While I was studying for the article "What Do You Mean... ‘Holy Convocation’?", an interesting point came up which I wanted to go over in more depth but I didn't have the space in that article. So, I thought we could go over it here. It has to do with what ancient Israel did on the weekly Sabbath, or more specifically, where they would be.
To start, let's review the underlying issue so we know why we're going over today's topic in the first place.
Sabbatarianism tends toward legalism and fixating on commands. Sabbatarians believe the weekly Sabbath is a command for Christians and going to church is how the Sabbath is commanded to be "kept". Church on Saturday is central to their identity. Meanwhile, going to church on Sunday, specifically, is condemned in the strongest terms as a man-made tradition in defiance of the laws of the Almighty.
The catch is, there is no command to 'go to church' on Sabbath anywhere in the Bible. Search all you wish, you will not find one. That's a big part of what the post "What Do You Mean... ‘Holy Convocation’?" was all about. The Sabbath is not about when you go to church, but Sabbatarianism is.
At this point, the conversation usually shifts to traditions, but I will spare you that. Instead, I recommend the posts "Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII" and "Established and Imposed".
This is the background issue that brings us to today's post. Today we ask, perhaps God did not give a command to go to church/synagogue on Sabbath, but did God command Israel to be anywhere in particular? Some will turn to Exodus 16.
PLACE
(EXO. 16:28-30) 28 And the Lord said to Moses, “How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws? 29 See! For the Lord has given you the Sabbath; therefore He gives you on the sixth day bread for two days. Let every man remain in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.” 30 So the people rested on the seventh day.
The Israelites, to whom the law was given, were commanded by Moses to stay in their homes for the Sabbath.
There is no doubt that this command exists. But it's more than that. I want to share this interesting tidbit from Barnes' Commentary:
"The expression in Hebrew is unique and seems almost to enjoin a position of complete repose: “in his place” is literally under himself, as the Oriental sits with his legs drawn up under him."
So, they were to stay not just at home but where they were. As we should expect, it was understood in different ways. Just look at this interesting tidbit from Adam Clarke's Commentary:
"Some of the Jews have carried the rigorous observance of the letter of this law to such a length, that in whatever posture they find themselves on the Sabbath morning when they awake, they continue in the same during the day; or should they be up and happen to fall, they refuse even to rise till the Sabbath be ended! Mr. Stapleton tells a story of one Rabbi Solomon, who fell into a slough on the Jewish Sabbath, Saturday, and refused to be pulled out."
Have you ever followed the law that closely? In my 30 years as a Sabbatarian, I never did. So much for my righteousness in the law exceeding that of the Pharisees!
For all those who ask, "can we follow Jesus and ignore the Torah," will you ignore this part of Torah?
But don't make up your mind yet. There is more to this story. The question becomes: was Israel really forevermore required to stay home for the Sabbath?
MANNA
What do we say here at As Bereans Did? Context, context, context. And what is the context of Exodus 16:29? Manna.
The Israelites were being tested with the manna and they were failing. They were told not to keep it overnight. They did anyway. God sent worms and rot. They were told not to gather it on Sabbath. They did anyway. Moses commanded them to stay home. The command to stay at home appears to be a way to get the people to follow the rules of manna collection. Can't quite collect it if you're home.
Now, we find ourselves with two options:
Option 1:
Exodus 16:29 could be understood as only pertaining to the Israelites in the Desert Wandering at that time when both manna and the law were being introduced and Israel had to learn how to navigate the new conditions; a temporary command. There is no 'this shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations' attached.
Option 2:
Exodus 16:29 could be understood as a permanent command. There may not be a 'this shall be a perpetual statute' but there also is no clear indication that it ended or was intended to end. Keep in mind, even though this might look like it was about manna collection, the manna collection was itself set up in such a way as to teach Sabbath observance. We've come full circle.
Can I justify one over the other? Well ... it's complicated.
There is no small amount of scholarly work to go on here. Just for example, see Biblehub's list of commentaries on this verse. Many commentators understand the command as being specific to the gathering of manna. Many do not. Commentators aside, what did Israel understand it to mean? Many, perhaps most, Israelites understood it as a permanent command. So, we have evidence for both options.
But! At the same time, the Israelites who did believe it was perpetual do not appear to believe the perpetual command was to stay home ...or in a ditch. I mean, there couldn't be people offering to pull that guy from the ditch if they all were all at home, or in agreement with the guy in the ditch.
Let's get more detail to see if we can make some sense of this dilemma.
