# Keeping the Sabbath



## Scott1 (Sep 10, 2008)

> *London Baptist Confession of Faith
> Chapter XXII*
> 
> The sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all day, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations, but are also taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.





> *Scripture proofs*
> ( Isaiah 58:13; Nehemiah 13:15-22; Matthew 12:1-13 )



The London Baptist Confession and Westminster Confession are identical in their summary of the doctrine of Scripture regarding the Fourth Commandment.

In light of this, what activities do you think the Commandment ordinarily requires one to abstain from on the Lord's Day? ("Ordinarily," not to include exceptional situations that might be works of necessity or mercy)

You may select as many items as you wish in the poll.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Sep 10, 2008)

Haven't we had this thread and discussion before?

http://www.puritanboard.com/f25/pruned-sabbath-dos-donts-35563/


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 12, 2008)

> *Westminster Shorter Catechism*
> 
> Q. 60. How is the sabbath to be sanctified?
> A. The sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days;[145] and spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God’s worship,[146] except so much as is to be taken up in the works of necessity and mercy.[147]
> ...





> *Scripture Proofs*
> [146] Exodus 20:8. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Leviticus 23:3. Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings. Luke 4:16. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. Acts 20:7. And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
> 
> [147] Matthew 12:1-13. At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue: And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days. Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.
> ...



Westminster Shorter Catechism and Scripture Proofs.


----------



## satz (Sep 13, 2008)

I looked at the poll results and noted that most of those who voted felt that the last option “_Working on Sunday if you are in a sales job and nobody else will work Sunday for you_” was something that a christian should ordinarily abstain from. 

I had already raised the issue in another thread, I am still questioning if it would be inappropriate, under the Sabbath laws, for a Christian to work a Sunday shift if his employment required him to. 

If a Christian man was required by his employer to work, would not that fall under the category of a work of necessity for that man, as there is an external force compelling that man to work. In the OT a man was stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, but Jesus allowed his disciples to pick corn to eat on the Sabbath because they were hungry. Why wouldn’t the same principle of necessity allow a man whose job required him to work a Sunday shift?

I am not saying a Christian should take a job that will regularly require them to work on Sundays (except maybe those jobs involved in works of mercy). However, even if a boss requires Sunday work for a frivolous or greedy reason, would not the requirement still be a necessity from the perspective of the worker himself? Again, from what I see in the NT, Jesus Christ did not set the bar for necessity or mercy execessively high – the fact that his disciples were hungry was enough for him.

Thoughts?


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 13, 2008)

> satz
> 
> I am still questioning if it would be inappropriate, under the Sabbath laws, for a Christian to work a Sunday shift if his employment required him to.





> "The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes," GI Williamson, p224
> 
> The meaning of "necessity" is frequently misinterpreted in dealing with this commandment. Works of necessity are not such as are required only by our convenience. For example, what should a Christian do if his employer requires him to work on the Lord's Day? Some would say, "I will have to work, or else I will be demoted to a much lower salary." But such a reason does not make the work itself a necessity. If a physician says "I must operate on this man today or he will die," he speaks of a work of necessity. But if a carpenter says, "I must report on construction job or I will endanger my position," he is still faced with the fact that the _work itself_ is not necessary. One could just as well argue that it is legitmate to steal (I _must_ steal because my family needs more money) as to argue that a work is necessary on the Sabbath merely because personal inconvenience or hardship is involved.



GI Williamson, Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 13, 2008)

The poll is closed.

From a Confessional standpoint, 16 of 18 voters, 89%, say the Fourth Commandment requires ordinarily abstaining on the Sabbath from:

eating out at restaurants (while not travelling)
watching sports on tv or internet
working a sales job

83% say abstaining from

heavy recreation

Every other activity listed received at least a majority vote for abstention except posting on Puritan Board, which received an 11% vote and taking a nap, which received 0% (no votes).


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 13, 2008)

satz said:


> I looked at the poll results and noted that most of those who voted felt that the last option “_Working on Sunday if you are in a sales job and nobody else will work Sunday for you_” was something that a christian should ordinarily abstain from.
> 
> I had already raised the issue in another thread, I am still questioning if it would be inappropriate, under the Sabbath laws, for a Christian to work a Sunday shift if his employment required him to.
> 
> ...



I wonder how hungry those disciples were (noontime ready-for-lunch-hungry or about-to-pass-out-hungry). They were still travelling and seemed healthy, so it seemed not to be a medical emergency.


I, too, believe that if a man has a job that deals with gov't, infrastucture or emergencies that one does not sin if they do not "honor the Sabbath" if there is a need at work.

Soldiers, nurses, EMTS of course do not dishonor the Sabbath when they take their usually mandatory every 3rd weekend.

