Law Enforcement labor on the Sabbath?

[satz]

Scott

Thanks for your reply.

Biblically, how would you define convenience and necessity? At the moment, I don't see any contradiction in believing that a man keeping his employment (if the requirement to work on sundays is placed upon him by his boss and not his own choice) qualifies as an act of necessity rather than convenience. Again, I don't see the justification from insisting that "necessity" means emergencies or life threatening situations only.

Jesus allowed his disciples to pick corn on the sabbath simply because they were hungry.
I don't think this is the same- we are not called to fast all day. Explicitly, it is okay to eat and have some food preparation. Other principles apply so the day is not unduly dominated by food preparation, though.

I am not sure that Jesus meant that it is ok to engage in food preparation in the sense that the reason why his disciples were guiltless was because food preparation does not fall under the sabbath command.

Matthew 12:1-4 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 shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

Jesus quotes the example of David eating the shewbread in justifying his disciples. The point he is making is that what is not normally allowed is allowed in exceptional circumstances. If the principle can be applied to this disciples picking corn to eat when they were hungry walking through the corn, I don't see any reason why it should not apply to someone who may have to work on certain sundays to make a living.

 

[Scott1]

Scott

Thanks for your reply.

You're welcome.

I realize this is a difficult area because it so affects our life pattern.

Biblically, how would you define convenience and necessity?

From Mr. Williamson's example in the book, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, p. 173 first edition "necessity" means the work itself is necessary to be done at that time.

The examples Mr. Williamson uses to illustrate the point were:

1) a doctor who must operate today or a man will die

that is "necessary" work

2) a construction worker who must report to the construction site today or he will endanger his job

that is "convenience"

Understand that the construction worker might lose his job if he does not work on Sunday. But the work is not "necessary" to be done that day as in the case of the doctor.

Does that make sense?

At the moment, I don't see any contradiction in believing that a man keeping his employment (if the requirement to work on sundays is placed upon him by his boss and not his own choice)
In a free society, a man chooses his job. He does not have to choose a job that forces him to work on Sunday. That might mean difficulty or even some suffering, at least temporarily in finding the right job, but, in the end, the man, not the boss chooses that.

qualifies as an act of necessity rather than convenience. Again, I don't see the justification from insisting that "necessity" means emergencies or life threatening situations only.

Jesus allowed his disciples to pick corn on the sabbath simply because they were hungry.
I don't think this is the same- we are not called to fast all day. Explicitly, it is okay to eat and have some food preparation. Other principles apply so the day is not unduly dominated by food preparation, though.

I am not sure that Jesus meant that it is ok to engage in food preparation in the sense that the reason why his disciples were guiltless was because food preparation does not fall under the sabbath command.

Matthew 12:1-4 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 shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

Jesus quotes the example of David eating the shewbread in justifying his disciples. The point he is making is that what is not normally allowed is allowed in exceptional circumstances.
Yes.

But it also explicitly showed that the shucking and eating of corn (preparing and eating food) WAS allowed on the sabbath. The pharisees had come up with some man-made law that made it practically or technically impossible to do so. Jesus was making explicit that never was part of (God's) fourth commandment.

Now remember also, the Israelite was under ceremonial law and civil law given to Israel for that time (as a church under age) and some of those laws did apply as a standard of righteousness to God's people at that time.

There were many ceremonial laws that applied to the sabbath day and to particular sabbath days in the Old Testament. These included food and drink regulations, festivals, "holy" days, sacrifices, etc. They were binding to God's people at that time and were a standard for righteous behavior in God's sight.

Ceremonial law and civil law given Israel do not apply to us today. (These were given to point people to God and to His redemptive work through Christ and thankfully, we are not under those today. We have a "new and better covenant" in this regard).

But the Fourth Commandment is moral, perpetual law, binding on all men, in all generations.

If the principle can be applied to this disciples picking corn to eat when they were hungry walking through the corn, I don't see any reason why it should not apply to someone who may have to work on certain sundays to make a living.

Eating is an ordinary, necessary, and daily life sustaining activity. It is not an "exceptional" activity.

Work is commanded six days but the seventh is commanded to "sabbath" (cease).

God does not command us to routinely "cease" eating (or the incidents necessary to it).