DWELLINGS
(LEV. 23:3) 3 ‘Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work on it; it is the Sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings [moshevoteykhem].
This verse has implications for Exodus 16:29. I am going to pull a short selection from that Holy Convocation article:
We have another Hebrew word now: moshevoteykhem (מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם) which means dwelling places, habitations, places where people live - be that homes or home towns. The result of this is the opposite of being commanded to travel to Jerusalem. For the non-pilgrimage holy days there were no large gatherings. They were all smaller.
So, we have two places where miqra qodesh [holy convocation] can happen: at the Temple in Jerusalem, and wherever you dwell. Neither of those are 'at church'. Some portions of miqra qodesh were national and some familial. Some large assemblies and some small assemblies. Some at designated places and some wherever you happen to be.
So 'dwellings' can mean 'homes', sure enough, but must it mean homes? I don't think so. Why not? Because let's look at another place where "in all your dwellings" appears.
(NUM. 35:29) And these things shall be a statute of judgment to you throughout your generations in all your dwellings.
This part of Numbers 35 talks about murderers, and witnesses necessary for the death penalty, and posting bail, and refuge cities, etc. How in the world are those supposed to be 'in your house'? This is only one example. Other examples are quite similar. Insisting that dwellings must mean homes plays havoc with this and other laws.
I just do not see how we can get moshevoteykhem to always mean 'at home'. It can mean 'at home' sometimes, but not always. And if it's not always, then it's contextual. I do not see anything in the context of Leviticus 23:3 that makes me believe it should be understood as exclusively at home. Even the extremist who refused to be pulled from a ditch did not believe this meant to be at home, as certainly there was no ditch inside his house. It would be better understood as, "It is the Sabbath of the Lord in all the places where Israelites settle." In other words, in their towns. And if you weren't in your town at the time, then by implication this means something closer to 'wherever you happen to be.'
If this is how Leviticus 23:3 is understood, then this has implications for Exodus 16:29.
This detail isn't the only clue we have.
FAMILIAL
Let's look at the law for the Sabbath and note something:
(EXO. 20:10b) In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.
(DEU. 5: 14) but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.
These clearly speak in household terms. These words aren't, "You and your constituents and your townsfolk and your country sides, etc." These words aren't, "You and your congregation and your choir and your service organizer and your prayer leader and your sound crew, etc." These are familial words.
I am trying to make two points here:
First, there is a clear focus on family. Who was responsible for ensuring regular duties had stopped? The head of household. Who did the teaching on Sabbath? The parents. This isn't about going to church. This isn't about sitting for an hour trying not to fall asleep while someone else presents part 38 in a 52-part sermon series. Not a single word spent on Ministers and their fiefdoms and their importance in prophecy and how they are the only ones qualified to teach. Not one jot or one tittle wasted on "pay, pray, stay."
Second, on the pilgrimage holy days, Israel was required to assemble as a nation. But apart from those three, nothing in the laws regarding the sacred assemblies (that includes the weekly Sabbath) ever says what size the assembly had to be, or where it had to be. It could be a town, or a home, or a large gathering, or even as little as a single family, or perhaps it was two families gathered together in a home for a Sabbath visit. Leave your house, stay home, it's all good ...just don't go far.
Finally, let's wrap this up with a few smaller clues.
CLUES
There is a tiny clue hidden in II Kings that demonstrates ancient Israelites did not understand that they were required to stay home. Apparently, it was normal to go see a prophet on Sabbaths and New Moons.
(II KIN. 4:23) So he said, “Why are you going to him [Elisha] today? It is neither the New Moon nor the Sabbath.”
Ancient Israelites might not have been going to synagogue on Sabbath, because synagogues didn't exist at that time, but it seems going to see a prophet was within the realm of possibility. Going to see a prophet by definition means not staying at home. So, maybe not stay at home, but stay close to home.
Also, for all those who say the Sabbath is mandatory but New Moons aren't important, you might want to rethink that.
Interestingly, most of the commentaries I've read mention Exodus 16:29 as the source for where the idea of a Sabbath day's journey comes from.
(ACT. 1:12) 12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey.
If the Israelites, including the Apostles, understood that they were to stay at home on Sabbath, then the concept of a Sabbath day's journey should not exist. A Sabbath day's journey should be across the room. Once again, Israel saw it as a permanent command, but not to stay still or even to stay home, but to stay in their dwellings. It is a restriction on travel, but not a restriction on leaving home.
And now maybe this verse also makes more sense:
(ACT. 16:13) And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there.
