The Ten Commandments: A Defunct Ancient Israelite Code

To the Biblically illiterate, the so-called Ten Commandments appear to be the ideal theocratic bases for the rule of a religious society. Within the past year, debates raged about posting these ancient Jewish legal codes in court rooms, schools, capitals, and public squares. When the Supreme Court ruled against the public display on the bases of separation of religion and State, churches here in the South passed out weather resistant Ten Commandment posters on wire frames which could (and are) displayed in private yards throughout the upstate of South Carolina as well as decals of the Commandments which were stuck on many a conservative Christian’s vehicle’s rear window.

However, when taken in the context of ancient Israelite socity as record in the Hebrew Bible, of what real value are these ancient Israelite Codes many call the Decalog. Then too, it should be noted that in ancient Israelite society, the penalty for breaking any of the first nine codes was death!

(Since Exodus 20: 1 - 17 is repeated in Deut. 5 6 - 21 as part of the Deuteronomistic History (Deuteronomy - 2 Kings) I’ve used the popular section of the Sinai story in Exodus to adds some short comments on.
The first 40% are dealing strictly with Israelite religion and Israel’s contract with their God.)

1 Then God spoke all these words, saying,
2 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
3 You shall have no other gods before Me.

(This establishes an exclusive contract / Covenant with Israel only based on God’s deliverance of Israel form Egypt. It does acknowledge other equally real Gods)

4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

(This further defines the bounds of Yahweh’s contract with Israel and will be the bases for future the fall of Israel (722 BCE) and Judea (586 BCE).

7 You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.

(An oath sworn to Yahweh must be carried out even if it meant the death of ones own daughter. See story of Jephthah and the sacrifice of his daughter. Judges 11)

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

(This establishes the a rest day drawn for the creation myth and the anthromorphic nature an ancient Near Eastern Semitic god called Yahweh. This is the main Commandment Jesus is often found breaking in the Gospels and the religious section of this Decalog was the reason the religious Jews felt Jesus must died.)

12 Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.

(A son or daughter’s days were “prolonged” if one was not killed for a rebellious actions.)

The following are exclusive laws which apply only to Israelites who had the contract / Covenant with Yahweh. Israel’s neighbors were viewed as in violation to the first 4 religious codes and were thus free to be killed. raped, lied to, and plundered for sexual needs and human sacrifice.

13 You shall not murder.

(Exodus 20: 13) תִּֿרְצָח׃ לֹא רְצָח (qal: kill, murder, strike down. A very limited verb used to protect only righteous Israelites. Out of this violent Hebrew society which employed 10 different word of killing often with their gods approval, slaughter and murder; ratsach is used only six times mainly to protect only Israelites.)

(Numbers 31: 17) הֲרֹגוּ׃ זָכָר לְמִשְׁכַּב אִישׁ יֹדַעַת וְכָל־אִשָּׁה בַּטָּף כָל־זָכָר הִרְגוּ וְעַתָּה

הִרְג is a word meaning roughly the same thing as רְצָח, but is used with Yahweh’s approval in Holy War.


14 You shall not commit adultery.

(This Commandment is far from what adultery means today. In Israelite society a girl was property of her father until married and then property of her husband after marriage, adultery meant the use of another man’s sexual possession to pleasure and children.

Plus, the fact that prostitutes, polygamy, concubines were protected sexual rights for all men under Yahweh’s Commandments, males were always assured of sexual gratification and while women remain uneducated property.)

15 You shall not steal.

(Applies only to Israelite clan property be it women or animals. Since non-covenanted countries were not protected, the conquest of Canaan in Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua reveal how (even after these commandments were given) the children of Yahweh killed, raped, stole and plundered the land with God‘s orders and blessings.)


16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

(“neighbor” רֵעֲ is only used for Israelites. The rise of King David revels how the most famous figure often abused his Hebrew neighbor.)

17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

(To ensure any legal violations were deterred, an Israelite was to protect his own life by not planning a violation which could mean his death.

Within this commandment, one can see how women were equated with slaves, donkeys and material goods of other male Israelite.)

38 comments:

Joel said...

I live in the upstate, too, but haven't seen these signs yet. Can you expand on the "murder" commandment, specifically how it may be misinterpreted in terms of the abortion debate. I'm not sure what you mean by "protect only Israelites".

Harry McCall said...

Joel, in Jewish law (as in Islamic law) an unborn fetus is not considered to be a person(Hebrew: nefesh, literally: soul) until it is born. The fetus is regarded as part of its mother’s body and not a separate being until it is born.

In the Bible, the Israelites could ripe open non-Hebrew pregnant women with their God’s (Yahweh) blessings.

The flood of Noah represents God’s total destruction of all life; babies and pregnant women included!

Scott Andersen said...

House Concurrent Resolution 12, "Requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in the United States Capitol."

