Another Bahnsen Quote For Discussion, Concerning the Sabbath

Status
Not open for further replies.

Backwoods Presbyterian

Puritanboard Amanuensis
As most of you know I have been reading through T.I.C.E. and recently had to take a break but have picked it back up and found a Sabbath quote for you to discuss:

Although ceremonial days are no longer to be distinguished, the New Testament does distinguish the first day of the week from the other six (1 Cor 16:2; Acts 20:7) and denominates it \"the Lord's Day\" (Rev. 1:20). In observing the weekly Sabbath we honor Christ who is the \"Lord\" of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28), and we anticipate the coming Sabbath rest which our Lord has secured for us (in this, parallels can be seen with the \"Lord's Supper\"). In Mark 2:23-28, Christ and his disciples are accused of \"doing what is not lawful\" on the Sabbath, but because they had only violated a rabbinical tradition Christ does not bother to contest the accusation; it simply amounted to nothing. There was no contest, for Christ did not recognize the traditions of the elders as \"lawful\". However, Christ does take this as an opportunity to assert that He is \"Lord even of the Sabbath.\" Thereby Christ definitely and positively confirmed the Sabbath; otherwise Christ would be grandly proclaiming His lordship over something which was non-existent. The Sabbath did not pass away with Christ's advent or Messianic work; until our eternal rest the weekly Sabbath continues to be \"lorded\" by Christ and is a type of the coming reality. \"The Sabbath was made for man\" (Mark 2:27), and man still needs the benefit of it. The issue of the Sabbath poses no contradiction to the abiding validity of God's moral law. -- pg. 230
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
I've sometimes wondered if many OT laws fall into a catagory of "virtue" that could mean that keeping them is a good thing but not keeping them isn't necessarily a sin.

In South Africa the Bible is taken much more seriously in Afrikaans culture than it is over here. My neighbor was an alfalfa farmer, and due to the OT law he didnt "round the corners of his fields" i.e. he left the corners for the local Africans to glean. They came and harvested by hand enough to supplement the diet of their milk goats, which was very important to their families.

Was that morally neutral (don't you hate having to use that phrase?)?

Say you have two farmers in 30AD. Both let poor people glean, and that was proper. A few years later one decided he wasn't under the law due to the death and resurrection, and felt he could use the extra income, and stopped letting poor people glean, and on the day of rest went out and harvested the corners.

The other kept on doing as always.

What then? Even if one did "better" could it be that neither sinned in the matter?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top