David Miller wrote: >> Now please answer my question. According to Torah, is it >> right or wrong to pick up sticks on Sabbath. Shouldn't >> we define work on the Sabbath according to God's Word >> and not according to what we personally think is ok or >> not?
Slade wrote: > That's been my point... allow the Bible to define > the subject. Whether it's a sin to pick up sticks > on the Shabbat is a sin or not depends upon the > situation. Suppose a man didn't prepare enough wood > the day before to heat his house on the Shabbat, > and a cold snap came through. Does he and his family > (including a newborn baby) suffer or does he pick up > sticks in order to make his family comfortable on the > most important day of the week? If you say NO STICK > GATHERING, then let be remind you of the ass in the > pit, or the man who needed healing on the Shabbat. Slade, my friend, you still have not answered my question. Is it right or wrong to pick up sticks on Shabbat? With regard to a man who didn't prepare for Shabbat: Would not the family in that situation come to trust in God more fully, particularly on that Sabbath day, than would the family who pampers their flesh? You bring up Jesus' teaching about helping an animal or healing a man, but what does this have to do with picking up sticks? Was helping an animal considered an exception by the Pharisees? I thought the point Jesus was making was that they did not consider that work that violated the sabbath, so why should they consider healing to be work. I do not understand the connection you are trying to make between this and gathering sticks on Shabbat. The first question to answer is whether or not it is sin to pick up sticks on Shabbat. Once we have that as a foundation, then perhaps we can fine tune your answer, including how other Torah commandments might supercede that one and allow picking up sticks, but I find your inability to answer this question most revealing about how you read Torah. David Miller wrote: >> You object to the translation, "burn a fire"? Please >> expound upon the Hebrew for us and tell us why you object. Slade wrote: > I object because to snuff out every fire before the > beginning of Shabbat suffers those in the high north > or south to death and great inconvenience. Ok, so you object not because of what Torah teaches, but because of how you think Torah would be cruel to people if it were followed and obeyed literally. After having read my comments about the Hebrew language used here, do you now agree that "burn a fire" is an accurate way to translate Exodus 35:3? Slade wrote: > Instead of looking forward to Shabbat, it becomes a curse > because the next three to five days (IF they survive) must > be spent defrosting their frozen water pipes. One friend > of mine indicates that he believes what is meant is no > WORK fires (forges, etc.). I don't completely agree with > his perspective but it's interesting nonetheless. Well, they could always move to a warmer climate like Florida so that they can keep the Torah! :-) LOL All kidding aside, I'm open to discussing the possibility of allowing a furnace for heat, but only if you first admit that picking of sticks and burning a fire in one's home is forbidden by Torah. Also, I would like for you to acknowledge that the person who cannot cook or heat his home is much more likely to trust in God that Shabbat than the person who heats his home and cooks up a feast. David Miller wrote: > Exodus 35:3 says, "Ye shall kindle no fire throughout > your habitations upon the sabbath day." > (Exodus 35:3 KJV) Slade wrote: > What about YHVH's house and the perpetually > burning Menorah? What about the perpetually > burning altar? The passage says "in your habitations." Some translations say, "in your home" or "in your house." I think the idea of Torah is that God's house burns bright and gives us light and heat, but our own house does not because it is a time that we rely on God. I do not object to expounding upon how certain laws in Torah might supersede other laws and allow for burning a fire, but surely we ought to begin with agreement that Torah specifically says not to pick up sticks or burn a fire in our homes. Why is it so difficult to get agreement upon this teaching of Torah? David Miller wrote: >> The Hebrew word translated fire here is "esh," which is usually >> translated "fire" but also as burning, firey, flaming, and hot. >> >> The word is translated as "hot" in Leviticus 13:24 >> >> Lev 13:24 Or if there be any flesh, in the skin whereof there is a hot >> [esh] burning [mikvah], and the quick flesh that burneth have a white >> bright spot, somewhat reddish, or white; >> >> Clearly we do not expect actual flames in this particular context, but >> rather an intense heat. This is one reason why I think modern electric >> cooking stoves would be included in the language and intent of this >> prohibition of work on Sabbath. Slade wrote: > Interesting how you use multiple definitions of a > word to define it use in a singular place. BAD BAD > BAD hermeneutics. No, I am not using multiple definitions. What I am doing is extending the concept to the modern situation of having electricity do the same function as fires did for the Israelites to whom this law was given. This is no different than you quoting Jesus' teaching about animals needing help on the Sabbath and applying it to people being allowed to pick up sticks so that they can warm themselves. In the situation of the Israelites gathering manna, they were commanded to gather twice as much on the day before Shabbat. They also were commanded not to gather wood on Shabbat, nor to burn a fire in their homes, nor to boil or bake food on Shabbat. What if an Israelite had an electric stove and electric heater. Would he be obeying Torah if he used it to do what his neighbors were forbidden to do with sticks and fire? Don't you see how this is a kind of legal loophole to get out of obeying the intent of Torah? David Miller wrote: >> That's right, and the word "justification" is not just "salvation" >> according to the western mindset of get saved then move on to other >> things. Paul is addressing how believers ought to move forward in their >> justification once they have come to faith in Jesus Christ. >> >> O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the >> truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, >> crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the >> Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so >> foolish? HAVING BEGUN IN THE SPIRIT, ARE YE NOW MADE PERFECT BY THE >> FLESH? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He >> therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among >> you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? >> (Galatians 3:1-5 KJV) Slade wrote: > "Gal 5:4 -- You are severed from Christ, you who would be > justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace." > This is the main point of Galatians. Paul was reinstructing > the church that justification does NOT come from the > Law (even Moses told us that... like, duh!). This is the > same message preached at the Jerusalem Council. James, on > the other hand, gives us a treatise that says faith is not > in a vacuum but is proven through the works we do. Read the verses leading up to this one. Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Look at Galatians 5:1, and tell me whether or not these Galatians were ALREADY JUSTIFIED before God by their faith in Christ. Clearly, these were CHRISTIANS, FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST ALREADY. Paul was not trying to teach them to get saved through Christ first, then come to the Torah for their sanctification and perfection. Paul was rebuking their tendency to go back to Torah after having already been justified through faith in Christ. Furthermore, he buttresses it with saying that if they do become circumcised, they are making a commitment much more than circumcision. Paul is teaching that if any of them get circumcised, they are committing themselves to keep the whole Torah and not just part of it. He is teaching them that if they keep part of Torah, they are obligated to keep ALL of Torah. Then he says what you quote in Galatians 5:4, "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." (Galatians 5:4) This was said to people who according to our Western vernacular, were already justified and already saved. He is saying that if they get circumcised, Christ is become of no effect and they are fallen from grace. The justification he is talking about is not just this "salvation" experience that the Western mind has about salvation. Try to think Eastern here, Slade. :-) He is talking about how we obtain right standing with God. Is it through keeping Torah, or through faith in Jesus Christ. It appears from what has been posted here in this forum that many Messianics teach we obtain right standing with God through both faith in Christ and keeping Torah commandments. First you believe in Jesus Christ and are saved. Then you keep Torah to please God and express your love toward God (but never keep it for salvation because salvation is only through Jesus Christ). The idea seems to be that this Torah obedience perfects you and sanctifies you and makes you holy. Paul is teaching in Galatians that the two systems are no more reconcilable than a man marrying two women (this might not make sense to the Mormons on the list!). Paul teaches that you must divorce one and be married to the other. So Paul is forcing the Galatians to choose between keeping Torah and believing in Jesus Christ. None of this means that Paul was not Torah observant himself, or that others could not keep Torah on a cultural basis. Paul took Timothy and circumcised him. Does that mean that Paul caused Timothy to fall from grace? Certainly not, but he also praised Titus for not being compelled to be circumcised. The point is that one does not achieve right standing with God through keeping Torah. One obtains righteousness by faith in Jesus Christ, and when a person walks in love, they are keeping all of Torah. The bottom line is that the literal keeping of Torah is a shadow, but the message of Torah is spiritual and eternal. Let us walk in the spiritual and eternal. Slade wrote: > Izzy and my attempts to SHOW our faith by our works (whether > these works are defined in the Older or in the Newer covenants) > are the real issue here... or so it seems. As James says, > "Show me your faith without the works, and I'll show you my > faith BY my works." But what I am concerned that you have done is confused works which come forth as the fruit of true faith with works as acts of obedience to the law. When you do that, the meaning of faith is lost. For those with in improper understanding of these two types of works, if a Pharisee kept all the law, one might be tempted to point to him and say, "look at that man's works. We know he has faith because his works exceed that of anybody else." Paul teaches that in Christ, circumcision avails nothing and uncircumcision avails nothing. Only faith that works by love has meaning when a person is in Christ. Concerning the one under the law: because the law commands circumcision, then the one who is circumcised is doing the right thing and is justified before God. The one who is under law keeps Sabbath, and he is thereby justified before God because God commanded him to keep Sabbath and he kept it. However, concerning the one in Christ Jesus: whether a person keeps Sabbath (the seventh day rest as literally taught in Torah) or whether he does not keep it, it avails him nothing. In Christ Jesus, whether a man is circumcised (the circumcision as literally taught in Torah) or whether he is not circumcised, it avails him nothing. In Christ, the only thing that matters is faith in Jesus Christ which works by love (and love brings forth good works). In Christ Jesus, one must be circumcised, but not in the literal foreskin as taught by Torah, but he must be circumcised in the heart. In Christ Jesus, one must keep Sabbath, not in the literal seventh day sense as taught by Torah, but he must enter by faith into the Kingdom of God (which is characterized and foreshadowed by the teaching of Torah on Sabbath). None of this outlaws the literal keeping of Torah. We are free to circumcise our male children and to observe the seventh day as holy (although there is a teaching that in Christ, the eighth day sabbath ought to replace the seventh day sabbath). What we are not free to do is lead others