Yup, there is a current Bill in Congress that would make it Federal Law that:

"...[T]he Ten Commandments set forth a code of moral conduct, observance of which is widely acknowledged to promote respect for our system of laws and the good of society: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--

1) recognizes that the Ten Commandments are a declaration of the fundamental principles that are the cornerstone of a fair and just society; and

(2) directs that a copy of the Ten Commandments be prominently displayed in the United States Capitol at such place and in such manner as the Architect of the Capitol shall designate."

In reintroducing his legislation, the Honorable Cliff Stearns of Florida said:

"I respect our code of law and our society founded on religious freedom for all Americans. I believe the Ten Commandments are a concise set of values that represent the historic foundation of our nation's laws and our common view of what is right and wrong. Stories of murder, rape, drug abuse, and school violence dominate the media and reveal our society's need to be reminded of our moral compass. That is why I am reintroducing my legislation to have the Ten Commandments prominently posted in the Capitol building as a symbolic reminder of our heritage and the values we aspire to govern by."

I think this is a pretty important piece of legislation--one which I strongly oppose--so I wrote to my Representative in Congress, Vernon J. Ehlers of MI, to let him know my thoughts on the matter.

He replied in good order, thanked me for sharing my views, and then explained why he is supporting H.CON.RES.12:

"I firmly believe that our country has deep religious roots and was founded on many religious principles. The statements and principles of the Ten Commandments indeed form the basis of many of our laws, and we should not forget or refuse to acknowledge this fact."

I respect Congressman Ehlers, he has served my district well, but I find HR 12 to be a dangerous erosion of the principle of the separation of church and state and the grounds upon which its supporters promote the Bill to be, at best, questionable.

For anyone interested, I learned of this bill and was given the tools to contact relevant individuals in government regarding the Bill through Godless Americans PAC.

Just us - Just me said...

Deuteronomy - 2 kings???????

Jennifer said...

Harry,

You began your post with the phrase biblically illiterate. Who do you consider literate?

From your exegesis of the passages you quoted, I have to wonder if you have ever thought for yourself on these passages without the input of a papered seminary professor or other so called "expert" in theological matters.

I could comment on each point, but this:
An oath sworn to Yahweh must be carried out even if it meant the death of ones own daughter. See story of Jephthah and the sacrifice of his daughter.

is so out of context it begs an argument.

God was not the one who initiated this oath. If you are truly biblically literate, you already know that MANY times, in fact more often than not, God compromised with men and welcomed conversation about his laws and requests.

This story could have been much different if Jephthah had reasoned with God as so many others did, and as God himself communicated was his desire between man and himself.

It is almost criminal that seminaries teach this stuff. No wonder Keith Green called them cemeteries!

Harry McCall said...

Jennifer stated: “Harry, You began your post with the phrase biblically illiterate. Who do you consider literate?”

RE: Southern Baptist, Church of God, Church of Christ, and anyone who thinks Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

As Scott Andersen said: “House Concurrent Resolution 12, "Requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in the United States Capitol." This is total Biblical ignorance / illiteracy!

Jennifer: “From your exegesis of the passages you quoted, I have to wonder if you have ever thought for yourself on these passages without the input of a papered seminary professor or other so called "expert" in theological matters.

I could comment on each point, but this:
An oath sworn to Yahweh must be carried out even if it meant the death of ones own daughter. See story of Jephthah and the sacrifice of his daughter.

is so out of context it begs an argument.”

RE: Women were property to be used and abuse with God’s blessings. The daughter is un-named and was offered just as Abraham offered Isaac yet with no repave form God.
The text is clear that he “did with her according to the vow (oath) he had made to Yahweh.

The theory that Japhthah’s daughter lead a life of virginity (like some Catholic Nun) was put forward by the medieval Jewish commentator David Kimhi I. In a Semitic world where bareness / childlessness was view as a cures from god, this would only have added insult to injury.

Jennifer: “God was not the one who initiated this oath. If you are truly biblically literate, you already know that MANY times, in fact more often than not, God compromised with men and welcomed conversation about his laws and requests.

This story could have been much different if Jephthah had reasoned with God as so many others did, and as God himself communicated was his desire between man and himself.”

RE: Do you really think the view of God Jesus supports is the one called Yahweh?

Jennifer, why does Jesus NEVER called God his ancient proper Semitic named “Yahweh“? Could it just be the Gospel writers were too embarrassed with such cruelty tell in the Hebrew text?

Jennifer: “It is almost criminal that seminaries teach this stuff. No wonder Keith Green called them cemeteries!”
RE: Just who is this “Keith Green”?

What I found at Amazon was a hippie that when form one extreme to another and died and early death: “At the time Keith and two of their children were killed in a tragic plane crash, Melody was pregnant and had a one–year–old child at home.”

He had a short ministry 1977 - 1982 and died a spiritual surface Christian.

Here’s the life of another Rev. Green that loved the Lord:

The president and founder of the radio broadcast, The Gospel Hour (still on many Christian stations today), Evangelist Dr. Oliver B. Green (Feb. 14, 1915 – July 26, 1976) loved the fundamentalist theology and good sound King James’ Version of Biblical truth backed by a strong evangelistic preaching of salvation. I used to listen to him in the early ‘70s and hear him complaint about the circulation in his legs “it’s like my legs are on fire”. His website states:

"Early in life it was immediately evident Oliver B. Greene was an independent Baptist. Through all of his ministry he carried the honor of being one who "could not be bought." In 1939, the 24-year-old bought a tent, and for 35 years he conducted revivals all across America, until failing health forced him to stop.