How can one go to see a prophet or on a Sabbath-day's journey, or gather at a river, when they were supposed to be at synagogue? How can one be at synagogue when they were supposed to stay home? They can't.
The answer is, none of these things were required. Going to synagogue was never a requirement in the first place. Even in the time of synagogue, it wasn't mandatory to go there. But more importantly for today's article, staying home for the Sabbath appears more and more like it was not mandatory.
One last clue to point out here. There were three annual pilgrimage festivals where all the males in Israel were commanded to appear at the Temple in Jerusalem: Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. We know Unleavened Bread and Tabernacles were seven days long (Tabernacles was eight if you count the last day). There was guaranteed to be a weekly Sabbath in there somewhere. Tell me, how can one be at the Temple in Jerusalem for the annual holy days and at home for the weekly Sabbath at the same time? Not possible. But this can be done: stay close to where you are dwelling at that time.
One might wonder what the official word from Armstrongism was on this. Well, there wasn't really one. Here, read this typical comment:
"Some people ask about the mention of 'a sabbath day’s journey' in Act; 1: 12. There is no special command anywhere in the Bible limiting travel on the Sabbath. This 'sabbath day’s journey' was a custom of the Jews and is not a biblical command."
-Rod Meredith, "Rejoice In God's Sabbath!", Good News Magazine, Dec. 1957, p.5
Hopefully, you can now see why this was not correct. There is a law limiting travel: Exodus 16:29, which says, "Let every man remain in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day." The Sabbath day's journey is not merely a custom of the Jews, it is their way of interpreting how Exodus 16:29 applied to them in light of all the other relevant evidence. Disagree with the conclusion Israel came to if you must, but at least address it. Armstrongism did not address it; it ignored it. The same way it ignores how the Fourth Commandment was written specifically for Israel. This is entirely par for the course with Armstrongism.
Meredith goes on to say how a walk on Sabbath is good but you shouldn't walk so far as to tire yourself. The Sabbath law of rest was not about staying well rested, it was about ceasing from normal activity and treating the time as holy and set apart, belonging to God, not for ordinary use. He didn't even understand the primary feature of the day. These are Sabbatarians we're talking about. What irony! A group whose entire identity is this one thing, yet they clearly misunderstand the very core of the thing.
CONCLUSION
Did God command Israel to be anywhere in particular? Yes. He said to stay in place. The question is not whether Exodus 16:29 says to stay in place; it does. The question is: what does that mean, exactly, and to whom does it apply? It applies to Israel, to whom the law was given, and none besides. The evidence as I see it points away from it literally meaning 'stay in your house' (or staying in a ditch all day). There appears to be more leeway to it than that. To Israel, "place" seems to have meant something closer to 'surrounding area'. So, no, a Sabbath-keeper does not appear to be required to stay home for Sabbath.
This post isn't really about a Sabbath day's journey. That is a secondary item, but one I thought was helpful to the main point. During my time in Armstrongism, we were never told how the Sabbath day's journey came about. We read about it in Acts and dismissed it as yet another odd tradition of the Pharisees. Turns out it is built on grappling with Exodus 16:29 and other evidence, like we did today. We don't know exactly how it started or by whom, but I imagine it started because there is no clear answer in Scripture, and some Rabbi probably got fed up with being asked about it and just came up with an answer. I can't fault that.
The upside of today's article is:
Sabbatarians narrowly escape repeating the error of the Pharisees. There is no law to go to church on Sabbath, and it doesn't look like there was a law to stay home either. So, going to church does not vacate any law in favor of tradition.
The downsides include:
1) Most Sabbatarians simply ignore this command entirely. They either aren't aware of it or they simply ignore it as if it isn't there. They neither stay still, nor at home, nor a Sabbath day's journey, nor anything else besides.
2) We still have the issue of not having a command to go to church. Sabbatarianism turns an opinion about a man-made tradition into a command, all while condemning man-made traditions.
3) Sabbatarian churches are going to have to decide for themselves how to interpret Exodus 16:29. Does that make it ... a tradition?
4) This has implications for the annual holy days as well. I have the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles particularly in mind, since people often begin their long journeys home on that day.
To help you move forward, I suggest these articles:
What Do You Mean... ‘Holy Convocation’?
Established and Imposed
Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII
The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2
The Road to Sabbatarianism - Part I
Editing The Commandments
Acts 15 - What Was Debated - Part I
Confusing the Covenants
If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments
For Paul, Jesus Is The Answer
************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11
************
No comments:
Post a Comment