mastitis and/or dry up. There's never been a farmer, theologian or culture that has said milking on the Sabbath was wrong. In fact it would be sin since the wise man regards the life of his beast but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 25, 2011)

satz said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > Are we to count a farmer un-dedicated since he counts his livestock more important than the sabbath if one falls into a ditch on the sabbath and he goes and pulls them out?
> ...




Amen.

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:44 PM ----------

It appears that if we allow for cow-milking on the Sabbath we must also allow other jobs on the sabbath, too, if they are needful for the protection of a man's livelihood (lest we say that milk-farmers are sabbath-breakers who gave little thought to a God-honoring profession before they bought all them there cows...they could have raised chickens). I don't see how a cow-milking exception can be had without opening the door to allow pulling a Sunday shift at a job to keep it and feed your family given a general dearth of other jobs in a bad economy. It appears that "necessity" can be given a definition broader than the immediate threat to one's life or limb. 

I also read accounts of christian roman slaves working on the sabbath. They rose at dawn to worship and then reported to work. Now, if Christians were willing to be martyred in the arena rather than sprinkle a small dab of incense, why have I never heard of a Christian slave taking lashes rather than profane the sabbath, since we ought to obey God rather than man?


----------



## elnwood (Aug 25, 2011)

Matthew 12:1-8:


> At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.”
> 
> He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which *it was not lawful for him to eat* nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple *profane the Sabbath* and are guiltless?
> 
> I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”



Many of you are arguing that works of necessity and mercy on the Sabbath are not sabbath violations. But it's clear that the situations that Jesus brings us are actual sabbath violations: David ate bread that *was not lawful for him to eat*, and the priests *profaned the sabbath*. However, they were guiltless.

I think that a better paradigm based on Matthew 12 is that works of mercy and necessity ARE violations of the Sabbath, but no guilt is imputed because the law of mercy and necessity, specifically in Matthew 12 the laws to provide the wanderer and stranger with food, take precedence over the Sabbath laws.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 25, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> > Scott1 said:
> ...



If I'm following the back-and-forth here,

It is not "lawful" to do one's ordinary labor on the sabbath for the sole reason he must do so to "protect" his employment.

That sounds harsh on one level, but to read it otherwise would be to rationalize away the command. It would make it of none effect.

The Sabbath was a very definite occurrence in the Old Testament. God's people did not work that day and then justify it, with, "my boss (small "b") said I have to work today, there it is "necessary" I work on the Lord's Day.

We are called to approach this with faith. God will provide for those who keep the sabbath. It's true, they might not have access to every job, and might even lose _a particular_ job, but God will provide something else.

So, to be clear, the fourth commandment requires that one cease from their labors, "sabbath" and make that day "holy" to prioritize worship of Him all the Day- and to regulate their lives by that, trusting Him for provision.

Labor is not made necessary for the convenience of one's employer, but is necessary, in the exception to the fourth commandment sense, because the work itself is necessary to be done at that time.

In any ordinary sense, this is not going to include cow milking, not even much medical field related work.

This is what our God commands, and we must, by His grace, and for His Glory seek to obey Him.

---------- Post added at 01:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:23 PM ----------




elnwood said:


> I think that a better paradigm based on Matthew 12 is that works of mercy and necessity ARE violations of the Sabbath, but no guilt is imputed because the law of mercy and necessity, specifically in Matthew 12 the laws to provide the wanderer and stranger with food, take precedence over the Sabbath laws.



Don, I like your thinking here.

In the not too distant past this would have seemed right, but I think there is a better way of understanding this, in the context of the whole of Scripture.

Works of "necessity" and "mercy" were never prohibited under the civil law given Israel as a church under age, nor under ceremonial law. Hence, Leviticus allowed explicitly, a rancher to rescue an animal on the sabbath. Remember how specifically this had to be defined- there was a death penalty attached to disobedience. God is not unclear and would not govern by His character in an arbitrary or vague way. So the civil law given Israel, God's people, "a church under age," was very particularized.

In Matthew 12, our Lord was not "freeing up" the Fourth Commandment.

What He was doing, if we look at this in context, and the greater context was showing:

1) David did, as you say, violate the Levitical Law, which the Pharisees were excusing
2) The commandment to not pluck grain, which did exist under Levitical Law, was only under certain circumstances- in this where the disciples were eating, if you study it carefully, it was not contrary even under the Levitical Law.
3) The Pharisees missed it on both counts- self righteously excusing the former, wrongly condemning the latter.
4) As the unique, Old Testament theocracy was ending, with the revealed Messiah, so was the civil law given that nation (though equitable principles might still apply as broad applications of the perpetual moral law).
5) The ceremonial law would end, being fulfilled in purpose with the death, burial and resurrection of the perfect sacrifice, our Lord

So, in short, the Pharisees misapplied Old Testament Law (with wrong interpretations and made man-made restrictions which is "legalism").

There were many ceremonies and civil law attributes that pertained to the Sabbath that did apply in the Old Testament, and DO NOT apply today.

But the heart of the command, work six, sabbath one applies until the end of the world-
and it's not based on our "convenience" determining obedience. (I know you're not asserting that, but only to example this for the other arguments being made to not obey).