Carefully kept records reveal that over 200,000 found Christ under his ministry. Perhaps his single greatest campaign was in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, where 7,000 professions of faith were registered. He held his last tent revival in Bel Air, Maryland (this tent was 100 feet by 300 feet). "

He died at the rather early age of 61 from cardio-vascular failure. Green also had two sons who suffered form birth defects. One I know from personal experience was born with only one arm (I helped change the avionics in his plane for a one armed control).

On the other hand, Rudolf Bultmann (Aug. 20, 1884 – July 30, 1976) demythologized the Kerygma of the New Testament, wrote Kerygma and Myth and latter Jesus Christ and Mythology in 1958. Bultmann stood for almost everything opposite of Fundamentalist Christianity and yet he died a peaceful death at age 92 (just less than a month short of his 93 birthday and in the same month and year as Green (a providence of God?)). The fact is, this nonbeliever out lived Oliver Green by almost 32 years.

If God blesses those who bless Him and curses those who cruse Him; where is the so called Providential Justice? Also, if as Greek philosophy claims God does not make mistakes; than why were both Green’s sons born birth defects?

God sure looks after his children! Is this how your God blesses his faithful servants???!

Jennifer said...

Harry,

Women were property to be used and abuse with God’s blessings. The daughter is un-named and was offered just as Abraham offered Isaac yet with no repave form God.
The text is clear that he “did with her according to the vow (oath) he had made to Yahweh.


Wow. The daughter was not offered just as Abraham offered Isaac. Abraham argued with God, remember? He came away believing that because God's character and promise were inconsistent with the request, God would work some sort of miracle for him.

Jephthah made his own oath, which God tells us is better not to do, and held himself to the consequences. Do you want references for this? I'm assuming you know what I'm talking about.

My point is that God often did not hold people to his first command, such as in the case of Lot (which I (ironically) just blogged about today) and many others. Again, God, in the bible, tells people it is better not to make an oath, He did not require the life of Jephthah's daughter.

As Scott Andersen said: “House Concurrent Resolution 12, "Requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in the United States Capitol." This is total Biblical ignorance / illiteracy!

And how is this biblical ignorance? Ignorance of the separation between church and state (by today's criteria) maybe, but biblical ignorance? There is nothing wrong with setting up a moral code in a public office because we are the public. If we want a different moral code why don't we make one and set it up? It would probably be very similar. Or maybe we should leave out the "do not murder" seeing as how it is D.C.. Only criminals own guns in D.C....but I digress. The Code of Hammurabi was set up in public view - not such a bad idea. People were always sure of their legal status and that code had all sorts of seemingly useless items from a 21 century perspective.

Do you really think the view of God Jesus supports is the one called Yahweh?

Yes, I do. It would pretty difficult to prove Jesus didn't believe in the God who he connected with acts in what he knew to be the only Scripture. If he didn't believe in God as "I Am", he also would not have believed in Abraham, Moses or Elijah or the other figures from antiquity.

Jennifer, why does Jesus NEVER called God his ancient proper Semitic named “Yahweh“? Could it just be the Gospel writers were too embarrassed with such cruelty tell in the Hebrew text?

Yahweh was not a magic word for God. It simply means I Am. The Hebrews turning that into a word unutterable and specially written was a labor they took upon themselves. Jesus used the word "Abba" which is a much better representation of who God revealed himself to be ALL through the OT. Focusing on a few key texts to support the idea that God was, as Richard Dawkins says, "the most unpleasant character in all fiction ... a misogynist, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" - is just misleading and shows a general ignorance of the rest of the bible. And to say he is all this more so than any other character in fiction?

You asked who Keith Green was...John would be able to answer that as well.
He was the x-hippy, and you would be the best judge of whether he was a surface or sincere Christian for yourself if you care to learn more about his life.

I'm taking this off topic, and I need to cut this short, but I'll check in later to see what you have to say.

Jason said...

A few remarks regarding your original post:

Then too, it should be noted that in ancient Israelite society, the penalty for breaking any of the first nine codes was death!

Why is this being noted...?

This is the main Commandment Jesus is often found breaking in the Gospels and the religious section of this Decalog was the reason the religious Jews felt Jesus must died.)

Where did Jesus break this law and what verses can you provide indicating this was the reason religious Jews wanted Jesus dead?

“neighbor” רֵעֲ is only used for Israelites

Not at all. For example, in Exodus 11:2 it's used of the Egyptians.

Out of curiosity, other then listing the 10 Commandments and adding your own personal flair... what exactly were you hoping to accomplish...?

Harry McCall said...

“neighbor” רֵעֲ is only used for Israelites

Not at all. For example, in Exodus 11:2 it's used of the Egyptians."

Harry: Yes but use before the 10 Commandments were given!!!.

