Sabbath breaking occupations

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
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?

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.
 
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?)
 
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.
 
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 ----------

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".

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

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.


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


God does not command His creatures to fast on sabbath. They may, but it is not part of the command.

A careful reading of the plucking of the grains account seems to show it was not prohibited even under the Levitical law, let alone by principle of the moral law. Our Lord was exposing the hypocrisy of those who would condone David eating the showbread in the Temple (which was a violation) while not condoning something that likely was acceptable.

C.f. There were instances where plucking grain, in certain circumstances was prohibited in the Levitical law. These were connected to civil law given the unique Old Testament theocracy of Israel and/or ceremonial law- and are not binding on us today. But the Pharisees here were even misapplying that.


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.

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

Anecdotal- I know farmers who do not milk their cows on Sunday, and am not sure why.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.


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?
 
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.
 
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.


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?

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 ----------

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).
 
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:

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.

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.
 
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.


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?

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 ----------

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).



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:

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.

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.


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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Nehemiah 13 - Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Bible


Sabbath-breaking restrained.

The keeping holy the Lord's day forms an important object for their attention who would promote true godliness. Religion never prospers while sabbaths are trodden under foot. No wonder there was a general decay of religion, and corruption of manners among the Jews, when they forsook the sanctuary and profaned the sabbath. Those little consider what an evil they do, who profane the sabbath. We must answer for the sins others are led to commit by our example. Nehemiah charges it on

them as an evil thing, for so it is, proceeding from contempt of God and our own souls. He shows that sabbath-breaking was one of the sins for which God had brought judgments upon them; and if they did not take warning, but returned to the same sins again, they had to expect further judgments. The courage, zeal, and prudence of Nehemiah in this matter, are recorded for us to do likewise; and we have reason to think, that the cure he wrought was lasting. He felt and confessed himself a sinner,

who could demand nothing from God as justice, when he thus cried unto him for mercy. (Ne 13:23-31)

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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

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

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.
 
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.


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?
 
comment below

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.


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.

Yes, it is- a trapped animal might die.

Oxen that fall into ditches can suffocate.

But beyond that, there is specific provision in the Levitical Law to allow this as "necessity."


Taking care of oxen is a farmer's ordinary labour.

Oxen falling into the ditch, needing to be rescued, is not the ordinary occurrence.

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?

The farmer had specific biblical warrant to do this particular work of necessity (mercy?) on the sabbath, the office worker does not have warrant to work his computer accounts sabbath.

The former is necessary to save the life of the animal. It is necessary to do that work at that time or the animal might die.

The latter is necessary for the earning of money- money which can be earned on the other six days.


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.

No.

The consequence of waiting until Monday would be the chicks likely would all die (and the p.o. would not even notify of that!)


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?
God is not generally asking His creatures to give up their livelihood- He is commanding they sabbath from it on the Lord's Day in order to prioritize worship of Him all the day.

God commands His creatures to work six days, so there is no "giving up," just the opposite. He is commanding it not consume all seven days.

He is commanded we regulate our lives by it.


Does God care more for animals than he does for the livelihood of his children?


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.


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.

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.

These same issues face us here.

Think of it this way, this logic could be used to say we could steal. We have mouths to feed. Creditors are not understanding. We could rationalize stealing "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.



Keeping the Christian Sabbath, like having an uncommon love for one another, tithing, ought be a badge of identification for Christians worldwide, to affect every culture, tribe, nation, kindred and tongue.


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.

My grandfather used to tell us about the Great Depression, none of these are new. There was a greater consciousness of the sabbath going in to, during and coming out of the Great Depression.

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.


Part of caring for employees and your family is making sure they rest on Sunday. For family, leading family worship on the Lord's Day.

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.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top