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 25, 2011)

Scott1:



> It is not "lawful" to do one's ordinary labor on the sabbath for the sole reason he must do so to "protect" his employment.
> 
> That sounds harsh on one level, but to read it otherwise would be to rationalize away the command. It would make it of none effect.



Cow-milking is an ordinary labor. Therefore cow-milkers are sabbath-breakers. They could go to farming chickens or work at Chick-Fil A if they were really devoted.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 25, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Scott1:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cow-milkers are not sabbath breakers unless they do it on the sabbath.

They do not have to go into chicken farming any more than a chicken farmer has to ordinarily collect eggs on the sabbath, ... or that Chick-Fil A has to be open on Sunday.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 25, 2011)

Scott1 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > satz said:
> ...







> But the heart of the command, work six, sabbath one applies until the end of the world-
> and it's not based on our "convenience" determining obedience.



The fight over the meanings of the words "convenience" and "necessity" and "mercy" are critical here. I do not believe we need to define them as strictly as ou have, there seems to be more leeway over what actually constitutes a "necessity" in Scripture, for indeed if we are to be prepared ourselves to die for the gospel, we should be prepared to allow our cattle to sit overnight in a ditch and remove them on Monday morning (in most cases the animal will be just fine).

---------- Post added at 05:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 PM ----------




Scott1 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Scott1:
> ...




You haven't been around many cows have you?


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 25, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> there seems to be more leeway over what actually constitutes a "necessity" in Scripture, for indeed if we are to be prepared ourselves to die for the gospel, we should be prepared to allow our cattle to sit overnight in a ditch and remove them on Monday morning (in most cases the animal will be just fine).



Yes, but our Lord specifically allowed cattle to be rescued. Nor does He impose undue burden with His commands. That's His character.



Pergamum said:


> You haven't been around many cows have you?



Not on Sunday.

I have raised chickens, ducks, turkeys, geese and rabbits, and boarded horses- all of which, best I know, survived the Sabbath.

One work that was "necessity"- picking up new born chicks that came in boxes at the post office- they had to be picked up from the dock at the p.o. that day or they would die because there was no food or water in their boxes. Then, put into brooders with food and water.

That is an example of "necessity" on the very few occasions it happened.


----------



## TimV (Aug 25, 2011)

> the work itself is necessary to be done at that time.
> 
> In any ordinary sense, this is not going to include cow milking, not even much medical field related work.





> You haven't been around many cows have you?



No, he's totally ignorant of the subject matter, and needs to apologize for digging his feet in.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 25, 2011)

Certain chores need to be done daily: e.g., milking cows (Spurgeon was sympathetic to the farmer who grumbled than when a young preacher went on too long in the afternoon service it was inconvenient for his cows), hauling water (in a situation with no running water and a limited supply of buckets), feeding family and animals, carrying your bed home after you've been healed of your paralysis, etc. These are not violations of the 4th Commandment.

Don, I think your approach to that passage is incorrect. Though _ordinarily_ the slaughter of animals would constitute work and thus be a violation of the Sabbath, it was not such for the priests because the Lord of the Sabbath had made their work to be particularly appropriate to the Sabbath. Thus it is not a violation of the Sabbath that the minister engages in the strenuous work of preaching on that day. The same with David: _ordinarily_ it would have been a violation of the law for him to eat that bread, but the priest gave it to him because there was nothing else. You can see that as the law of necessity or of nature overriding the ceremonial law, but I think it would be better to recognize that from the time of its being given the ceremonial law was not intended to rule out such common sense as that the hungry have a legitimate claim on bread.

So it seems to me that the only real question remaining on this thread is what to do with the person whose work, not in itself necessary, (e.g., not an ambulance driver; not work that is necessary to be done right now like fixing a critical leak), is circumstantially necessary for retaining a means of livelihood. The instances of slaves and servants are good ones; but again we need to be careful that we don't take compassion for those in tight spots and turn it into an excuse for pursuing our own pleasure on God's holy day. And we need to be sure that if we are going to counsel someone to believe that God will provide if they are fired for refusing to work on Sunday, that we are then ready to step up with more than counsel: with financial support and assistance in a new job search. I've never been in that situation, I'm thankful to say: and I've told employers I am never available to work on Sundays and sent emails with Larger Catechism quotes when it seemed that this might have been forgotten; but not all corporations have HR departments that will crack the whip on executives who overstep their bounds.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 25, 2011)

> Nehemiah 13 - Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Bible
> 
> 
> Sabbath-breaking restrained.
> ...



