Thread: Is cooking/preparing food on the Sabbath Day an issue or non-issue?

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

Why are we always asking "how much can I get away with on His day?" instead of "how is my Lord best served on His day?"

Are we? I thought someone was asking, "Can I cook some food on His day?" The Lord didn't say to the Pharisees, "You're right; my disciples should have picked their grain yesterday and kept it in their pockets".

Mr. Nowlan, it seems several items regarding your posts need clarification:

1.) Yes, as a confessional board, it is the assumed position here that the Sabbath laws set forth in scripture (and mentioned in the WCF) apply today just as much as they ever have. This means that the Sabbath is to be set apart as a day of worship, chiefly public worship, wherein we are to abstain from worldly employments and recreations, insofar as life's necessities and the requirements of mercy and compassion toward others allow.

2.) It is simply wrong to deduce from Exodus 16 that one must stay in his house on the Sabbath.

3.) Nor is it quite so obvious a deduction that Exodus 16 requires no food preparation on the Sabbath -- rather, in God's special dispensation of manna to Israel, he taught them his provision by delivering a double portion that they might learn to rest in and depend upon him.

4.) The WCF does not allow a view that the Sabbath is "spiritual" and is observed spiritually or inwardly as a principle everyday, with nothing different about one day in seven (the one day in seven being the moral element, Sunday being the positive element).

5.) Finally, as Reformed Christians we cannot claim the Lord requires simply that we love him and others, and that therefore the moral law (summarized in the 10 Commandments) doesn't apply as strictly to us in its specific actions. As Jesus says, "If you love me, keep my commandments." Our love and obedience consists in zealously maintaining his laws and commands.

Originally Posted by Paul Nowlan

Question: I believe I read once that Jesus said it is good to do good on the Sabbath. Is this true or I am I mistaken?

I believe it was in the context of healing a man's withered arm? Is this Biblical?

Don't you know this? Paul, I'm struggling to understand where you are coming from. I can't see any context to suggest that what I've quoted above is ironic or a joke, but if you have to ask that question then you don't know the bible well enough to make any sort of judgment on this issue, so I'm confused. Help!

Originally Posted by Paul Nowlan

Bob, yes I see, I see. Thank you.

-----Added 8/25/2009 at 07:31:16 EST-----

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

I think when we look at how the Rabbis interpreted the injunction to cook/prepare Manna on Friday, not to light a fire on the Sabbath, and not to go out on the Sabbath (which was given because the Israelites would get up to no good on the Sabbath e.g. looking for Manna or other things to do), and then look at them again in the light of the fact that Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath, that can be quite instructive.

Ah, so that makes it proper for me to cook on Sunday - and violate Exodus 16 and the spirit of the 10 commandments.?

This sabbath law was geared to those sinful Jews looking for fresh manna. This Sabbath law doesn't apply to me - a deeply spiritual Christian who would never watch football on Sunday?

I remember my Mother's home cooked meals. They were hard work.

-----Added 8/25/2009 at 07:39:37 EST-----

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath, that can be quite instructive.

Excellent quote.

Does this quote apply to:

- a man working at Walmart on Sunday to feed his family

- a woman cooking a beautiful dinner for her family on Sunday

- a father watching the Steelers on Sunday with his family

- a student studying law on Sunday in order to free up time to read the Bible for 15 minutes every day

These are crucial questions, because I believe each is in violation of the Sabbath Laws and WCF - though each has good intentions.

Most people I have met don't think about this issue. They just condemn Sabbath breakers - and then procede to break the Sabbath.

I myself have struggled for years with this very very basic question.

-----Added 8/25/2009 at 07:42:13 EST-----

I also think that hypocrisy on this issue brings much shame to the visible church in the eyes of the world. Where do you stand: Does Exodus 16 apply to us? A simple but crucial question. The entire concept of moral law vs ceremonial law hinges on it. Unless, of course, you think this particular moral law only applies to those sinful Jews - not us holy 21st century Christians.

Dear Paul,


It would be helpful if you stuck to the topic in hand, Paul.

I'm certainly not advocating watching Sunday TV, working in a supermarket, studying law on a Sunday or these other matters.

The subject is preparing and cooking food and cleaning up afterwards.

I agree with you that the laws on lighting fires, going out on a Sabbath, and the reference to not cooking Manna on the Sabbath apply to us, and are moral not civil. The Q is how they apply. These things teach us things about how the Lord's Day is to be observed. When we look at how subsequent generations of Jews abused them, we learn something about how not to observe the Sabbath.