I was a soldier and a nurse and worked 12 hours every other Sunday. 

I would also broaden the work situations to farmer (gotta milk those cows), light house watcher, nuclear power plant worker, some forms of night watchman-cop-security, pilots (especially those who cross intntl date lines, "No I can only go as far as San Francisco, but not Hawaii due to the Sabbath...", Scientists working on a big breakthrough, sea-captains (AAARGGH), meteorologists ("your coverage of Hurricane Ike will resume Monday morning"), news reporters covering a big story (especially if human rights are involved...."massacre in Darfur onging, no pics available due top the Sabbath).

In fact, I have met people who have been unemployed for years (3 years in one case) that could have landed 3 different jobs but would have had to work one Sunday per month (on night shift so as to be able to go to morning church) and he refused these jobs due to his Sabbath convictions. I think he was wrong and ended up just looking lazy and idle for fear of actually working one day too many.


----------



## satz (Sep 13, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> > satz
> >
> > I am still questioning if it would be inappropriate, under the Sabbath laws, for a Christian to work a Sunday shift if his employment required him to.
> 
> ...



Scott,

I appreciate the response.

I would reply though, that I don’t see that Williamson supports his statements from the bible. Jesus Christ could have told his disciples to not pick the corn, one day of fasting was unlikely to endanger them – but he didn’t. Likewise, Jesus could have agreed with the Pharisees that he should wait one day to heal after the Sabbath. A man with a withered hand is in no danger from having to wait one more day to have his hand healed. But Jesus healed him there and then.

When the Pharisees confronted Jesus about his disciples picking corn on the Sabbath he told them the story of David and told them that the Sabbath is made to help man, not harm him – to justify his disciples not having to go hungry for just one day. 

I am not seeing that the bible defines ‘necessity’ as in the same way Williamson is doing in his quote.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 13, 2008)

Was Jesus being a provacoteur then here, trying to play with current false views of the Sabbath, when He could have merely left well enough alone....?


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 13, 2008)

> satz
> 
> I would reply though, that I don’t see that Williamson supports his statements from the bible.



The quoted section is a commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 21,paragraphs 7 and 8. 

As you are aware, every statement and proposition of the Westminster Confession is footnoted by Scripture proofs.

The entire commentary, in context runs from page 220-225, too long to post here.

The poll question was given in light of the Confessions on this topic.

I'm not sure which Confession you subscribe to by being part of Puritan Board but the London Baptist Confession and Westminster Confession are identical on this point. That means that they are taken to be a faithful summary of the doctrine contained in Scripture.

If you disagree with your Confession, you need to be specific about which statement or proposition you disagree with.

Eating was never prohibited on the Sabbath, and Jesus clarified that necessary food preparation is not a violation of the Sabbath.

Jesus was able to do miracles on the Sabbath because He is Lord of the Sabbath and he was clarifying that we can do works of mercy and not violate the Sabbath.

Neither of these situations were against God's Law, even in the Old Testament, they were the teachings of men (Pharisees) who made up their own regulations.

Neither of these situations have anything to do with ordinarily earning ones's living at a sales job.

You may also find the Westminster Larger Catechism helpful on summarizing the doctrine on this point, questions 115 to 121 and the attending Scripture proofs. These flush out working on the Sabbath and the exceptions for necessity and mercy well.


----------



## gene_mingo (Sep 13, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> > satz
> >
> > I would reply though, that I don’t see that Williamson supports his statements from the bible.
> 
> ...



I think picking the corn goes beyond food prep and into harvesting. Harvesting is working. If I don't work on sunday then I don't earn money then I can't eat. How is it more important for a farmer to work on sunday than a salesmen, if either of them don't work then both might suffer the loss of food.

Work for me would fall under a duty of necessity.


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 13, 2008)

> gene_mingo
> 
> I think picking the corn goes beyond food prep and into harvesting.





> Matthew 12:1
> 
> At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn: and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.



As I read this passage, the disciples were hungry and they picked the corn to eat right then, not an ordinary work of harvesting crops.

Also, when Jesus refers to King David in v. 3 he speaks of David eating the shewbread because David was hungry.

Yes, a farmer should ordinarily rest from his labor on the Lord's Day by the Fourth Commandment too.


----------



## gene_mingo (Sep 13, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> > gene_mingo
> >
> > I think picking the corn goes beyond food prep and into harvesting.
> 
> ...



i still cant agree, picking corn is the regular/ordinary method of harvesting. When they ate it is a different matter. Food preparation would deal on how they cooked or served it. Not how they gathered it.


----------



## gene_mingo (Sep 13, 2008)

> Yes, a farmer should ordinarily rest from his labor on the Lord's Day by the Fourth Commandment too.