Matthew Henry commentary on Numbers 15


> Verses 30-36 Those are to be reckoned presumptuous sinners, who sin designedly against God's will and glory. Sins thus committed are exceedingly sinful. He that thus breaks the commandment reproaches the Lord. He also despises the word of the Lord. Presumptuous sinners despise it, thinking themselves too great, too good, and too wise, to be ruled by it. A particular instance of presumption in the sin of sabbath-breaking is related. The offence was gathering sticks on the sabbath day, to make a fire, whereas the people were to bake and seethe what they had occasion for, the day before, exodus 16:23. This was done as an affront both to the law and to the Lawgiver. God is jealous for the honour of his sabbaths, and will not hold him guiltless who profanes them, whatever men may do. God intended this punishment for a warning to all, to make conscience of keeping holy the sabbath. And we may be assured that no command was ever given for the punishment of sin, which, at the judgment day, shall not prove to have come from perfect love and justice. The right of God to a day of devotion to himself, will be disputed and denied only by such as listen to the pride and unbelief of their hearts, rather than to the teaching of the Spirit of truth and life. Wherein consists the difference between him who was detected gathering sticks in the wilderness on the day of God, and the man who turns his back upon the blessings of sabbath appointments, and the promises of sabbath mercies, to use his time, his cares, and his soul, in heaping up riches; and waste his hours, his property, and his strength in sinful pleasure? Wealth may come by the unhallowed effort, but it will not come alone; it will have its awful reward. Sinful pursuits lead to ruin.


----------



## TimV (Aug 25, 2011)

I didn't see anything about milking there.


----------



## TimV (Aug 25, 2011)

Scott, I see you as a paragon of Christian virtue. Please either talk to some of your fellow church members or go visit Mr. Googlesearch. You don't realise it, but you've called every single person, literally billions of people, who have EVER kept milk animals law breakers. I had this same conversation a few weeks ago with a not particularly well educated chiropractor who called vaccinations a crime against humanity. Besides being really, really uninformed, he (although he probably didn't know it) called basically all doctors and nurses for the last half dozen decades war criminals. You're doing the same thing. But what you said dwarfs what he said.


----------



## dudley (Aug 25, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> If your beast of burden falls into a ditch on a Sunday, you can pull it out.
> 
> If your kids have no bread and are in danger of starvation or severity, this seems more dire than a donkey or ox in a ditch. Praise God for the provision of work. And then, when the severity passes, look for a better job.
> 
> Dennis, when I am travelling great distances on Sunday, I often feel it is "necessary" to buy gas, lodging and food and my conscience is not troubled. If I can help it, however, it is good to travel on another day.



Amen, I agree with our PB brother Pergamum.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 25, 2011)

Ruben wrote a good summary:



> So it seems to me that the only real question remaining on this thread is what to do with the person whose work, not in itself necessary, (e.g., not an ambulance driver; not work that is necessary to be done right now like fixing a critical leak), is circumstantially necessary for retaining a means of livelihood.



I would propose that we need not be over-strict in defining "'necessity." In the Third World or in bad economic straits when many mouths are to be fed and employers are not understanding, I propose that a man may work on the Sabbath until a better job comes along. 

I believe that over-strictness (especially as the church becomes more global and poorer and removes itself from the affluent West) will cause many indigenous believers to always feel like failures as some must choose between their family's health or obeying the perceived requirements of the Sabbath. In casting their unfortunate plights as "matters of convenience" instead of granting the judgment of charity that their work is "necessary" for the health and livelihood and steady meals of their family, we do them a disservice and may even mar their good names by hinting that they are not devout enough to keep the 4th Commandment but would rather enjoy their own conveniences.

If the US economy continues to tank, I believe churches will more and more encounter men who have been out of work for months on end, are empty of savings, have children at home, a mortgage to pay, plus other debts, and no other job lined up in sight and jobs fairly scarce throughout their whole region....and then they find a job that requires them to work some Sundays. If these men get hassled by their churches, I think there is a problem.

Furthermore, I know several strict reformed men who have prided themselves on remaining unemployed for months on end, despite having a family to feed, and several jobs offered, and then these men praised God (though it seemed more like a boast) that they choose unemployment over taking a job that made them work, not even every Sunday, but some Sundays out of each month. Instead of being impressed by the faith of these men, my first reaction is, "Why would they forsake all those providential provisions he is being given, to obey some perceived strictness in the Sabbath..." If we don't care for our families, after all, we are worse than infidels.


----------



## TimV (Aug 25, 2011)

Interesting and insightful, thanks.


----------



## BertMulder (Aug 25, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> I would propose that we need not be over-strict in defining "'necessity." In the Third World or in bad economic straits when many mouths are to be fed and employers are not understanding, I propose that a man may work on the Sabbath until a better job comes along.
> 
> I believe that over-strictness (especially as the church becomes more global and poorer and removes itself from the affluent West) will cause many indigenous believers to always feel like failures as some must choose between their family's health or obeying the perceived requirements of the Sabbath. In casting their unfortunate plights as "matters of convenience" instead of granting the judgment of charity that their work is "necessary" for the health and livelihood and steady meals of their family, we do them a disservice and may even mar their good names by hinting that they are not devout enough to keep the 4th Commandment but would rather enjoy their own conveniences.
> 
> ...



sort of discards the biblical definition of love... love of God above all...

also ignores God's provision for the poor through the diaconate...


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 25, 2011)

Bert:

In some regions of the world there is no diaconate. 

