'God-breathed' = 'God-recommended'?

[AndyHB]

Martin, look at Exodus 31.  There is an instruction 'not to work' here, but not a exact definition of this.  The passage in Numbers 15 would seem to refer to something that was not required to be done on the Sabbath - after all, the man had had 6 days to collect enough (rather like the people were told not to collect excess manna - but only enough for that day - except on the 6th day, when a double collection would not go bad).  As such, it would appear that the man concerned was intentionally breaking the interpretation that had been laid down by the leaders of the people.  Therefore, God's instruction to have him killed (in a context where there were no means of punishing him in a way that would give a serious message to the people, such as incarceration), would have been typical to the way that nomadic people dealt (and still deal) with transgressions.

As pow-wow points out, we now live under a completely different dispensation anyway, and we need to remember that our living context is also totally different to that of the Jews as they wandered through the desert.

[Martin]

Martin, look at Exodus 31.  There is an instruction 'not to work' here, but not a exact definition of this.  The passage in Numbers 15 would seem to refer to something that was not required to be done on the Sabbath - after all, the man had had 6 days to collect enough (rather like the people were told not to collect excess manna - but only enough for that day - except on the 6th day, when a double collection would not go bad).  As such, it would appear that the man concerned was intentionally breaking the interpretation that had been laid down by the leaders of the people.  Therefore, God's instruction to have him killed (in a context where there were no means of punishing him in a way that would give a serious message to the people, such as incarceration), would have been typical to the way that nomadic people dealt (and still deal) with transgressions.

I thought I understood you - you were very clear, but now I don't. You were saying that things like 'you mustn't cook on the Sabbath' were things added by men to God's initial law and therefore not what God intended.  Now you seem to be saying that God could see the way that his original law had been misinterpreted by the leaders of the people, and, rather than correct those leaders, God would rather have a man killed.

Also, I'm not clear whether you're now saying that God did command that no firewood should be gathered, no fire should be lit and that no cooking must be done.  You were clearly saying God didn't command this previously. you wrote:

Exodus 20: 8-11 outlines the way the Israelites were to behave on the Sabbath.  However, by the time of Christ, the definition of 'work' had been so stretched (so that you couldn't walk more than a certain distance; you couldn't take your donkey out to graze; you couldn't cook anything; ...) as to make a mockery of the instruction in Exodus.

So answer me straight.  Did God command that no fire should be lit on the Sabbath, and that food must be gathered on the previous day to avoid gathering it on the Sabbath or not?  Or was this simply a 'stretching' of what God had said that 'made a mockery' of God's instruction.

[AndyHB]

The passage in Numbers 15 would seem to refer to something that was not required to be done on the Sabbath - after all, the man had had 6 days to collect enough (rather like the people were told not to collect excess manna - but only enough for that day - except on the 6th day, when a double collection would not go bad).  As such, it would appear that the man concerned was intentionally breaking the interpretation that had been laid down by the leaders of the people.

Martin, I've reposted the section that you seem to have ignored.  The death sentence is, in my view, a completely different issue.  Yes, it appears barbaric to urbanised Western thinking, but it isn't unusual in nomadic societies even today.

[Martin]

Andy, forgive me for pressing you, but I want you to make it absolutely clear by answering the question I asked.

Did God command that no fire should be lit on the Sabbath, and that food must be gathered on the previous day to avoid gathering it on the Sabbath or not?  Or was this simply a 'stretching' of what God had said that 'made a mockery' of God's instruction?

You seem to be saying that where the Bible says that God commanded these things that your belief is that it was actually the interpretation that had been laid down by the leaders of the people and NOT God's command.  However, to make it crystal clear can you actually answer the question I asked with a yes or a no.  All you have to say is 'Yes IMO God did command those things' or 'No IMO God didn't command those things'.

[Boudi]

One has to understand what living under the law was and what the age of grace is. Moses was no liar but by Christ's death and resurrection we no longer live under the law. During the OT days forgiveness was dependent on keeping the law. Payment of sin's penalty to satisfy holy justice was done by blood sacrifice. Grace means that sin is not held against the sinner. God the Son is our substitute, Christ died in our place.

But there is surely a need to keep to the laws?  We can't break them, or disregard them, on the basis that 'grace' will pull us through at the end?

[Boudi]

The passage in Numbers 15 would seem to refer to something that was not required to be done on the Sabbath - after all, the man had had 6 days to collect enough (rather like the people were told not to collect excess manna - but only enough for that day - except on the 6th day, when a double collection would not go bad).  As such, it would appear that the man concerned was intentionally breaking the interpretation that had been laid down by the leaders of the people.

Martin, I've reposted the section that you seem to have ignored.  The death sentence is, in my view, a completely different issue.  Yes, it appears barbaric to urbanised Western thinking, but it isn't unusual in nomadic societies even today.

So when Jesus told his followers to pick ears of corn on the Sabbath, was he doing God's will?  Even if you think he was God, it seems odd that he should either break the rules he had laid down, or felt he was a special case.  Shouldn't they have done their gathering on another day?

[pow wow]

Hello Boudi,
But if we are still bound to the law then Christ's death and resurrection was for nothing. Then we have to ignore all the prophecies of the Old Testament regarding the coming Messiah.