But they can't. Again works of necessity are permitted. Have you ever seen what happens to a dairy cow if you don't milk them? I have, it is pretty gross. You have to feed any animals you have daily again it is necessary. Depending on the type of crop you are growing then watering could also be necessary on a daily basis.

Working a regular job is no different if you are living within a tight budget. If I don't work then my choices are skip buying groceries for my family or pick a utility bill not to pay. Feeding my family is necessary. So is paying my utility bills.


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 13, 2008)

> Working a regular job is no different if you are living within a tight budget.



So are saying you disagree with your Confession (Westminster Confession) on this?



> VIII. This Sabbath is to be kept holy unto the Lord when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe *an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their wordly employments *and recreations,[38] but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.[39]


----------



## gene_mingo (Sep 13, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> > Working a regular job is no different if you are living within a tight budget.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Absolutely not.



> and in the duties of necessity



I thought I made my position clear by showing how they are "duties of necessity".


----------



## satz (Sep 15, 2008)

Hi apologize for this delayed response!



Scott1 said:


> I'm not sure which Confession you subscribe to by being part of Puritan Board but the London Baptist Confession and Westminster Confession are identical on this point. That means that they are taken to be a faithful summary of the doctrine contained in Scripture.
> 
> If you disagree with your Confession, you need to be specific about which statement or proposition you disagree with.



It was not my intention with my post to call into the question the WCF or LBC’s position on the Sabbath day. I was asking what is the definition of a work of necessity or mercy, which the confessions themselves specifically allow.

I do not think the scripture proofs from either the WCF or the Catechisms really settle the issue. They do speak of not trading and doing business, but I was not arguing that a Christian should ordinarily decide to go to work or attend to his business on the Sabbath day.

What I was asking was if a man was required by an employer to work on a Sunday due to special circumstances, why wouldn’t that count as a work of necessity under the Sabbath law? Williamson’s commentary states that a man working so as to avoid losing his employment position or risking a demotion is not a work of necessity. But under this criteria, surely going hungry for a while, or waiting one day to be healed of a withered hand do not qualify as works of necessity either. But that is not how Jesus Christ operated. The commentary gives an example of a doctor operating of a man who would otherwise die as an example of something that does qualify as a work of necessity. By this criteria, should not Jesus have waited a day before healing the man with a withered hand, since this man was not going to die if he was not healed there and then on the Sabbath?



> Eating was never prohibited on the Sabbath, and Jesus clarified that necessary food preparation is not a violation of the Sabbath.
> 
> Jesus was able to do miracles on the Sabbath because He is Lord of the Sabbath and he was clarifying that we can do works of mercy and not violate the Sabbath.
> 
> ...



Again, I was not saying that a Christian ought to take a job, or organize his business such that it ‘ordinarily’ requires him to work on the Sabbath. However if special circumstances, including the whim of his master, require him to work on the Sabbath, such a situation does seem to me to fall within the criteria of a work of necessity, as set out in the gospels.

Regarding the disciples picking corn, I do not think I implied that the Pharisees were suggesting that eating was a violation of the Sabbath. From my understanding, it was the act of picking the grains that they objected to. Again, remember that God had a man stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, yet here Jesus allowed his disciples to pick corn to eat simply because they were hungry. 

Is the bible position such that it is ok to ‘work’ to avoid a few hours of hunger, but it is not ok to work to preserve one’s source of livelihood? 




> You may also find the Westminster Larger Catechism helpful on summarizing the doctrine on this point, questions 115 to 121 and the attending Scripture proofs. These flush out working on the Sabbath and the exceptions for necessity and mercy well.


----------



## Christusregnat (Sep 15, 2008)

satz said:


> Regarding the disciples picking corn, I do not think I implied that the Pharisees were suggesting that eating was a violation of the Sabbath. From my understanding, it was the act of picking the grains that they objected to. Again, remember that God had a man stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, yet here Jesus allowed his disciples to pick corn to eat simply because they were hungry.
> 
> Is the bible position such that it is ok to ‘work’ to avoid a few hours of hunger, but it is not ok to work to preserve one’s source of livelihood?



Satz,

The notion that Jesus contradicts Moses on the sabbath would require some explanation, since Jesus repeatedly denied such a conclusion, and the Pharisees unsuccessfully accused Him of it. If you are saying that Jesus contradicts Moses on this point, you are in the wrong crowd.

That said, is there a difference between gathering food and gathering wood? The answer is too simple to require refutation. Could the wood be gathered the day before? Could the food? I think the wood could have, but was not. The food seems not to have been available for gathering the day before. The gospels tell us of Jesus on the move, and the disciples with Him. He had no permanent dwelling, unlike the birds who have nests, etc.