Also, if the love of God is above all, why cannot livestock stay in a ditch all night and be pulled out Monday morning? If a mere cow can be relieved from suffering by milking, or relieved from inconvenience by being pulled out of a ditch, then a poor man's children can be relieved from another night of gruel and poor nutrition by a few extra hours of labor per week... In the US I eat meat every night, but in some areas I know, meat is a once-a-week occasion when times are good.


Also, I think we sin against some brothers who do work on Sunday by insinuating that their love of God is inferior to ours. We are not forced to make those hard decisions, so it is easy to remind those in hard straits that "love of god is above all things" and then to falsely equate love of God with adding burdens to believers that I simply do not see in Scripture. 

..."Only if they were just more like us, and were as strict at following the law of God as us," right?


----------



## AThornquist (Aug 26, 2011)

BertMulder said:


> sort of discards the biblical definition of love... love of God above all...



Since you are insinuating that working on the Sabbath for the love and necessary good of others is contrary to "loving God above all," I would respectfully remind you that Jesus healed on the Sabbath and was, in fact, ridiculed because of those works of mercy. Pray tell, who was ridiculing Jesus during those moments?


----------



## elnwood (Aug 26, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Don, I think your approach to that passage is incorrect. Though _ordinarily_ the slaughter of animals would constitute work and thus be a violation of the Sabbath, it was not such for the priests because the Lord of the Sabbath had made their work to be particularly appropriate to the Sabbath. Thus it is not a violation of the Sabbath that the minister engages in the strenuous work of preaching on that day. The same with David: _ordinarily_ it would have been a violation of the law for him to eat that bread, but the priest gave it to him because there was nothing else. You can see that as the law of necessity or of nature overriding the ceremonial law, but I think it would be better to recognize that from the time of its being given the ceremonial law was not intended to rule out such common sense as that the hungry have a legitimate claim on bread.



Ruben,

I understand your way of seeing it. I read what you wrote above, but I didn't see anything that you wrote that showed that my approach is incorrect and yours is correct. I see a statement of your view (that the work is not a violation of the Sabbath), and then you state yours is correct/better.

Perhaps I missed something? I do recognize that the ceremonial law were always intended to be overridden by laws of mercy and necessity.

For me, it comes down to recognizing Jesus' words as true: that David did indeed eat "what was not lawful to eat," and the priests did indeed "profane the Sabbath," but they were guiltless. If it was lawful for David to eat the bread, and the priests didn't profane the Sabbath, then why did Jesus say that it was so?


----------



## deleteduser99 (Aug 26, 2011)

elnwood said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Don, I think your approach to that passage is incorrect. Though _ordinarily_ the slaughter of animals would constitute work and thus be a violation of the Sabbath, it was not such for the priests because the Lord of the Sabbath had made their work to be particularly appropriate to the Sabbath. Thus it is not a violation of the Sabbath that the minister engages in the strenuous work of preaching on that day. The same with David: _ordinarily_ it would have been a violation of the law for him to eat that bread, but the priest gave it to him because there was nothing else. You can see that as the law of necessity or of nature overriding the ceremonial law, but I think it would be better to recognize that from the time of its being given the ceremonial law was not intended to rule out such common sense as that the hungry have a legitimate claim on bread.
> ...



Do you mean "why DIDN'T Jesus say it was so?" Of course, given the rest of your posts, I think I know well enough where you are going.

Could He have been speaking relative to the Pharisaical strictness? From their perspective, and it seems implied in Jesus' words, they should have condemned King David, yet didn't. Given the passage, it seems there is an obvious contrast set up to God's approach to that of the Pharisees. The best way I really know how to say it is that Christ almost has some bite in his words to them.

In Matthew 23:23 (ESV), Christ says, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others." I see in here a presupposition of consideration of items such as justice, mercy and faithfulness when carrying out God's commands, and if there were true obedience to God, these would have been considered and have taken priority when necessary. So that is to say, the Pharisees are considering the Sabbath without any regard to mercy, and so see the disciples as breaking the Sabbath, while (and in fact, the Sabbath is an act of mercy), and so sees them as not having sinned. Maybe put another way, Mary and Martha both has a choice between taking care of the house and sitting at Christ's feet, and both were legitimate tasks, yet one had priority in that moment. With David, it was the priority of preserving the sanctity of the bread versus feeding starving men fleeing a murderous man. Seems to me too that suppose the bread were withheld, it would be a denial of God in itself, because God knows that we are but dust, and He took on fleshly form so He could be a better High Priest to us and better sympathize with our weaknesses. Were I the priest and I refused to give the bread, my conscience might prick me just a little bit.


----------



## satz (Aug 26, 2011)

Scott1 said:


> If I'm following the back-and-forth here,
> 
> It is not "lawful" to do one's ordinary labor on the sabbath for the sole reason he must do so to "protect" his employment.
> 
> ...




Scott,

What you wrote here is not consistent with Jesus allowing people to get their their oxen out of a ditch and bring their ox to water on the Sabbath. Taking care of oxen _is_ a farmer's ordinary labour. By your logic they should just trust in faith that God will either take care of the oxen or take care of them despite the loss or injury to the oxen.

But that is not what Jesus said.

Again, why is it ok for a farmer to protect his livelihood but not the office worker? 