Now Jason, just where in the Bible does it tell Christadelphians
not to vote?

Jason, did you vote?????

If not why?????????

Was it because you are a Christadelphian????????

Again, where in the Bible does this heretical group read this (Chapter and verse)????????

Jason said...

Harry, where did Jesus break the law of the Sabbath and what verses can you provide indicating this was the reason religious Jews wanted Jesus dead?

sconnor said...

Mathew 12

12:1 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.

12:2 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.

12:14 Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.

12:15 But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all;

John 5

5:16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.

Harry McCall said...

Thanks sconnor.

Jason, if you claim to be soooo Biblically based, please tell me where Christadelphians can not vote in a national election based on the Bible????

You want everything based on the Bible as a Christian believer! Now that sconnor has given you a Biblical response, where do Christadelphians get this weird theology that it is against Christianity to vote of president?

Jason, I don’t think you even know why you got sucked into this cult in the first place!

Please provide Biblical text of why you can not vote as a Christadelphian??????????

Jason said...

You're only regurgitating the arguments of the Pharisees and assuming they were correct.

I'll ask again: What was Jesus doing in Matthew 12 and John 5 that 'broke' the Sabbath?

Breaking the Sabbath wasn't ultimately why the Jews wanted Jesus dead. Read Matthew 25:65-66. Any mention here of the Sabbath?

Philip said...

Jason, he answered your question. Don't be a smartass.

Jason said...

Philip - the question was answered from the point of view of the Pharisees, not from the perspective of the law itself. There's an undeniable difference between the two. In reality, Jesus was doing nothing wrong in Matthew 12 or John 5 to warrant the claim he was "breaking" the Sabbath.

And Jesus was put to death based on accusations of blasphemy, not for breaking the Sabbath. Matthew 25 clearly supports this.

Harry McCall said...

Christadelphians attack and denied the Bible and Jason is a prime example of it. Plus, Romans 13 is also a good example of how the Christadelphians are totally anti-Christ cult!

I caught Jason with his pants down and he now can NOT defend his heretical cult even though he write pages of false doctrines trying to trick any poor soul into the poison doctrines of the Christadelphians that his mind is poisoned. Little wonder all his blog’s theology about the Christadelphian truth is nothing but BS!

Now I can really see how the Christadelphian theology sucks in dense people like Jason. I’ll cite Romans 13 and poor Jason is exposed with his false theology of a unbiblical cult since Jason’s cult, the Christadelphian, must totally reject Romans 13.

Philip said...

The Law prohibits working on the Sabbath, which back then included gathering (need I remind you of the man put to death for gathering firewood on the Sabbath), and that's what Jesus was doing.

To say that what he was doing did not break the Jewish Sabbath means you're doing your own personal interpretation over that of the Jewish priests (which is strange: if you trust the Jewish priests to have accurately written down the traditions of the Flood, Moses, etc, why not trust that their interpretations were accurate from the beginninc as well?)

sconnor said...

Exodus 16:29
The LORD hath given you the sabbath. ... abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.

Exodus 31:13-15
Six days my work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Exodus 34:21
Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.

Exodus 35:2
Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

Leviticus 23:3
Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD.

Being that you were suppose to stay home and rest -- anything Jesus did on that day would be breaking god's commandment.

But obviously, in order, for jason to salvage his idiosyncratic, interpretation of scripture, he'll have to do back flips and mental gymnastics -- rationalizing, either, that it was OK Jesus broke the sabbath or that Jesus didn't break the sabbath.

Rationalize it away, rationalize it away.

--S.

Jason said...

Philip,

No, it was Christ's disciples who were doing the gathering, not Christ himself. I would say this is a rather important distinction.

Jason said...

Sconnor,

By your logic, the Pharisees should have been at home and resting as well - but they weren't. And certainly there shouldn't have been anyone at the synagogue where Jesus finds the man with the withered hand - but there was. Even the guy gathering sticks in Numbers 15 - was he punished for picking up sticks or leaving his house? And look at this, the Pharisees even held a 'council' after Jesus heals the man! Wouldn't holding "councils" be considered work...?

Harry McCall said...

Jason, for a member of a cult that denies Romans 13, I guess you will deny the Talmud written by Jewish Torah scholars which tells us Jesus was a blasphemer who broke both the oral and written Law.

So Jason, Biblically, why can’t Christadelphian vote?

You keep wanting Bible facts and proofs here, but seem totally deceived by the Christadelphian false doctrines. Amazing!!

sconnor said...

By your logic, the Pharisees should have been at home and resting as well - but they weren't.

Matthew 12:5
Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

Which means: Haven't you read in the Law of Moses that the priests are allowed to work in the temple on the Sabbath?

And certainly there shouldn't have been anyone at the synagogue where Jesus finds the man with the withered hand - but there was. Even the guy gathering sticks in Numbers 15 - was he punished for picking up sticks or leaving his house? And look at this, the Pharisees even held a 'council' after Jesus heals the man! Wouldn't holding "councils" be considered work...?