The question about working when required by a boss appears to be a false dilemma. If God is the source of our daily bread, do we need to worry? Isn't the whole point of the sabbath that God provides for all of our needs, and therefore, we are to rest from our worries and toils, and rest on His holy day? Would not our livelihood be one of those worries? The sabbath was made to bless us so that we wouldn't have to think of these things, and you seem to suggest that we should be so worried that we do not rest. This makes no sense. Is not God able to provide for us if we refuse to submit to an ungodly demand that we work on a day of rest? He is more than able, and if we do not trust Him to do so, we have missed the heart of the sabbath.

Cheers,


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 15, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> > Working a regular job is no different if you are living within a tight budget.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I think he is saying that severe financial distress counts as a work of necessity and thus would not be against the Scripture of the Confession.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 15, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding the disciples picking corn, I do not think I implied that the Pharisees were suggesting that eating was a violation of the Sabbath. From my understanding, it was the act of picking the grains that they objected to. Again, remember that God had a man stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, yet here Jesus allowed his disciples to pick corn to eat simply because they were hungry.
> ...





This is not an issue of someone not trusting that God will provide. God has provided - a JOB. If a man has to work to support his family on a rare Sabbath and not ordinarily, then this may just be a work of necessity. If a man does not take care of his own, then he is worse than an infidel and many, many jobs require occasional weekend committments.

Right now I know 3 "reformed" acquaintances that like unemployment better than committing to jobs that might make them work one Sunday per month (there is a possibility for 2 ofthese that the person could find a person to trade shifts with). One man gets gov't assistance I believe. (I need to check up on these...their situations might have changed since I talked to them last...)


Jesus could have merely healed the man in the Gospels...but Jesus made it a point to tell the man to take up his mat and walk. Why didn't Jesus tell the man, get up and walk and leave your mat for tomorrow after the Sabbath is over?


----------



## gene_mingo (Sep 15, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding the disciples picking corn, I do not think I implied that the Pharisees were suggesting that eating was a violation of the Sabbath. From my understanding, it was the act of picking the grains that they objected to. Again, remember that God had a man stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, yet here Jesus allowed his disciples to pick corn to eat simply because they were hungry.
> ...



I want to go back to the farmer example. Who will feed his animals or water his crops on the sabbath? I suppose it could rain every sunday, but cows need a milking, pigs need a sloping and chickens all need some grain. This is his ordinary work. If he was to skip a day wouldn't that be cruel to the animals? If you fail to milk a cow the tits on the utter will rupture and cause the cow severe pain and suffering. I have had to deal with the aftermath of this personally and it is not pleasant.

I think there comes a point were ordinary works turn into works of necessity. Financial hardship is one of those times.


----------



## satz (Sep 15, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Satz,
> 
> The notion that Jesus contradicts Moses on the sabbath would require some explanation, since Jesus repeatedly denied such a conclusion, and the Pharisees unsuccessfully accused Him of it. If you are saying that Jesus contradicts Moses on this point, you are in the wrong crowd.



Hi Adam,

I never said anywhere that Jesus contradicts Moses. I do believe that Jesus was clarifying (as in, explaining the true meaning of) what Moses commanded. In Matthew 12 he responds to the Pharisees challenge by asking them if they have not read the story of David and the shewbread, indicating that the principle he is espousing now is something that was, or should have been know even in the Old Testament.




> That said, is there a difference between gathering food and gathering wood? The answer is too simple to require refutation. Could the wood be gathered the day before? Could the food? I think the wood could have, but was not. The food seems not to have been available for gathering the day before. The gospels tell us of Jesus on the move, and the disciples with Him. He had no permanent dwelling, unlike the birds who have nests, etc.



I would respectfully (and I mean that sincerely) suggest that if you are asking a man to risk losing his job, the answer does indeed require refutation, instead of simply being assumed.

I do not see the great difference in gathering food and gathering wood. Why couldn’t the food have been gathered the previous day? Isn’t that what OT Israel did with their manna?

Even if Jesus and his disciples were constantly on the move, I am sure the disciples could have obtained some kind of food which would keep for at least a day, and place it in a carrying bag of some kind. If God’s law requires a man to forsake his job and source of livelihood, surely the disciples could have made that little effort to avoid having to gather food on the Sabbath. But they didn’t, and Jesus approved, not rebuked their actions.

When Jesus defended his disciples in Matt 12, he told them the story of David eating the shewbread, and told them that God requires mercy and not sacrifice. So his point was that a situation of need (David’s hunger) allowed him to do something he otherwise wouldn’t have been able to (eat the bread meant for the priests). So Jesus’ justification of his disciples was not about saying that gathering food is different from other work. It was based on the situation of need, ie their hunger. If hunger is a valid reason, I do not see why preserving one’s livelihood is not. 