> One work that was "necessity"- picking up new born chicks that came in boxes at the post office- they had to be picked up from the dock at the p.o. that day or they would die because there was no food or water in their boxes. Then, put into brooders with food and water.



You gave the above example of what you considered a work of necessity. I agree with you, but if we were to apply your reasoning I quoted above we should just leave the chicks until monday and trust God for the results.

Is asking a christian who works an office job to give up his source of livelihood less drastic than the lives of some baby chickens? Does God care more for animals than he does for the livelihood of his children?


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 26, 2011)

comment below



satz said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > If I'm following the back-and-forth here,
> ...




Christians might sometimes "lose" jobs or have to give up jobs for the sake of Christ (this does not mean quit working), but it is part of His creatures's willingness to obey, and it is central to Christianity.



> Matthew 19:29
> 
> 
> 
> 29And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.




---------- Post added at 07:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:01 AM ----------

This is difficult truth.

In our generation, we have lost some of the consciousness of the sabbath that was more common in the previous generation. It was not uncommon in the past for communities to have laws that prevented stores from being open on Sunday. West Point military academy ceased most activities on Sunday.



Pergamum said:


> I would propose that we need not be over-strict in defining "'necessity."
> 
> We would have to define "over-strict" to know what this means.
> 
> ...





> Westminster Larger Catechism
> 
> Q. 118. Why is the charge of keeping the sabbath more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?
> 
> A. The charge of keeping the sabbath is more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors, because they are bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge; and because they are prone ofttimes to hinder them by employments of their own.[629]



THE BOTTOM LINE: "Necessity," in the context of the Fourth Commandment, is genuine emergency. Although we are commanded to prioritize the worship of God all the Lord's Day, individual, family and corporate and to cease from the ordinary labor and recreations of the rest of the week, we may respond to emergencies that we come across.

This is not a loophole God gave. 

It really is part of what the sabbath is all about.


----------



## BertMulder (Aug 26, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> In some regions of the world there is no diaconate.



That is a failing of the church in those cases, and again, lack of our love to God, and our neighbor to ignore His command to care for the poor through the diaconate. God does not require sacrifice, or labour. God requires from us obedience. And see, as we read in Malachi, if He will not fill our barns with plenty, so that they cannot even contain it...


----------



## py3ak (Aug 26, 2011)

elnwood said:


> Ruben,
> 
> I understand your way of seeing it. I read what you wrote above, but I didn't see anything that you wrote that showed that my approach is incorrect and yours is correct. I see a statement of your view (that the work is not a violation of the Sabbath), and then you state yours is correct/better.



Simply put, I think my way is just as possible, as Harley pointed out, because Christ is highlighting the inconsistency of the Pharisees. And I think that fits better with the overall conflict with them. And secondly, from a broader dogmatic perspective, it eliminates the implication contained in your view that at times the laws of God can be in conflict.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 26, 2011)

BertMulder said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > In some regions of the world there is no diaconate.
> ...



In some parts of the world there is no diaconate because there is no church.


----------



## Edward (Aug 26, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> when I am travelling great distances on Sunday, I often feel it is "necessary" to buy gas,



I'm old enough to remember when gas stations were closed on Sunday (1970s gas rationing). And when I was even younger, grocery stores, as well. Retail sales on Sunday are a convenience, not a necessity. If they didn't sell gas on the Lord's Day, you'd discover that you really didn't NEED to drive cross country that day. You'd make other arrangements. 

The case for lodging accommodations is a bit better. On a cross country trip, you'll need a place to stay if you can only drive one tank's worth (400 miles?) on the Lord's Day.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 26, 2011)

Pergamum - can you agree that part of discipleship is teaching people to observe the 4th Commandment? And part of the impact that the Church should have on society is making it increasingly possible for believers to turn away from doing their own pleasure and considering it the holy of the Lord?
Discipleship is always a gradual process; but even though we don't reach the goal we need to be clear about what it is, and the fact that it is the direction we are heading.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 26, 2011)

Edward said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > when I am travelling great distances on Sunday, I often feel it is "necessary" to buy gas,
> ...



If we are to define "necessity" as a genuine emergency as Scott1 desires to, then you can just sleep in your car and fast for 24 hours.

---------- Post added at 03:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:04 PM ----------




py3ak said:


> Pergamum - can you agree that part of discipleship is teaching people to observe the 4th Commandment? And part of the impact that the Church should have on society is making it increasingly possible for believers to turn away from doing their own pleasure and considering it the holy of the Lord?
> Discipleship is always a gradual process; but even though we don't reach the goal we need to be clear about what it is, and the fact that it is the direction we are heading.




Part of discipleship is also obeying the Scriptures without over-burdening souls with grievous loads that need not be there in the first place. We don't want disciples who slavishly obey the letter and leave their cows to die and fault men for trying to feed their families in a bad economy when jobs are scarce as hen's teeth. 

I believe the law applies to the 21st-Century and not merely to agrarian societies where the only sabbath exceptions are for picking grain, pulling oxes out of ditches and eating shewbread.....surely we can apply these case laws to modern equivalent situations.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 26, 2011)

> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Chapter XXI
> Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day
> ...