He does, however, command us to "cease" working one day in seven in order that we might prioritize remembrance and worship of Him one day in seven.

 

[satz]

I am sorry for the late reply.

From Mr. Williamson's example in the book, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, p. 173 first edition "necessity" means the work itself is necessary to be done at that time.

The examples Mr. Williamson uses to illustrate the point were:

1) a doctor who must operate today or a man will die

that is "necessary" work

2) a construction worker who must report to the construction site today or he will endanger his job

that is "convenience"

Understand that the construction worker might lose his job if he does not work on Sunday. But the work is not "necessary" to be done that day as in the case of the doctor.

Does that make sense?

It does make sense, logically, but I still don't really see it biblically.

Where does the bible set out that "necessary" is only in something akin to a life and death matter like in the example given?

When I look at the examples of controversies raised on the Sabbath in the gospels and the examples Jesus Christ gave I see:

Eating because you are hungry (Mt 12)
Healing on the Sabbath (Mt 12)
Helping an animal out of a pit (Mt 12)
Leading your animal to water (Lk 13)
Circumcising on the Sabbath (Jn 7)

None of these things seem to fall within Mr Willamson's definition of necessary. In fact, to follow the example of a medical doctor, Jesus specifically engaged in healing works when there was no urgency at all. He could easily have waited until the next day. So where does the definition of necessity has having to do with life and death type situations come from?

Yes.

But it also explicitly showed that the shucking and eating of corn (preparing and eating food) WAS allowed on the sabbath. The pharisees had come up with some man-made law that made it practically or technically impossible to do so. Jesus was making explicit that never was part of (God's) fourth commandment.

It might be true and shucking and eating of corn was always allowable on the Sabbath, but that is not how Jesus answered the Pharisees. He specifically makes the point, by referring to David eating the shewbread, that in special circumstances things which are not normally allowable can be allowed.

He concludes in Mt 12:7 by noting this is an application of the principle " I will have mercy, and not sacrifice". Honestly, it seems to me that the teachings of the bible would actually tend towards being more merciful with those who may have to work on Sundays (even if the "have" is not a matter of life and death). Again, my point is I don't see that the bible teaches such a high standard before the principles of necessity and mercy apply. Based on the examples given, the fact that someone needs to work to earn a living appears to be enough.

 

[kvanlaan]

Why do Americans call Sabbatarian laws, "blue laws" ?

I dunne ken. Not a clue.

And yes, the sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, because God knows better than we the rest that we need.

 

[matt01]

Why do Americans call Sabbatarian laws, "blue laws" ?

The first usage of the word blue law may have been by the Reverend Samuel Peters (1735–1826) in his 1781 book General History of Connecticut. He used it to describe various laws first enacted by Puritan colonies in the 17th century, prohibiting certain business activities on specific days of the week (usually Sunday). Sometimes the sale of certain types of merchandise was prohibited, and in some cases all retail and business activity.

Contrary to popular belief, there is no evidence to support the assertion that the blue laws were originally printed on blue paper. Rather, the word blue was commonly used in the 18th century as a disparaging reference to rigid moral codes and those who observed them (e.g., "bluenoses", blue movies). Moreover, although Reverend Peters claimed that the term blue law was originally used by Puritan colonists, his work has since been found to be unreliable, and it is more likely that he simply invented the term himself.[3] In any event, Peters never asserted that the blue laws were originally printed on blue paper, and this has come to be regarded as an example of false etymology. Another version is that the laws were first bound in books with blue covers.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law]Blue law[/ame]

There are some interesting Blue Laws, which thankfully aren't used anymore:

• No food or lodging shall be afforded to a Quaker, Adamite, or other Heretic.
• If any person turns Quaker, he shall be banished, and not suffered to return but upon pain of death.
• No Priest shall abide in this Dominion: he shall be banished, and suffer death on his return. Priests may be seized by any one without a warrant.
• No one to cross a river, but with an authorized ferryman.
• No one shall run on the Sabbath day, or walk in his garden or elsewhere, except reverently to and from meeting.
• No one shall travel, cook victuals, make beds, sweep house, cut hair, or shave, on the Sabbath day.
• No woman shall kiss her child on the Sabbath or fasting day.

Blue Laws