> The question about working when required by a boss appears to be a false dilemma. If God is the source of our daily bread, do we need to worry? Isn't the whole point of the sabbath that God provides for all of our needs, and therefore, we are to rest from our worries and toils, and rest on His holy day? Would not our livelihood be one of those worries? The sabbath was made to bless us so that we wouldn't have to think of these things, and you seem to suggest that we should be so worried that we do not rest. This makes no sense. Is not God able to provide for us if we refuse to submit to an ungodly demand that we work on a day of rest? He is more than able, and if we do not trust Him to do so, we have missed the heart of the sabbath.
> 
> Cheers,



I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was not questioning whether we should have faith and trust in God’s promises. I was asking, what exactly is the nature of God’s command and promise? It does no good to say “Lets trust God”, unless there is a particular promise we are trusting in. The reformed confessions themselves, but allowing for works of necessity and mercy to be done on the Sabbath indicate that the Sabbath law does allow for exceptions. Jesus Christ allowed men to pull their sheep from a ditch if it were to fall into one on the Sabbath day (Matt 12), and to lead their oxen to drink (Luke 13). So there are some tasks that God expects men to do, even on the Sabbath. He does not expect them to trust him to take care of those things, because he has allowed them to do so on their own. 

So, I am not asking us to doubt the promises of God. I am asking to define exactly what God has commanded and promised. I hope that makes more sense.


----------



## Christusregnat (Sep 15, 2008)

gene_mingo said:


> I want to go back to the farmer example. Who will feed his animals or water his crops on the sabbath? I suppose it could rain every sunday, but cows need a milking, pigs need a sloping and chickens all need some grain. This is his ordinary work. If he was to skip a day wouldn't that be cruel to the animals? If you fail to milk a cow the tits on the utter will rupture and cause the cow severe pain and suffering. I have had to deal with the aftermath of this personally and it is not pleasant.
> 
> I think there comes a point were ordinary works turn into works of necessity. Financial hardship is one of those times.



Josh,

This is a confusing example. The animals' lives are to be cared for. The ordinary means of sustaining their lives is to feed them every day. God commanded His people to work for their food six days and rest the seventh. In fact, He promises that He will bless us with abundance so that we don't have to work extra on the seventh day. He never said to not feed animals on the seventh day; just to let them rest. Your example does not contradict the main point: refraining from work. Nice try though.

Cheers,


----------



## Christusregnat (Sep 15, 2008)

satz said:


> Hi Adam,
> 
> I never said anywhere that Jesus contradicts Moses. I do believe that Jesus was clarifying (as in, explaining the true meaning of) what Moses commanded. In Matthew 12 he responds to the Pharisees challenge by asking them if they have not read the story of David and the shewbread, indicating that the principle he is espousing now is something that was, or should have been know even in the Old Testament.






> Again, remember that God had a man stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, yet here Jesus allowed his disciples to pick corn to eat simply because they were hungry.



Unless I'm misunderstanding you, this appears to be setting the Law of Moses at variance with Christ's teaching. It doesn't, since the death penalty for Sabbath breakers is still valid, and doesn't contradict works of necessity, mercy and piety. I do agree that the basic principals that Jesus was dealing with were known and taught in the Law of Moses, and therefore the death penalty for Sabbath breaking still stands as valid. It's a two-way street.




satz said:


> > That said, is there a difference between gathering food and gathering wood? The answer is too simple to require refutation. Could the wood be gathered the day before? Could the food? I think the wood could have, but was not. The food seems not to have been available for gathering the day before. The gospels tell us of Jesus on the move, and the disciples with Him. He had no permanent dwelling, unlike the birds who have nests, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Indeed, they did. However, they had a fixed dwelling, which moved only when the cloud or fire moved. Furthermore, it is clear that Jesus was busy from sun up to sun down, and that David, running as a fugitive, did not have a fixed dwelling. The point of the illustrations given by Christ is that the actions of David were necessary. If a man is not provident in setting aside his income in savings in order to provide for times when he's out of work, or if he chooses a profession that requires work on all seven days, or if he doesn't inform his boss that he has a religious conviction not to do commerce on the sabbath, then he's made his own bead, and shouldn't try to call it a work of necessity; it's simply irresponsibility on his part.





satz said:


> If God’s law requires a man to forsake his job and source of livelihood, surely the disciples could have made that little effort to avoid having to gather food on the Sabbath. But they didn’t, and Jesus approved, not rebuked their actions.



This is a false dilemma; a common logical fallacy. Simply because I'm saying that obeying a moral law is more important than securing a livelihood does not mean that I'm saying the Law of God "requires a man to forsake his job". All I'm saying is that God's law gives priority, which (if a man so chooses) he may make his priorities as well. God Law is greater riches than much fine gold. If I were asked to lie to keep my job, or commit adultery to keep my job, or worship a false god to keep my job, what should I do? 