The Fourth Commandment requires all to:

1) Do ordinary labor and recreation the six days
2) Prepare in advance for sabbath
3) Abstain from labor 
4) Abstain from recreation, entertainment

Exceptions for "necessity" (emergency) and "mercy" are established in the Command.

To remember the Sabbath by "ceasing" from those ordinary labors and making "holy" the day by setting it apart for the worship of God, all the day:

1) individually
2) in family
3) corporately

Keeping it checks tendency toward idolatry, stealing, violence, burn out...
It helps us keep all the other Commandments.

It is a great benefit, and a delight.

---------- Post added at 12:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 PM ----------




> “The Perpetuity of the Law of God”
> 
> A Message Delivered on May 21, 1882 by
> 
> ...


.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 26, 2011)

Keeping reasonable and warranted exceptions to the Sabbath in mind does not mean we don't want to honor the Sabbath.


----------



## Andres (Aug 26, 2011)

This is an interesting discussion and I fully admit I don't have all the answers. However, it seems like we are missing a larger issue here and that is the heart issue. For example, are we to say that a man who refrains from work, TV, and recreation on the Lord' Day but wishes he were doing these things and grumbles about not doing them is really honoring the Lord's Day properly? On the flipside, would we say the man who sincerely loves Christ and desires to honor the Lord's Day but yet goes out to work a few hours before church because he needs to feed his family is completely in rebellion to God? One important thing to remember is that no one except our Lord has ever properly kept the 4th commandment. We all fall short and must put on the righteousness found in Christ if we will be found acceptable to God on the Lord's Day or any day.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 26, 2011)

Andres said:


> This is an interesting discussion and I fully admit I don't have all the answers. However, it seems like we are missing a larger issue here and that is the heart issue.
> The Confessional Summary includes, thoughts, words and deeds. So, talking about work problems, sales or business is a violation because God is affording a complete rest from that on the Lord's Day.
> 
> 
> ...


.


----------



## E Nomine (Aug 26, 2011)

The Pharisees were great at defining hard and fast rules for the Sabbath. I'm opposed to so doing. Every case is different and should be decided by the Christian himself with the direction of his church leadership as necessary. 

For every good argument we can make allowing certain work on the Sabbath, an equally strong argument can be made that we are being hypocritical and legalistic. I don't see God getting much glory when a bunch of guys on the Internet make blanket assertions about right and wrong. 

In every case, the individuals involved should consider all the facts, search the scriptures and pray.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 26, 2011)

We are to assume that Jesus delighted in the Sabbath, but his example seems to show that (1) being hungry is an excuse for breaking the Sabbath, and also that (2) doing good, even when it is not a life-threatening necessity and could wait, is permitted.

Jesus COULD have been a lot stricter in his Sabbath-keeping.

Also why was Jesus unprepared and caught without food on the Sabbath such that he picked grain? Did he not prepare his heart and mind adequately for this day?

Thus travels for doing good, and eating and filling up with gas or other necessities for those travels for good purposes, is permitted on the Sabbath. Thus, a travelling minister could eat out at a restaurant while on the road if his calling requires him to drive far on the Sabbath. Just as Jesus COULD have packed a lunch but did not, we need not pack lunches for Sundays necessarily when travelling all day nor haul all of our extra gas on the roof of our vehicles (leading livestock out to water was even done on the Sabbath, by the pharisees, too, and Americna cars or often thirstier than oxen).

Also, if hunger is a sufficient reason to work on the Sabbath, then a father who must feed his children can work on the Sabbath if another job in unavailable. We shouldn't think of him as a second-tier Christian and should help him find a better job so that he is able to celebrate the Sabbath, though immediate quitting or long periods of unemployment and hardship on the part of his family do not seem required, even though these times of hardship may not constitute an immediate threat to life, health, limb or eyesight.

Also, Jesus healed several people with long-standing chronic illnesses (years and years) on the Sabbath...what would one more day of waiting meant? Why couldn't Jesus wait one more day so as not to offend the religious sensibilities of the people?


A general observation:
I find that it is difficult to talk about the Sabbath with some folks because, when speaking of exceptions or needful things arising, they respond that we should call the Sabbath a delight, as if those who are responding to necessities or doing good things on Sunday are not. The underlying assumption seems to be that if these people were REALLY holy or scrupulous enough, they would have found some other way around in order not to take advantage of these permitted exceptions. 

But I believe that we should judge generously those situations which may count as exceptions because of the example of Jesus. Especially so in our present economic climate and in a world that suffers intense poverty in many areas.

In my circles, New Covenant Theology is taking hold in many churches and I believe much of this anti-sabbatarianism is because the views of many on the Sabbath make it a very burdensome and rule-oriented thing which weighs the believer down. I believe we often make the Sabbath look ugly and are overly-strict in our application of what is required.