It's not my logic, it's your bible's idiotic and contradictory logic. Your fight is with your asinine holy book.

--S.

Jason said...

Sconnor,

What does Matthew 12:5 have to do with the Pharisees being outside of their homes on the Sabbath?

And the laws regarding the Sabbath aren't contradictory - you're just misunderstanding them. The law of the Sabbath didn't require anyone to "stay at home" which is why no one was ever punished or chastised for merely being outside on the Sabbath.

sconnor said...

Exodus 16:29
The LORD hath given you the sabbath. ... abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day

sconnor said...

What does Matthew 12:5 have to do with the Pharisees being outside of their homes on the Sabbath?

Evidently, the law of moses allows the priests to go outside of their homes so they can work at the temples -- not my screwed up rules.

--S.

Jason said...

The instruction for every man to "stay in his place" in Exodus 16:29 had to do with gathering the manna (verses 25-88), not with the Sabbath laws. This is why later on leaving the home on the Sabbath was perfectly acceptable. It explains why no one was ever killed for leaving their house on the Sabbath, why the people came across the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath, why the Pharisees were out and about on the Sabbath, why Jesus and his disciples were out and about on the Sabbath and why people were in the synagogue on the Sabbath.

Regarding Matthew 12:5, yes, the law allowed the priests to work in the temple on the Sabbath. But seeing as the Pharisees weren't priests, I'm still not sure what your point is...?

sconnor said...

Exodus 16:27-29

27 Nevertheless, some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather it, but they found none. 28 Then the LORD said to Moses, "How long will you refuse to keep my commands and my instructions? Bear in mind that the LORD has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out."

Jason said...

That's right - they weren't to collect manna on the Sabbath.

See, Moses was speaking to the Israelites on the Sabbath (16:25) which would have been difficult to do if everyone was locked up tight in their homes. Instead, the obvious conclusion is that it was work that was forbidden on the Sabbath, not stepping outside for a breath of fresh air or taking a brisk walk around the town. This explains why there's no record of anyone ever being punished for being outside on the Sabbath and why the Pharisees didn't accuse Jesus of committing such a heinous crime.

Anyhow, back to Matthew 12:5 - what was your point again?

sconnor said...

See, Moses was speaking to the Israelites on the Sabbath (16:25) which would have been difficult to do if everyone was locked up tight in their homes. Instead, the obvious conclusion is that it was work that was forbidden on the Sabbath, not stepping outside for a breath of fresh air or taking a brisk walk around the town. This explains why there's no record of anyone ever being punished for being outside on the Sabbath and why the Pharisees didn't accuse Jesus of committing such a heinous crime.

"Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out."

Just ignore this verse, ignorrrrrrre, ignorrrrrrre.

Anyhow, back to Matthew 12:5 - what was your point again?

Just another of a whole line of equivocations.

Should we work on the sabbath? Shouldn't we work on the Sabbath?

Should everyone stay where they are or not? Does no one mean no one?

...but I know jason Christadelphian has it all figured out, by adding layers of interpretation, making assumptions, that lead to strained conclusions. Just as long as it makes perfect sense to you jason.

--S.

Jason said...

Sconnor,

I'm not ignoring the verse, you're ignoring what I'm saying. Moses was speaking to the Israelites on the Sabbath, right? Now if the law stated no one was allowed to leave their house on the Sabbath under punishment of death, then Moses wouldn't have been telling them not to leave their houses while they were all outside their own houses. Instead, the "no one is to go out" commandment has to do with collecting manna:

"And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a sabbath unto the LORD: to day ye shall not find it in the field... And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none." (Exodus 16:25,27)

Back to Matthew 12:5 - you were originally using the Pharisees argument to prove Jesus broke the Sabbath. Except that Jesus wasn't working on the Sabbath. You ignored this. Then you said he shouldn't have been outside in the first place, and that the Pharisees were allowed to be outside because they were priests. But the Pharisees aren't priests. You ignored this as well. What other brilliant arguments do you have up your sleeve?

What "work" was Jesus doing in Matthew 12:5?

sconnor said...

I'm not ignoring the verse, you're ignoring what I'm saying. Moses was speaking to the Israelites on the Sabbath, right? Now if the law stated no one was allowed to leave their house on the Sabbath under punishment of death, then Moses wouldn't have been telling them not to leave their houses while they were all outside their own houses. Instead, the "no one is to go out" commandment has to do with collecting manna:

Still reeeeeeaching for straws.

"Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out."

Contextually, god is scolding them for not resting on the sabbath; that's what god wants them to do -- right?

Back to Matthew 12:5 - you were originally using the Pharisees argument to prove Jesus broke the Sabbath. Except that Jesus wasn't working on the Sabbath.

Nor was he resting.

Then you said he shouldn't have been outside in the first place,

Yep, still sticking with the context of Exodus 16: 27-29

Here's another, more, straight forward translation:

A few of the Israelites did go out to look for some, but there was none. 28Then the LORD said, " Moses, how long will you people keep disobeying my laws and teachings? 29Remember that I was the one who gave you the Sabbath. That's why on the sixth day I provide enough bread for two days. Everyone is to stay home and rest on the Sabbath." 30And so they rested on the Sabbath.