Did not the three holy children in Daniel 3 have jobs, and lives and education to think about? Yet, they still ate clean foods, refused the kings, and refused to bow down. There is no law that we should violate in order to be good businessmen. What I am asserting (perhaps erroneously) is that the examples Christ gives don't cover situations which could be avoided by the steps I've listed above. 



satz said:


> So Jesus’ justification of his disciples was not about saying that gathering food is different from other work. It was based on the situation of need, ie their hunger. If hunger is a valid reason, I do not see why preserving one’s livelihood is not.



Again, this is a false dilemma. If a man is provident, he will gather in the summer, as the ant, so that he has food in winter. This is common sense.





satz said:


> I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was not questioning whether we should have faith and trust in God’s promises. I was asking, what exactly is the nature of God’s command and promise? It does no good to say “Lets trust God”, unless there is a particular promise we are trusting in.



Nor was I stating to "just trust God"; but let me clarify. Again, God promises to provide extra during their ordinary work for those that observe the sabbath. The law of God is not as difficult to obey as you're making it out to be. If a man is not provident in his saving, or in his choice of career, training, etc. then he digs a pit that he will fall in. And if given the choice to rest on the seventh day, or work, he ought to obey God rather than men. Even in California, employers are required to give someone Sundays off if it is his religious convictions. I imagine that other states or commonwealths have similar laws. And even if they didn't, that still doesn't change the law, even if we try to get David in as an example.





satz said:


> The reformed confessions themselves, but allowing for works of necessity and mercy to be done on the Sabbath indicate that the Sabbath law does allow for exceptions. Jesus Christ allowed men to pull their sheep from a ditch if it were to fall into one on the Sabbath day (Matt 12), and to lead their oxen to drink (Luke 13). So there are some tasks that God expects men to do, even on the Sabbath. He does not expect them to trust him to take care of those things, because he has allowed them to do so on their own.



Indeed, they do. I'm not stating that there are not works of necessity, piety and mercy. All I'm stating is that if a man is irresponsible, he shouldn't call it necessity; he should call himself a fool for not choosing wisely.



satz said:


> So, I am not asking us to doubt the promises of God. I am asking to define exactly what God has commanded and promised. I hope that makes more sense.



Mark, I don't think you are asking me to doubt God's promise. What I think you are doing is trying to call something necessary which is not. I don't think it's a sin for people to gather and prepare food on the sabbath if they have no other alternatives left to them. I don't think it's wrong for a pastor to teach the Word and administer the sacraments on the sabbath, or to go and visit the fatherless and widow, etc. Or to get your car fixed, if you have no other means of transportation available, or to feed your pigs and cows. If something is inevitable, it is necessity. If it is avoidable, it is not necessity; by definition. 

Necessity is a philosophical term of inevitability; a man not "going to the ant" is a sluggard, and ought not to call it necessity. If he fails to plan his career, or inform his boss, or follow other prudent procedures for avoiding such works, then it is not inevitable, he is just lazy.

If he took all of those steps, and was still forced to work on the sabbath, then I could see him working for a certain amount of time until his lawyer can contact his boss. Other than that, I think it's avoidable, and should not be looked on as necessity. Anywho, I'll get off my 

Cheers,


----------



## gene_mingo (Sep 15, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> gene_mingo said:
> 
> 
> > I want to go back to the farmer example. Who will feed his animals or water his crops on the sabbath? I suppose it could rain every sunday, but cows need a milking, pigs need a sloping and chickens all need some grain. This is his ordinary work. If he was to skip a day wouldn't that be cruel to the animals? If you fail to milk a cow the tits on the utter will rupture and cause the cow severe pain and suffering. I have had to deal with the aftermath of this personally and it is not pleasant.
> ...



Good I am glad that you agree that feeding animals and caring for their needs is required. 
How is raising 1000 pigs and feeding them everyday not working for your food? How is working a dairy farm and having to milk 200-300 cows on sunday different than any other type of work? Chickens don't stop laying eggs on the sabbath, how is collecting 1000's of eggs on a chicken farm exempt from what is considered ordinary worldly employment? 

How is working 8-10 hours on a farm on sunday refraining from work?


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 15, 2008)

> suggest that if you are asking a man to risk losing his job, the answer does indeed require refutation,



It's not any of us. It's our Creator who commands that we do...



> 8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
> 
> 9*Six days *shalt thou labour, and *do all thy work*:
> 
> ...