---------- Post added at 04:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:53 PM ----------

Scott1 wrote:



> So, talking about work problems, sales or business is a violation because God is affording a complete rest from that on the Lord's Day



This seems a stretch to place this blanket rule on all our conversations. There are many god-honoring things which are related to work about which we can lawfully talk.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 26, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum - can you agree that part of discipleship is teaching people to observe the 4th Commandment? And part of the impact that the Church should have on society is making it increasingly possible for believers to turn away from doing their own pleasure and considering it the holy of the Lord?
> ...



So let's be clear. Are you arguing for charity in cases of duress or are you advocating for an overturning of the Confessional position on the Sabbath? Because the one I am on board with, but the other is over the line.



Pergamum said:


> I find that it is difficult to talk about the Sabbath with some folks because, when speaking of exceptions or needful things arising, they respond that we should call the Sabbath a delight, as if those who are responding to necessities or doing good things on Sunday are not. The underlying assumption seems to be that if these people were REALLY holy or scrupulous enough, they would have found some other way around in order not to take advantage of these permitted exceptions.



But many people find it difficult to talk about the Sabbath with you because the underlying assumption seems to be that anyone who is seriously committed to imitating the rest of God on this day is judgemental, unrealistic, and Pharisaical. Now I know you well enough to know that this is not the case, but it does seem like you let what you perceive as the excessive strictness of some turn into a chip on your shoulder in the way you interact with others about the matter.

We should indeed point to the example of the Lord of the Sabbath to alleviate the consciences of those who are afflicted because they made their bed on Sunday, or provided for food; but it seems unlikely that the _most pressing_ sabbatarian problem in our time is that the church as a whole is so dedicated to keeping it with Pharisaical rigor that it has become an oppression of the poor. When I see that problem, as in the earlier instance where Scott didn't want anyone to milk their cows, I will oppose that; but I'd feel better if I had you opposing the near-total neglect of the 4th Commandment by the American church alongside me.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 26, 2011)

Ruben,

Often, when other Sabbatarians (yes, I are one, too) advocate a greater leniency than others, those others (who believe themselves to be truly upholding the biblical view of the Sabbath because of their strictness) often mistake my ilk for not being Sabbatarian at all. Then, they send me either rebukes or advise me that I should learn to call the Sabbath a delight. It is like, "You must believe in my particular application of the Sabbath, or else you are not truly believing in the Sabbath at all."

I believe some portions of the Reformed world make the Sabbath an odious and ugly thing. Some even say that I cannot jog, hike or play familial games or have god-glorifying recreation with my family on the Sabbath and deny that one can travel more than a tank of gas or must pack all their food or some equally strict addition to the Bible that I simply do not see as requisite on Christians.

I believe there is an eternal Sabbath, and that Sunday is that Sabbath. I believe that we are to abstain from normal labors (unless it is a work of mercy or a necessity) and to worship God on that day and set it aside for God glorifying activities.

What I am objecting against is not the Sabbath itself, but the application of the Sabbath by many who, I believe are too strict. I believe a judgment of charity and a certain leniency ought to be shown for those in dire work straits or who have fallen on bad economic times. I believe that there are many more exceptions than some would be willing to admit. The example of Jesus, I believe, shows that we can broadly interpret "works of necessity" or "works of mercy" to include more than life-threatening situations, for even the well-being of beasts is permitted.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 26, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Ruben,
> 
> Often, when other Sabbatarians (yes, I are one, too) advocate a greater leniency than others, those others (who believe themselves to be truly upholding the biblical view of the Sabbath because of their strictness) often mistake my ilk for not being Sabbatarian at all. Then, they send me either rebukes or advise me that I should learn to call the Sabbath a delight. It is like, "You must believe in my particular application of the Sabbath, or else you are not truly believing in the Sabbath at all."
> 
> ...



Good! I think it would help with many if you would make your love for and commitment to the Sabbath as clear as you make your opposition to the imposition of oppressive legislation. And it wouldn't hurt to make sure to be charitable to those with stricter convictions as well.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 26, 2011)

Ruben,

Vigorous banter is not uncharitable. There is healthy respect for all involved.

And why must I equally balance my comments on the goodness of the Sabbath with my "opposition to oppresive legislation" (not my phraseology by the way)? Some are stressing one side, I am stressing the other. Some will feel the need to stress the side of an issue that is being downplayed/neglected, right? And that is what I am doing here. Even in the exchange about cows, I was respectful (maybe you misread my post for Tim's).

I see a possible imbalance unless certain actions during hard times are counted as "not necessarily gross Sabbath violations" and so I am stressing these exceptions. One reason is that I see these exceptions more here in a poorer land, and I also anticipate that the US will, too, if the economy continues to tank 

P.s. Yes, Ruben, I am with you on the statement about opposing the near-total neglect of the Sabbath that is happening in the US. But the OP is about occupations on the Sabbath not the near-total neglect of the Sabbath in America. 

Your general characterizations of my perceived pattern of argumentation are not helpful, please keep focused on my responses to this thread. I have argued consistently, and have not argued contrary to the fact of the eternal perpetuity of the Sabbath, and yet all Christians recognize that there are, indeed, exceptions for necessities and works of mercy. And I believe that many occupations fit these categories.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 26, 2011)

I didn't say you had been - I said you need to make sure not to be. It is fatally easy to slip from "I don't like this idea" to "this person must have bad motives for suggesting it."

