[TruthTalk] The Sabbath Breaker of Numbers

[Slade Henson]

The Shabbat breaker in Numbers was stoned. One thing you must NOT forget is that he paraded himself and his sin before the whole congregation. Reread the text and discover this truth for yourself. It was not the breaking of Shabbat that caused his stoning, it was the INTENTIONAL SIN that killed him. Hebrews verifies this fact when it says:   For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who sets aside (present imperative tense) the Law of Moses dies (present tense) without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.     Someone said they were confused regarding the application of truth in OT or NT times. Let the book of Hebrews be one of many witnesses who say there is NO DIFFERENCE in application.   -- slade ----- Original Message ----- From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 13 March, 2003 08:58 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Lord of the Sabbath   Izzy wrote: > I'm not sure I understand your question.  Of course both > of them are guilty of breaking the 10 commandments.   Are you sure?  The law commands that the Sabbath breaker be put to death by stoning.  Therefore, only the Sabbath Breaker is guilty.  The other guy carried out the death sentence for breaking the Sabbath.   David, You are going to confuse me if you don�t differentiate between whether you are talking about today (NT times) or OT times. I assumed you were talking about today. Are these all going to be trick questions? J     Izzy wrote: > Of course Bill did a worse thing by injuring (not loving) another > person while disobeying (not loving) God. Fred just disobeyed > (did not love) God.   Can you explain your answer?  Even if you consider Bill a murderer, is that worse than Sabbath breaking?  Both are capital offenses, so what would make one worse than the other?  Wouldn't it be worse to sin against God rather than sinning against your neighbor?   I can�t explain why God had certain rules and regs in the OT. Phillip Brown (if you read what I mentioned to begin this conversation) explains it this way: The law teaches us that sin brings death.  But men knew that all the way back to Adam.  God wrote the law in stone.  God clearly defined sin.  When we study the Old Testament law, you can generally determine atonement from sin by looking at the penalty.  The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).  If the penalty was death, it was sin. �The first use of the word is the penalty for Adam eating the fruit.  That's in Genesis 2:17, 3:3,4.  By studying all the verses that use this word, I was able to see a clear distinction between acts of sin, and acts that bring atonement from sin.  Most of the acts of sins that bring death can be easily related to one of the ten commandments. Breaking any of the ten commandments, either literally or in the heart, is sin.  And the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).  On the other hand, there were many acts that you did so that you didn't die. The wording was always clear.  These were acts you did for atonement of sin.  In the King James, it's generally worded, "that he die not."  As Moses went into Egypt, after seeing the burning bush, circumcision was done so that the Lord would not kill Moses (Exodus 4:24-26).  The circumcision was done after the Lord had set out to kill Moses, and the circumcision stopped the death of Moses.  The sacrifices and offerings were done for atonement.  The lack of doing any of these Old Testament ordinances, or regulations, never carried the death penalty.  They were always acts done specifically for atonement; to avoid the death for sins that do carry the death penalty.  That is why they were abolished when Christ was crucified.  Christ is now our atonement, these older things were but shadows of Christ's atonement. All I know is that in my heart I feel convicted if I don�t keep the Sabbath, whereas I don�t feel convicted to keep the OT festivals and food rules. I don�t criticize those who do, but I don�t think it is necessary.    Does this answer your question? I�m not trying to be argumentative, just to answer you. Izzy