Stay home and rest. Pretty, straight forward rule. Now if god -- while scolding Moses -- was singularly, disturbed by the action of picking up manna, you would have thought he would have been more susicnt. ("I told you kids not to pick up manna on the sabbath") But he doesn't say that. He seems particularly, clear on the whole "staying at home" and "resting" thing. You know, what Jesus wasn't doing.

Now, I understand your argument you think it was a scolding to stay at home, because they were gathering manna. It is an assumption on your part.

I'm sticking with the words god says "Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out."

It doesn't say, "Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out as pertaining to the collecting of manna."

I contend that the main idea of the verse is god wants his people to keep the sabbath holy, and stay home and rest, while you are fixated on the manna.

But the Pharisees aren't priests.

I concede this point; my mix up.

Still, god is wishy-washy and is equivocating.

Should everyone rest on the sabbath?

Should everyone stay where they are on the sabbath?

When god lays down the law:

Ex.20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day

Isn't this a proclamation that everyone should rest on the sabbath?

How come the priest get to work?

Isn't Jesus responsible for his apostles while they collected wheat on the Sabbath?

Was Jesus resting on the sabbath?

exemptions and equivocations.

Now, it's OK for the priest to do it or because David ate some bread, in the house of god, or if a lamb gets stuck in a pit and/or evidently, god never stops working, even though he did after he was all tuckered out creating the universe and all (John 5:17 But Jesus said, "My Father has never stopped working, and that is why I keep on working.") Which completely renders god's commandment to rest on the sabbath, obsolete.

GOD COMMANDS ALL TO REST ON THE SABBATH DAY AND KEEP IT HOLY -- unless this, or that, or whatever rationalization someone can come up with to supersede this commandment.

--S.

Jason said...

Sconnor,

Are you serious? I know it's a terrible thing to admit you're wrong but come on, you can't be this ignorant...

First, let's deal with this. You said:

Stay home and rest. Pretty, straight forward rule. Now if god -- while scolding Moses -- was singularly, disturbed by the action of picking up manna, you would have thought he would have been more susicnt. ("I told you kids not to pick up manna on the sabbath") But he doesn't say that. He seems particularly, clear on the whole "staying at home" and "resting" thing. You know, what Jesus wasn't doing. Now, I understand your argument you think it was a scolding to stay at home, because they were gathering manna. It is an assumption on your part.

It's not an assumption. Moses instructs the people to gather the manna for six days because on the seventh day there won't be any. Some of the people ignored Moses and went out anyway to gather more. God gets angry and asks Moses how long they're going to disobey Him. He reminds Moses that He gave the people the sixth day to gather twice as much manna, meaning there was no good reason to go out on the seventh day to gather manna.

Seems awfully straightforward, no...?

Moving on to "resting" vs. "self imposed house arrest". "Resting" is in relation to doing no "work", not locking yourself up in your home, unable to step outside. Note:

• But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, (Exd 20:10)

• Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. (Exd 31:14)

• Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. (Exd 31:15)

Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. (Exd 35:2)

• But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, (Deu 5:14)

• Neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the sabbath day, neither do ye any work, (Jer 17:22)

I trust you're getting the picture. Don't do any WORK on the Sabbath. There's nothing in these verses that instructs the people to stay inside. Do you agree?

Here's where it gets amusing. Philip said Jesus was "gathering" and that's why he broke the Sabbath. What was Jesus gathering, Philip? You then followed this up by saying Jesus was breaking the Sabbath because he wasn't at home and resting, like everyone was apparently supposed to do. Were the Pharisees at home, SC?

What you're glazing over is the fact that it's not Jesus the Pharisees are accusing of breaking the Sabbath in Matthew 12, it was the disciples. So based on the Pharisees accusations, there's no rational argument that can be made claiming Jesus was breaking the Sabbath here. I trust you agree?

As I've shown you, unless you're intentionally being ignorant (and I sincerely hope you're not) it was working on the Sabbath that was forbidden - whether gathering manna, or gathering sticks, or tilling the field. It wasn't forbidden to leave the house. Among numerous other examples in the Bible, this is confirmed by the silence of the Pharisees in Luke 14:1 when Jesus went into the house of a Pharisee to eat bread on the Sabbath.

I hope you can now see the problem with merely regurgitating the arguments the Pharisees used against Jesus...

sconnor said...

It's not an assumption. Moses instructs the people to gather the manna for six days because on the seventh day there won't be any. Some of the people ignored Moses and went out anyway to gather more.

Right, it's not an assumption that god instructed people to gather manna for six days because on the seventh day there would be none. It's an assumption to assume that god was upset about the the gathering of manna on the seventh day, rather than being upset about them not resting at home and reflecting on god's holy day.

It's not unequivocal that god wants them to stay inside for resting and refection or stay inside so as to not to go a collecting. Too bad the creator of the universe couldn't be more clear.

