Breaking the Sabbath in Order to Keep It? Spectrum 50.3 (2022): 14-23

[Chief]

I found the article attached to this thread in the overview tab and it elicited some thoughts in my head. Here is the brief summary of the article:

This article challenges traditional Adventist interpretations of Sabbath observance, arguing for a nuanced understanding rooted in Scripture’s emphasis on mercy, intent, and human flourishing. Key points include:

1. Revisiting James and Paul:
   • James 2:10–11, often used to assert that breaking one law invalidates all, is reinterpreted. James 2:13 highlights mercy over rigid judgment, defining sin as knowingly neglecting good deeds (4:17) and allowing sin’s consequences to mature (1:14–15).
   • Paul, in Romans 14, frames dietary laws and holy days (including Sabbath) as matters of personal conviction, not universal mandates. Faith-driven actions, even if unconventional, honor God when aligned with love and conscience.
2. Jesus’ Radical Sabbath Hermeneutic:
   • Jesus redefines Sabbath in Mark 2:23–28, defending His disciples’ grain-picking by citing David’s precedent (1 Samuel 21). He prioritizes human need over legalism, declaring, “The Sabbath was made for humankind, not humankind for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). Ellen White supports this, noting the Sabbath should bless, not burden.
   • Jesus critiques Pharisees for imposing harsh interpretations (Matthew 23:1–4), advocating instead for a liberating approach that aligns with God’s intent: rest, justice, and mercy.
3. Biblical Interpretation and Paradox:

• Jesus and Paul model a dynamic engagement with Scripture. For example, Jesus contrasts Deuteronomy’s divorce laws with Genesis’ marital ideal (Matthew 19:3–9), emphasizing principles over rigid rules.
• The article posits that transgressing certain laws (e.g., Sabbath rest to save lives) can fulfill their deeper purpose: love for God and neighbor. This mirrors Rabbi Hartman’s view that true piety prioritizes ethical action over ritual absolutism.

1. Implications for Adventism:
   • The Sabbath’s essence lies in its creational purpose (Exodus 20:11; Deuteronomy 5:15)—rest and liberation from exploitation. Legalistic focus on the day obscures its mission: to challenge oppressive systems and promote holistic well-being.
   • The author urges Adventists to evangelize the Sabbath’s intent (rest, justice, and renewal) rather than enforce compliance, aligning with Jesus’ and Paul’s emphasis on mercy and contextual discernment.

What is your take? How do you understand and interpret this article?

 

[Polyglot]

Is it better to work on the Sabbath to support one's family than to fall afoul of 1 Timothy 5:8 by not providing for one's own family and thus becoming "worse than an infidel?"

If one is already "worse than an infidel" (worse than an unbeliever), what difference would it make whether one kept the Sabbath or not?

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (1 Timothy 5:8)

Keep in mind as you consider the alternatives, that being defined by Scripture as having "denied the faith" is no small thing.

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11:6)

Is there any hope for those unable to support their families?

 

[rob]

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (1 Timothy 5:8)
I see this verse as saying if anyone cannot demonstrate his own faith in his own house, he has denied the faith and is without faith.

God is our Grand Provider, not ourselves, so we simply ask of GOD to provide for us. And keep giving the glory to God for His providing, not allowing his providing to make us covet riches and abundance as some sort of god that we are our own provider.

The Hebrew word often narrowed as "Father" more broadly means "Provider" - a Father is a Provider

Mt 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Provider which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Mt 6:8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Provider knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

Mt 6:26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Provider feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

Ask and Your Heavenly Provider will provide for you.

Now if one has no faith and thus cannot provide for his family, it is simply a problem he has failed to Ask of our Grand Provider to provide for him.

The second moral law says "Ex 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,
But notice Adam and Eve broke this law as well:-

Ge 3:7 .... and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

They became their own providers for their nakedness when the covering of light that came from God left them immediately when they sinned, hence this moral law is about humans becoming their own providers and worshipping this fact.

Instead Jesus came as their provider and offered a sin-offering solution to their sin problem instead.

So as we ask God to provide for us - let us remember as God provides for us that we too become providers for others who also have less than you do, because they lack faith themselves. In this way you demonstrate your faithlessness to others.

What Paul is writing about - 1 Tim 5:8 "Demonstrate your faith so that others without faith, will be encouraged to follow your example. Our SDA Church should above all things be a Provider as its members provide for this purpose.

Shalom

 

[Polyglot]

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (1 Timothy 5:8)
I see this verse as saying if anyone cannot demonstrate his own faith in his own house, he has denied the faith and is without faith.

God is our Grand Provider, not ourselves, so we simply ask of GOD to provide for us. And keep giving the glory to God for His providing, not allowing his providing to make us covet riches and abundance as some sort of god that we are our own provider.

There's an essential difficulty with your response. It is contradictory to Bible teachings to both have "denied the faith and is without faith," and be eligible to "simply ask of GOD to provide."

That is why I posted Hebrews 11:6 already, which says that without faith it is impossible to please God. A companion passage is found in the next book:

"But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord." (James 1:6-7)

It seems that the Bible teaches if one has "denied the faith" and "is worse than an infidel" (worse than an unbeliever), one need not expect to have one's prayers answered. "For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord" (James 1:7).

I, personally, find this quite ironic--that one could, by not supporting his family, enter such a strait place wherein God would not even answer his prayers.

Only "the prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (James 5:16).