I understand the contrarian impulse: but it is often unhelpful to communication, especially with those across from you. We tend to think in binary terms, so that whoever is not with us is against us - with all of the baggage that goes along with being against us. Also, consider that we do understand things best not just by a positive statement but by a contrast with what opposes it. So if you provide me a contrast only on one side (what you do not believe the Sabbath requires) but no contrast on the other (what you do believe it requires) it is difficult to tell where your position ends and that of anti-sabbatarian begins.

Naturally the same thing goes for others as well; but I doubt it's ever a wise strategy to wait for someone else to be accommodating or mature first.

I'm glad to have your company. Let's go sign a petition for U.S. mayors to seize some people by their beards for trafficking on Sundays!


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 26, 2011)

py3ak said:


> I didn't say you had been - I said you need to make sure not to be. It is fatally easy to slip from "I don't like this idea" to "this person must have bad motives for suggesting it."
> 
> I understand the contrarian impulse: but it is often unhelpful to communication, especially with those across from you. We tend to think in binary terms, so that whoever is not with us is against us - with all of the baggage that goes along with being against us. Also, consider that we do understand things best not just by a positive statement but by a contrast with what opposes it. So if you provide me a contrast only on one side (what you do not believe the Sabbath requires) but no contrast on the other (what you do believe it requires) it is difficult to tell where your position ends and that of anti-sabbatarian begins.
> 
> ...



If you can point me to some peoples and politicans that actually have beards in our hairless Last Days (a sure sign of the Apocalypse), I am with you!

---------- Post added at 06:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:35 PM ----------

p.s.:

Ruben, you wrote:



> I didn't say you had been - I said you need to make sure not to be. It is fatally easy to slip from "I don't like this idea" to "this person must have bad motives for suggesting it."



I have nothing but respect even for those that I don't see eye-to-eye with on here. 

Scott1 has advocated the position most contrary to mine and, in reality, I believe us to be only a foot or two apart in our beliefs and I owe him a debt of gratitude for his many edifying posts on the PB and I think he is a swell guy who is responding out of a pure motive of love to God and neighhbor and a desire for others to glorify God with all their heart, mind, and soul.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 26, 2011)

That's good to hear - on both counts.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 26, 2011)

These resources may be helpful for those studying to understand the Christian Sabbath, the Lord's Day:

_The Lord's Day,_Joseph Pipa
The Lord's Day: How Are You Spending This Sunday?: Joey Pipa: 9781857922011: Christianbook.com

_The Westminster Confession of Faith for study classes,_ GI Williamson
The Westminster Confession of Faith: For Study Classes: G.I. Williamson: 9780875525938: Christianbook.com

_Lectures on the Sabbath,_ GI Williamson
http://www.nethtc.net/~giwopc/LecturesontheSabbath.pdf

Finally, the Scripture proof texts for the summary of the doctrine of Scripture in Westminster XXI are very helpful in understanding this, as well as the regulative principle:
Westminster Confession of Faith


----------



## TimV (Aug 26, 2011)

If I were to email Pippa, do you think he would agree with you about milk animals?


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 26, 2011)

Scott1 said:


> These resources may be helpful for those studying to understand the Christian Sabbath, the Lord's Day:
> 
> _The Lord's Day,_Joseph Pipa
> The Lord's Day: How Are You Spending This Sunday?: Joey Pipa: 9781857922011: Christianbook.com
> ...



Thanks.

And, just to be clear, I apprecaite you and I agree that Sabbath neglect in our day is a big problem, much more than folks striving overly much to keep the Sabbath.


----------



## elnwood (Aug 26, 2011)

py3ak said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> > Ruben,
> ...



Is there something inherently wrong with saying that certain laws of God take precedence over others?

If Jesus' point was that the plucking of grain did not actually violate the Mosaic law, I think he would have appealed to the Mosaic law.

However, he doesn't. He doesn't cite the law at all, except to point to a clear example of the Mosaic law being broken. As far as I know, there is no exception clause in the Mosaic law regarding David being able to eat the bread. Jesus certainly didn't mention it. It was a violation of the law, yet there is no guilt.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 26, 2011)

Don, I think that would be a discussion that's off topic for this thread - but feel free to start a new one if you'd like to pursue it.


----------



## Micah Everett (Aug 27, 2011)

TimV said:


> If I were to email Pippa, do you think he would agree with you about milk animals?



I'm not sure that *Pippa* has an opinion on this matter.

View attachment 2258

However, I'm sure that *Pipa* does, and it would be interesting to hear.

View attachment 2259


----------



## TimV (Aug 27, 2011)

Since it looks like he has a milk mustache, I'll have to email him.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 27, 2011)

OT passages on the specifics of Sabbath observation must be interpreted in the light of 



> And he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27).



as Christ is there expounding how the Sabbath should always have been kept by the Jews according to God's Word.

Even Calvin in his views on the Sabbath wrongly believed the Jews were meant to have a stricter Sabbath than the Christians, and that this was part of the ceremonial law which fell away in the New Testament era.


----------