I think the evidence shows god wants his people to stay home, rest and reflect on his holy day, you think otherwise.

Again rationalize anyway you want, as long as you can make it fit your conclusions.

Bottom line is, god says, both, don't do any work and rest. It's a holy day used for reflection.

Exodus 35:2
Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

How exactly did Jesus use that day, when his disciples were out collecting wheat?

If an owner of a wheat field -- sitting on his ass doing nothing -- supervised his workers on the sabbath, is he not guilty of breaking the sabbath?

There's nothing in these verses that instructs the people to stay inside. Do you agree?

No, obviously, I don't agree; especially when in this verse it says to stay inside.

"Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out."
~and~
Leviticus 23:3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings

What you're glazing over is the fact that it's not Jesus the Pharisees are accusing of breaking the Sabbath in Matthew 12, it was the disciples. So based on the Pharisees accusations, there's no rational argument that can be made claiming Jesus was breaking the Sabbath here. I trust you agree?

Nope, if they were following the letter of the law -- they -- Jesus, the disciples and the pharisees, should have been at home resting, reflecting on god's holy day.

Now it's you who is ignoring.

(John 5:17 But Jesus said, "My Father has never stopped working, and that is why I keep on working.") Which completely renders god's commandment to rest on the sabbath, obsolete.

Not only is Jesus admitting he is working on the sabbath, he uses a lousy excuse. An excuse that renders the whole premise of the sabbath a complete wash out.

God created the sabbath because he rested on the seventh day. The whole premise of the sabbath was god worked for six days then rested on the seventh, which Jesus completely, contradicts and rejects, by admitting that it's OK for him to work because god supposedly works all the time -- which is a lie and is an insult to the gestation of the premise, that became law, that says, rest and do not work because god actually didn't do any work and actually rested. This is what the entire premise is built on -- which in the end, Jesus -- using faulty logic -- causes to crash and burn into a huge contradictory pile of crap.

Crucify the heretic for breaking god's law.


--S.

Jason said...

Sconnor,

You said:

I think the evidence shows god wants his people to stay home, rest and reflect on his holy day, you think otherwise.

The 'evidence' you've provided thus far is limited to one verse and it's an inferred argument at best. This this what your entire premise is based on?

If an owner of a wheat field -- sitting on his ass doing nothing -- supervised his workers on the sabbath, is he not guilty of breaking the sabbath?

You tell me - Did the Pharisees think Jesus was breaking the Sabbath in Matthew 12:5?

No, obviously, I don't agree; especially when in this verse it says to stay inside.

"Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out."
~and~
Leviticus 23:3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings


Hm. This verse doesn't say to "stay inside". You do know the phrase "go out" isn't indicative as to whether or not someone is "inside" a home, right...?

Nope, if they were following the letter of the law -- they -- Jesus, the disciples and the pharisees, should have been at home resting, reflecting on god's holy day.

So when Jesus went to the Pharisees home (on the Sabbath) in Luke 14:1, it would have been a perfect opportunity to accuse Jesus of breaking the Sabbath and subsequently have him sentenced to death. Did they?

Not only is Jesus admitting he is working on the sabbath, he uses a lousy excuse. An excuse that renders the whole premise of the sabbath a complete wash out.

So now Jesus wasn't breaking the Sabbath...

sconnor said...

The 'evidence' you've provided thus far is limited to one verse and it's an inferred argument at best. This this what your entire premise is based on?

Well that, coupled with the overwhelming amount of verses that speak of resting and reflecting on god's holy day.

Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings

Which means:
You have six days when you can do your work, but the seventh day of each week is holy because it belongs to me. No matter where you live, you must rest on the Sabbath and come together for worship. This law will never change.

Evidently, Jesus changes the whole thing. (John 5:17 But Jesus said, "My Father has never stopped working, and that is why I keep on working.")

Which one is it? work on the sabbath or don't work on the sabbath?
God works all the time or god does rest -- which is what the entire premise of the sabbath is based on.
Once again, the creator of the universe is not unequivocal.

Was Jesus resting on the sabbath? No -- he broke the sabbath.
Was he reflecting and worshiping on god's holy day? No -- he broke the sabbath.

Sconnor~If an owner of a wheat field -- sitting on his ass doing nothing -- supervised his workers on the sabbath, is he not guilty of breaking the sabbath?

You tell me - Did the Pharisees think Jesus was breaking the Sabbath in Matthew 12:5?

I contend it is breaking the sabbath.

This was a question directed at you. Can you answer it? Or is your answer because the pharisees didn't say anything then it would be alright to be the boss man, supervising on the sabbath?

Hm. This verse doesn't say to "stay inside". You do know the phrase "go out" isn't indicative as to whether or not someone is "inside" a home, right...?

Well it's indicative enough, so that other translations interpret it as staying at home:

CEV Everyone is to stay home and rest on the Sabbath." 30And so they rested on the Sabbath.
ESV Remain each of you in his place; let no one go out of his place on the seventh day."

What this makes clear is that Jesus was out of his place, wasn't resting and was not reflecting god's special day. He was out tromping around, in wheat fields, and Jewish meeting places -- he broke the sabbath according to you and the bible.