into thinking that by keeping the literal commandments of Torah that we become justified before God, meaning that we become more righteous or more holy or that we are viewed better by God because we kept these former commandments which were given to Israel. I think one error being taught in the Messianic camp is that justification equals salvation but that sanctification and holiness is something else that comes through Torah observance. Perhaps if you can establish this premise, you would better argue your position. I think the fact that James uses an example of justification for Abraham that happened some 20 years after the example Paul used for Abraham's justification illustrates that the idea that justification does not correspond to the modern Western mindset of salvation through a statement of faith in Jesus Christ. Slade wrote: > From this little perch I sit, it appears that the > Seventh-day Sabbath Keepers are a target (and perhaps > we put the bull's eye on our keisters). If you can > show how they fail in their task to keep the Shabbat > holy, then you can justify you own defilement of the > Day. Absolutely NOT! I am hoping to lead you into a way of not defiling Shabbat and the pure teaching of Torah concerning it. What I am concerned about is that you have so altered the Torah teaching on Shabbat in order to make it easy for everyone to keep it that the Shabbat has lost the depth of meaning and beauty that it would otherwise have. When you reject the Torah teaching about not picking up sticks on Shabbat, not cooking on Shabbat, not burning a fire on Shabbat, you strip the glory and meaning being conveyed by Torah so that we only appreciate a washed down version of Shabbat. It seems to me that your version of Shabbat does not glorify Shabbat anymore than the Sunday Sabbath keeper. I like the idea of people keeping Torah literally. When I observe the discipline of a real Israelite keeping Shabbat in an orthodox way, my heart is warmed by the depth of meaning that this has for our entering the Kingdom of God in the same way that my heart is warmed when they keep Passover and the feast of unleavened bread. It seems to me that many Messianics simply want to change worshipping on SUNday to worshipping on SATURday. They want to claim Biblical support for doing it by quoting the Ten Commandments, but they reject the more detailed teachings of Torah that explain how Shabbat ought to be kept holy. I am offended that they want to dishonor celebrating the eighth day Sabbath, the day of our Lord's resurrection, in order to glorify some watered down Old Covenant practice. I say, if you are going to keep the Old Covenant commandments and teach men so, then you had better keep it right. You had better keep all of it and you had better not water it down with vain traditions of men. The lighting of candles on Friday evening as Shabbat approaches is a tradition of man. I hope you blow them out before Shabbat arrives to signify the commandment of God in Torah not to burn fire in your homes on Shabbat. I hope you do not cook meals on Shabbat. When Shabbat is kept as taught in Torah, it is wonderful and glorious, full of meaning and pointing us to the Kingdom of God found through faith in Jesus Christ. Slade wrote: >>> You also said "NEVER ENTERED THE SABBATH REST; they did >>> not enter into it because of unbelief" This is true. >>> However, this includes you because of unbelief. >>> Why do I say this??? >>> >>> "Meaningless of meanlessnessses," says the Preacher. >>> "Meaninglessness of meaninglessnesses; the whole is >>> meaningless" (Kohelet/Ecclesiastes 1:2) David Miller wrote: >> So because you do not understand my message, and because >> my words are "meaningless" to you, now you conclude that >> I am not in God's kingdom? You conclude that I walk in >> unbelief? Slade wrote: > I never mentioned the Kingdom, and you apparently missed the > last part of Ecclesiastes: "Let us hear the conclusion of the > whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments; for this > applies to EVERY MAN. For God will being every work into > judgment, with all that his hidden, whether good or whether > evil." THAT was my point... not whether you're going to be > in the Kingdom or not. I believe you suffer some unbelief... > but unbelief to the exclusion of you having the gift of Eternal > Life? I have no way of knowing. All I can do is pray for those > I love (which includes you). The passage in Hebrews is not talking about SATURday. It is talking about the kingdom of God. The people he was talking about already kept SATURday holy, according to the teachings of Torah. They kept it holy better than you or Izzy, because they did not pick up sticks on Shabbat, nor did they cook meals on Shabbat. They kept the Torah commandment concerning Shabbat exactly as Torah commanded it. The problem is that they never really entered the Shabbat that Torah was really talking about because of unbelief. They thought Shabbat was Saturday. They never entered the true rest of God that belonged to God's people. They never entered the Promised Land. So it is clear from the teaching of Hebrews that there is another rest being talked about by the Torah commandment to keep Shabbat. That rest is the Kingdom of God. It is foreshadowed by the Promised Land (the Eretz) of the Hebrew Scriptures. Therefore, when you say that I walk in the same unbelief that the Israelites did, as per the context of Hebrews 4, you would be saying that I am going to perish in the wilderness too, without having ever entered into the promised land. Now I realize that this is according to my understanding of Hebrews. Apparently you have some other understanding of Hebrews which you have not articulated. It seems to me that neither you nor Izzy understand what Hebrews 4 is talking about in regards to Shabbat. This passage has been brought up several times, but the responses coming from you and Izzy seem very unsatisfactory. Maybe one or both of you should offer some commentary on Hebrews 4, especially in light of my comments that the rest mentioned in Heb. 4 that belongs to the people of God is the Kingdom of God which those with faith in Christ press into and possess right now in this life. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