 

[rob]

There's an essential difficulty with your response. It is contradictory to Bible teachings to both have "denied the faith and is without faith," and be eligible to "simply ask of GOD to provide."

That is why I posted Hebrews 11:6 already, which says that without faith it is impossible to please God. A companion passage is found in the next book:

"But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord." (James 1:6-7)

It seems that the Bible teaches if one has "denied the faith" and "is worse than an infidel" (worse than an unbeliever), one need not expect to have one's prayers answered. "For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord" (James 1:7).

I, personally, find this quite ironic--that one could, by not supporting his family, enter such a strait place wherein God would not even answer his prayers.

Only "the prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (James 5:16).

Not sure I understand you here? James makes it clear a human must not doubt or be unstable in asking of God for divine power.
And if you are in iniquities God does not hear you. You have to have attitude of gratitude before asking God for divine power.

Back to the verse

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (1 Timothy 5:8)
I see this verse as saying if anyone cannot demonstrate his own faith in his own house, he has denied the faith and is without faith.

My previous statement is correct? The Greek word "provide" is used three times so one is not sure what this word means?
The other words "faith" and "apistis" is a reference to having no faith.

When you are a father to your house, you are to provide as your Father provides to you. This is achieved by faith.

Not provide in your own human works, so your riches make you to trust in them - that is legalism and such pious work means nothing to God. The moral law (2) calls this "depravity following idols".

You say: "It is contradictory to Bible teachings to both have "denied the faith and is without faith," and be eligible to "simply ask of GOD to provide."
I would agree, God does not bless a consistent wicked person while he does sinning. But I did not post this idea? You have misunderstood what I was saying? Hope the above clarifies

 

[Polyglot]

Not sure I understand you here? James makes it clear a human must not doubt or be unstable in asking of God for divine power.
And if you are in iniquities God does not hear you. You have to have attitude of gratitude before asking God for divine power.

Back to the verse

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (1 Timothy 5:8)
I see this verse as saying if anyone cannot demonstrate his own faith in his own house, he has denied the faith and is without faith.

My previous statement is correct? The Greek word "provide" is used three times so one is not sure what this word means?
The other words "faith" and "apistis" is a reference to having no faith.

When you are a father to your house, you are to provide as your Father provides to you. This is achieved by faith.

Not provide in your own human works, so your riches make you to trust in them - that is legalism and such pious work means nothing to God. The moral law (2) calls this "depravity following idols".

You say: "It is contradictory to Bible teachings to both have "denied the faith and is without faith," and be eligible to "simply ask of GOD to provide."
I would agree, God does not bless a consistent wicked person while he does sinning. But I did not post this idea? You have misunderstood what I was saying? Hope the above clarifies

Do you believe that when the Bible says a man should leave his father and his mother when he joins himself to his wife it implies he should be financially independent of his parents?

Do you believe that if a man, and his wife and children, are being supported by the man's father, that he would be keeping the fifth commandment and not be afoul of 1 Timothy 5:8?

Would it change anything if the man were busy doing good things, but was simply not earning anything? Would it change anything if government labor laws prevented the man from getting gainful employment to support himself and his family?

How readest thou?

 

[rob]

Do you believe that when the Bible says a man should leave his father and his mother when he joins himself to his wife it implies he should be financially independent of his parents?

Yes

Do you believe that if a man, and his wife and children, are being supported by the man's father, that he would be keeping the fifth commandment and not be afoul of 1 Timothy 5:8?

The family should respect their parents, from both sides, spend time with both sides and help them as required. Not sure how this relates to a family man in his house without faith. A wicked family man is allowed to be faithless, so why does Paul even talk about a faithless man?

I will check Clarke comments:

1 Timothy 5:8 1Ti 5:8

Verse 8. But if any provide not for his own] His own people or relatives.

Those of his own house] That is, his own family, or a poor widow or relative that lives under his roof.

Hath denied the faith] The Christian religion, which strongly inculcates love and benevolence to all mankind.

Is worse than an infidel.] For what are called the dictates of nature lead men to feel for and provide for their own families. Heathen writers are full of maxims of this kind; TACITUS says: Liberos cuique ac propinquos NATURA carissimos esse voluit. "Nature dictates that to every one his own children and relatives should be most dear." And Cicero, in Epist. ad Caption: Suos quisque debet tueri. "Every man should take care of his own family."

Oh so Paul is talking about a man who refuses to care for his own family parents? If that is the verse context, I agree the man is faithless and without faith, and a wicked provider.

Would it change anything if the man were busy doing good things, but was simply not earning anything? Would it change anything if government labor laws prevented the man from getting gainful employment to support himself and his family?

How readest thou?

I do not like families that treat their parents with contempt. My own brother did this to my Mum, and I feel it was wrong, a breaking of the fifth command - respect your parents - he meant well maybe ? I would have cared for my Mum differently, but alas my youngest brother was a pet son to her.

Would it change anything is Gov lock downs prevented families respecting their parents? Hmm?
What about in my case living 15 hours by car, from my Mum, who was the black sheep in the brothers and sisters?
All my brothers took turns looking after my Mum, but not me, I live too far away? Am I guilty of breaking the fifth commandment?
My Mum and my brother took the COV19 vaccine injection, but I refuse, and would have refused to give it to my Mum if I was under her care. My Mum made the second brother her medical attorney, but not me. My Mum did not trust me? Dunno.
So you ask hard questions here my friend.