So when Jesus went to the Pharisees home (on the Sabbath) in Luke 14:1, it would have been a perfect opportunity to accuse Jesus of breaking the Sabbath and subsequently have him sentenced to death. Did they?

Non-sequitur. Just because they didn't sentence him doesn't mean he wasn't breaking the sabbath.

Putting the "staying at home" argument to the side, does Jesus rest and reflect on god's holy day?
Does he not admit to working on the sabbath? You know the argument you use to make "resting" insignificant.

• But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, (Exd 20:10)

• Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. (Exd 31:14)

• Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. (Exd 31:15)

• Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. (Exd 35:2)

• But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, (Deu 5:14)

• Neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the sabbath day, neither do ye any work, (Jer 17:22)

God's pretty clear. And Jesus admits to working on the sabbath. Hmmmmmmmmm? He broke the sabbath.

Sconnor~Not only is Jesus admitting he is working on the sabbath, he uses a lousy excuse. An excuse that renders the whole premise of the sabbath a complete wash out.

So now Jesus wasn't breaking the Sabbath...

Wh- wh- What? Now, you are just playing dumb and IGNORING the rest of the argument.

Jesus admits he was working on the sabbath. Working on the sabbath is wrong. This is the crux of your arguments. Jesus tries to change the rules by making a lame argument by rejecting god's never changing decree.

Care to address this dilemma specifically?

God created the sabbath because he rested on the seventh day. The whole premise of the sabbath was god worked for six days then rested on the seventh, which Jesus completely, contradicts and rejects, by admitting that it's OK for him to work because god supposedly works all the time -- which is a lie and is an insult to the gestation of the premise, that became law, that says, rest and do not work because god actually didn't do any work and actually rested. This is what the entire premise is built on -- which in the end, Jesus -- using faulty logic -- causes to crash and burn into a huge contradictory pile of crap.

--S.

Jason said...

Sconnor,

No one's disagreeing the Sabbath was for resting and reflecting on God's Word.

The original point being discussed however was why the Jews, not you, were accusing Jesus of breaking the Sabbath. I asked: "What verses can you provide indicating this was the reason religious Jews wanted Jesus dead?" You then offered up Matthew 12:5 in response. A basic reading of the verse however shows the Jews weren't accusing Jesus of breaking the Sabbath, something you've been surprisingly hesitant to admit up until now.

The simple conclusion is that based on this verse, from the perspective of the Jews Jesus wasn't breaking the Sabbath. Therefore, their argument that Jesus did break the Sabbath obviously isn't based on this particular account in light of the absence of any accusation against him.

As for staying in one's home on this day, if it was against the law the step on the Sabbath, based on how badly they wanted Christ dead, the Pharisees, and every other Jew who wanted him dead, would have been watching and waiting for him to step outside of his house. But they didn't. In fact, neither the Pharisees, scribes, priests or Jewish people ever used this as an accusation against Christ. Considering the wealth of evidence elsewhere of people being outside on the Sabbath, we can safely conclude it wasn't wrong to leave the house in this day.

As I trust you can see, there are many reasons why your Matthew 12:5 is not an acceptable verse to use to prove breaking the Sabbath was the "main reason the religious Jews felt Jesus must died".

If you want to discuss whether or not Jesus broke the laws of the Sabbath from your understanding of what the BIble says on the matter, start up another thread and I'd be happy to offer my thoughts.

sconnor said...

No one's disagreeing the Sabbath was for resting and reflecting on God's Word.

Right. Then Jesus broke the sabbath.

If you want to discuss whether or not Jesus broke the laws of the Sabbath from your understanding of what the BIble says on the matter, start up another thread and I'd be happy to offer my thoughts.

What's wrong with this thread?

Can you or can you not address the other arguments I made?

Like In john 5:17 -- it is clear Jesus broke the laws of the sabbath from the bibles understanding on the matter, not just my understanding.

Coupled with the other arguments it is clear Jesus broke the sabbath.

Please address this argument below, specifically.

John 5:17-18 But Jesus said, "My Father has never stopped working, and that is why I keep on working." Now the leaders wanted to kill Jesus for two reasons. First, he had broken the law of the Sabbath. But even worse, he had said that God was his Father, which made him equal with God.

Jesus admits he was working on the sabbath. Working on the sabbath is wrong. This is the crux of your arguments. Jesus tries to change the rules by making a lame argument by rejecting god's never changing decree.

God created the sabbath because he rested on the seventh day. The whole premise of the sabbath was god worked for six days then rested on the seventh, which Jesus completely, contradicts and rejects, by admitting that it's OK for him to work because god supposedly works all the time -- which is a lie and is an insult to the gestation of the premise, that became law, that says, rest and do not work because god actually didn't do any work and actually rested. This is what the entire premise is built on -- which in the end, Jesus -- using faulty logic -- causes to crash and burn into a huge contradictory pile of crap.

--S.

Ady Miles said...

The Christadelphians are most certainly not an Anti-Christ cult!