[Martin]

Pow wow,

If we were liberated from the law through Christ's death and resurrection, then that has no bearing on what Boudi is asking, because at the time that Jesus was accused of working on the Sabbath day, Jesus' death and resurrection hadn't yet taken place. So, by your theology, everyone was still bound by the law.

[AndyHB]

So when Jesus told his followers to pick ears of corn on the Sabbath, was he doing God's will?  Even if you think he was God, it seems odd that he should either break the rules he had laid down, or felt he was a special case.  Shouldn't they have done their gathering on another day?

Boudi, were the disciples gathering the corn in a systematic (work-style) manner, or simply picking the odd piece to chew as they walked through a field?  From my reading, this was not a purposeful harvesting of the ears - but an off-the-cuff 'grazing' of the crop to relieve feelings of hunger.  I wouldn't regard this as work, but the religious leaders seemed, from what we are told through the gospels, to find some sort of excuse to attack Jesus.

As for breaking the rules 'he had laid down', as I have already pointed out to Martin, a lot of this kind of detail had been added over the centuries by the priests and religious lawyers - almost as if they were looking for a reason to exist.

[AndyHB]

All you have to say is 'Yes IMO God did command those things' or 'No IMO God didn't command those things'.

I know that you like people to make black and white comments like this, so that you can - at some later stage, twist the comment in some way.  You've done it often enough elsewhere, both to me and others - so, NO, I won't give a simple answer.  Instead I will give a considered and evidenced answer that you will find more difficult to twist.

[AndyHB]

So, by your theology, everyone was still bound by the law.

Martin, taking for the sake of this point in this argument (and Boudi's earlier post) that Jesus was both God and man, is god bound by laws that he himself hasn't established, or is He bound by the underlying laws which he gave originally that these extra bits have been attached to?

[Martin]

All you have to say is 'Yes IMO God did command those things' or 'No IMO God didn't command those things'.

I know that you like people to make black and white comments like this, so that you can - at some later stage, twist the comment in some way.  You've done it often enough elsewhere, both to me and others - so, NO, I won't give a simple answer.  Instead I will give a considered and evidenced answer that you will find more difficult to twist.

Well it's a very straightforward question.  I can't see why it can't be answered with a 'yes' or a 'no', or even an 'I don't know'.  You were originally saying that the idea that people shouldn't cook on the Sabbath was one that had been added by the religious leaders, but the OT has it that God commanded that no fires should be made and that would exclude the possibility of cooking anything unless they had microwaves.  I'm only asking you to confirm what you've already said, in the light of the fact that it actually says in the OT that God commanded them not to cook anything.

ISTM that you're reluctant to do this simply because it would mean admitting that the Bible doesn't always mean what it says when it says that God commanded something.

[Martin]

So, by your theology, everyone was still bound by the law.

Martin, taking for the sake of this point in this argument (and Boudi's earlier post) that Jesus was both God and man, is god bound by laws that he himself hasn't established, or is He bound by the underlying laws which he gave originally that these extra bits have been attached to?

Andy, Boudi's question was about Jesus' disciples. Was Jesus right to teach his disciples, who were presumably bound by the law, such things.  Actually I agree with your answer above, that harvesting a few ears of wheat isn't work so the question isn't important to me, but I was right in what I pointed out to Pow Wow. 

What I've been trying to find out is whether you believe that it's possible that even the smallest part of the Bible where it says says 'God commanded...' or 'The Lord said...' could actually be the words of men rather than of God.  It's proving impossible to get a straight answer to that simple question.

[Boudi]

Hello Boudi,
But if we are still bound to the law then Christ's death and resurrection was for nothing. Then we have to ignore all the prophecies of the Old Testament regarding the coming Messiah.

So you are saying we are no longer bound by laws?  I can commit any act, because I am not bound by laws?  Also, it m,eans that God gave laws for the time being, rather than for all time>  Is this what you are saying?
The prophesies are interpreted according to need as well.  One of the line of David, though this line was through Joseph etc.  To believe these prophesies you have to believe that Joseph was the father of Jesus ( when he probably was).

[Boudi]

So when Jesus told his followers to pick ears of corn on the Sabbath, was he doing God's will?  Even if you think he was God, it seems odd that he should either break the rules he had laid down, or felt he was a special case.  Shouldn't they have done their gathering on another day?

Boudi, were the disciples gathering the corn in a systematic (work-style) manner, or simply picking the odd piece to chew as they walked through a field?  From my reading, this was not a purposeful harvesting of the ears - but an off-the-cuff 'grazing' of the crop to relieve feelings of hunger.  I wouldn't regard this as work, but the religious leaders seemed, from what we are told through the gospels, to find some sort of excuse to attack Jesus.

As for breaking the rules 'he had laid down', as I have already pointed out to Martin, a lot of this kind of detail had been added over the centuries by the priests and religious lawyers - almost as if they were looking for a reason to exist.

Does it matter whether they were doing it in a work style manner or not?  the religious authorities were clear that it was wrong.  They were doing something that should not have been done on that day.  It's easy to say that the bits you don't like are additions and extras if they put you in the awkward position of finding Jesus in the wrong.

Of course it's very possible that Jesus was simply a liberal who saw little point in petty laws and wanted to live a freer life.  What a pity later followers couldn't match him for his liberality.