----------



## Christusregnat (Sep 15, 2008)

gene_mingo said:


> Good I am glad that you agree that feeding animals and caring for their needs is required.
> How is raising 1000 pigs and feeding them everyday not working for your food? How is working a dairy farm and having to milk 200-300 cows on sunday different than any other type of work? Chickens don't stop laying eggs on the sabbath, how is collecting 1000's of eggs on a chicken farm exempt from what is considered ordinary worldly employment?
> 
> How is working 8-10 hours on a farm on sunday refraining from work?



Congratulations, you have proved that a farmer has to take care of his animals, as a work that is unavoidable. If a man's multi-million dollar farm causes him to have his sabbath overrun with work, then he should choose true riches that don't fade away, and change his priorities.

Cheers,


----------



## gene_mingo (Sep 15, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> gene_mingo said:
> 
> 
> > Good I am glad that you agree that feeding animals and caring for their needs is required.
> ...



So are farmers sabbath breakers or not?

Maybe you have never worked on a farm, I don't know, but even small mom and pop farms require regular work all day. If you have just one milk cow you have to milk her twice a day. Thats 2-3 hours of your day with just one cow.

I have yet to see you make a clear distinction between a work of necessity or ordinary work.


----------



## Christusregnat (Sep 15, 2008)

gene_mingo said:


> So are farmers sabbath breakers or not?
> 
> Maybe you have never worked on a farm, I don't know, but even small mom and pop farms require regular work all day. If you have just one milk cow you have to milk her twice a day. Thats 2-3 hours of your day with just one cow.
> 
> I have yet to see you make a clear distinction between a work of necessity or ordinary work.



I defined a work of necessity above. For clarity's sake, necessity is a philosophical term which means that something is unavoidable. In other words, no matter what you tried to do to avoid something, it would still happen. A work of "necessity" is a work which one cannot avoid by planning or other measures. 

Godly and honest farmers would not sacrifice one day of rest a week for the sake of their farm. May they not choose other animals, or limit the number, or increase the number of children (d.v.) they have? In other words, if someone wants to have a day of rest (which if anyone needed, a farmer would), he would find a way to have it. Whatever we prioritize will get done. Cows or no. If a man had 12 milk cows, and it caused him to violate the injunction to rest and worship, he would have to decide on what his hightest priority was.

Cheers,


----------



## gene_mingo (Sep 16, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> gene_mingo said:
> 
> 
> > So are farmers sabbath breakers or not?
> ...



So the number of animals animals a farmer owns dictates wether he is a sabbath breaker? I am just talking about one milk cow. Does owning one milk cow make him a sabbath breaker? He would have to milk that cow twice a day, everyday. If he had fifty children the one cow still needs to be milked twice a day.


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 16, 2008)

Somehow, you must approach keeping the Forth Commandment with faith. Faith that God will provide for your needs and bless you for obedience. There are many examples of Sabbath-keeping farmers and ranchers in Scripture.


----------



## satz (Sep 16, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> > suggest that if you are asking a man to risk losing his job, the answer does indeed require refutation,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hi Scott,

In the sentence which you quoted, I was responding to Adam’s paragraph which stated:



> That said, is there a difference between gathering food and gathering wood? The answer is too simple to require refutation. Could the wood be gathered the day before? Could the food? I think the wood could have, but was not. The food seems not to have been available for gathering the day before. The gospels tell us of Jesus on the move, and the disciples with Him. He had no permanent dwelling, unlike the birds who have nests, etc.



So simply quoting God’s command not to work on the Sabbath does not answer my question, because God’s command was not absolute, it allowed for works of mercy and necessity, as the Confessions state.

My question was not to ask if God forbade work on the Sabbath, it was to ask what is and is not a work of necessity, something which Adam was answering when he drew distinction between gathering of food and gathering of wood (assuming I understand him properly).


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 16, 2008)

> satz
> I would respectfully (and I mean that sincerely) suggest that if you are asking a man to risk losing his job, the answer does indeed require refutation, instead of simply being assumed.



Your quote gives the impression you think it is outrageous that one would risk losing one's job (e.g. commercial gathering of firewood on the sabbath) in order to obey God.

Yes, God may call us to sacrifice, trust Him, and in faith, to obey. It's not easy, but that is, in fact, what God calls us to do- trust and obey in relation to the Forth Commandment (and all the other Commandments).

You are giving the impression you dispute that.


You re-enforce this with your later quote:



> Even if Jesus and his disciples were constantly on the move, I am sure the disciples could have obtained some kind of food which would keep for at least a day, and place it in a carrying bag of some kind. If *God’s law requires a man to forsake his job and source of livelihood,* surely the disciples could have made that little effort to avoid having to gather food on the Sabbath. But they didn’t, and Jesus approved, not rebuked their actions.



The other posters you are interacting with did not say "God's law requires a man to 'forsake' his job and source of livelihood"- that was the false choice you presented that was commented upon in post#24.

What God calls us to is obedience- working six days and resting so that we focus on worshipping Him on the Sabbath. 

This even includes farmers and those who would gather wood for a living. Somehow, by God's grace, they, like their predecessors of old who kept the Sabbath, are called to do likewise.


----------



## satz (Sep 17, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> > satz
> > I would respectfully (and I mean that sincerely) suggest that if you are asking a man to risk losing his job, the answer does indeed require refutation, instead of simply being assumed.
> 
> 
> ...


 
No, I do not consider it outrageous that one would consider making any sacrifice to obey God, and I think that if my comments are read in their full context, they make no such implication. 

I will try to explain what I objected to: 

God has commanded men not to work on the Sabbath. But God has also provided that works of necessity on the Sabbath are allowed. A pious man faced with the choice between working on the Sabbath and losing his job might well wonder if working for one Sabbath day would qualify as a work of necessity. 

I my post I pointed out that Jesus allowed his disciples to gather food because they were hungry. This despite the fact that gathering manna, or gathering wood had already been held to be wrong in the OT. I wondered why the Lord would not also allow a man to work to preserve his job. 

Adam replied that the difference between gathering sticks and gathering food was ‘too simple to require refutation’. I disagreed with him, which was when I wrote the statement you quoted. 

What I had meant to express was that since God himself has allowed exceptions to the Sabbath, the question of if a man should work or lose his job is one which ought to be answered carefully, not simply dismissed. 

To set out my point again: 
- gathering of food (i.e. manna ) on the Sabbath was forbidden for Israel in the OT. 
- Gathering of wood on the Sabbath was forbidden for Israel in the OT. 
- Yet Jesus allowed his disciples to gather food on the Sabbath. The difference being that they had a need - they were hungry. 
- Jesus (in Matt 12) answers the Pharisees’ accusations by reminding them of the story of David, who ate the shewbread meant only for the priests because he was hungry. Jesus did not defend his disciples by saying that picking corn was not work. Rather he made an argument based on the fact that necessity (i.e. the hunger of David and his disciples allows for things usually forbidden to be done on the Sabbath.
-	If hunger allows a man to work on the Sabbath, why can’t a man work to preserve his job and livelihood on the Sabbath? 



> Yes, God may call us to sacrifice, trust Him, and in faith, to obey. It's not easy, but that is, in fact, what God calls us to do- trust and obey in relation to the Forth Commandment (and all the other Commandments).
> 
> You are giving the impression you dispute that.


 
I don’t dispute that. I made some points about whether there are instances where a man working his job on the Sabbath might fall under the God ordained exceptions to the general rule not to work. 



> You re-enforce this with your later quote:
> 
> 
> 
> > Even if Jesus and his disciples were constantly on the move, I am sure the disciples could have obtained some kind of food which would keep for at least a day, and place it in a carrying bag of some kind. If *God’s law requires a man to forsake his job and source of livelihood,* surely the disciples could have made that little effort to avoid having to gather food on the Sabbath. But they didn’t, and Jesus approved, not rebuked their actions.



Again, if you look at the context of my quote, I was discussing whether something was, or was not an allowable work of necessity for the Sabbath law. Here is the paragraph I was responding to: 

_That said, is there a difference between gathering food and gathering wood? The answer is too simple to require refutation. Could the wood be gathered the day before? Could the food? I think the wood could have, but was not. The food seems not to have been available for gathering the day before. The gospels tell us of Jesus on the move, and the disciples with Him. He had no permanent dwelling, unlike the birds who have nests, etc. _

Adam was responding to me and he seems, if I understand him correctly, to be saying that the reason God allowed for gathering food, as opposed to gathering wood, was that the wood could have been gathered before the Sabbath, but the food could not.

I responded by saying that if the Sabbath law was strict enough to require a man to lose his job rather than work on the Sabbath (which is certainly within God’s prerogative), surely it would have required the disciples to either take measures to obtain food the day before, or to go hungry.

I agree that God may call us to sacrifice, trust and obey, even at cost. I do not deny that this is a difficult thing to be lived out in our daily and practical lives. However, I do not believe it is impious to want to understand exactly what is God’s command and promise before we act out in faith and obedience.

That is all I have been trying to do in this thread. 




> The other posters you are interacting with did not say "God's law requires a man to 'forsake' his job and source of livelihood"- that was the false choice you presented that was commented upon in post#24.
> 
> What God calls us to is obedience- working six days and resting so that we focus on worshipping Him on the Sabbath.
> 
> This even includes farmers and those who would gather wood for a living. Somehow, by God's grace, they, like their predecessors of old who kept the Sabbath, are called to do likewise.


----------