Re lighting fires is it compatible with one of God's purposes for the Sabbath, that it was made for Man not Man for the Sabbath, revealed to us by our Lord and God Jesus Christ, that God intended the Jews to freeze in the winter?

The law re lighting fires was (a) given in the context of the building of the tabernacle and (b) at a time when lighting fires from scratch involved a lot of labour without lighters, matches or firelighters. This points to normal domestic chores being excluded. Some of the Holy Days excluded "rigorous work." On the Sabbath only works of necessity, mercy, worship and rest are allowed.

Re not going out on a Sabbath, this must be seen in the context of the Jews looking for Manna. Does this exclude going for gentle nature ramble or constitutional today, as well as walking or otherwise travelling to and from church. This teaches us that normal pursuits of sport, play and recreation are out. A gentle walk is fine; climbing a mountain is another.

In the context of that particular time this explains how the actions of the stick collector were deemed particularly egregious and flagrant. See Numbers 15:30-31 and then read Numbers 15:32 -36 in that context i.e. in the context of 30-31 and what I've said.

Re the fact that the Israelites were to prepare the Manna on Friday (a) Maybe it was the type of food that could easily be prepared the day before (b) Maybe God didn't want the Israelites to do any cooking because of the amount of effort involved viz. lighting and maintaining fires, etc. (c) Maybe we need to take on board the teaching here on cooking and attempt to make things as easy as possible for the ladies/gents who are cooking. (d) Maybe we also need to take on board that the Sabbath is a feast day and have our best fare then. (e) Maybe we need to realise that there are a lot of labour saving devices and techniques out there that the Jews in the wilderness didn't have which means we can do a lot more with even less labour. (f) maybe the spiritual needs of wives need to be remembered on the Sabbath, in that they can be absorbed by chores, cooking and meal preparation, and cleaning dishes instead of spiritual things; see Martha and Mary.

Maybe I'm a bit t*ght***ed - as they say in America - about certain aspects of the law and the Sabbath. But I just thought it would make an interesting topic for discussion and generate some light on the subject, which to an extent it has.

We always have to learn more about how to observe God's commandments in the Spirit without adding to or detracting from His holy law.

We don't want to keep the Sabbath like the Pharisees or modern Orthodox Jews, but we don't want to slavishly follow the world, or assume that things can't be improved.

For those following, Post#42 excellently summarizes the reformed Christian and biblical view and parameters of the fourth commandment.

Also, to put this in context the distinctions between ceremonial, civil and moral law in post#15 may be helpful. Not everything done in Old Testament Israel as "a church under age," is applicable today.

Understand also the Pharisees, and others misinterpreted the law, added things to to it, attempting to bind men's consciences, but with things that are not required by God.

In the end, the sabbath is something we can delight in if we have the right biblical understanding and ask for grace to "cease" and "set apart" the day, and understanding also God has not placed undue burden on its observance.

Few things will show us our rebellious hearts, minds and wills as will the fourth commandment...

And few things will show us the goodness, grace and mercy of our God as well.

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Originally Posted by The Author of my Faith

Since I am free in Christ to observe or NOT observe days and feasts and such I will continue to Cook on Sundays. Italian Sunday Dinner. Macaroni's and Meatballs with Brociolle. 3:00 PM Sundays at my house. Mia Casa you Casa! Mangia!!!!!

If your conscience condmens you then don't do it. If your conscience does not then go for it. Anyone who tells you that you are prohibited to cook on Sundays and tries to throw a guilt trip on you is a liar. Period. I do not care what tradtion or what anyone says. Christ is the fulfillment of the law.

So please pass the jelly!

-----Added 8/26/2009 at 01:10:25 EST-----

Originally Posted by The Author of my Faith

Since I am free in Christ to observe or NOT observe days and feasts and such I will continue to Cook on Sundays. Italian Sunday Dinner. Macaroni's and Meatballs with Brociolle. 3:00 PM Sundays at my house. Mia Casa you Casa! Mangia!!!!!

If your conscience condmens you then don't do it. If your conscience does not then go for it. Anyone who tells you that you are prohibited to cook on Sundays and tries to throw a guilt trip on you is a liar. Period. I do not care what tradtion or what anyone says. Christ is the fulfillment of the law.

So please pass the jelly!

Now just to clarify i do not mean if you are not condemned by sinning against God that you can do it. But cooking on Sunday is not a sin. But you need to know that Cooking an Italian Sunday Dinner with Ragu or Prego from a Jar is a Mortal Sin

First, several have made it clear in this thread that it is lawful to "cook on Sunday".

Second, in cooking your Italian meal, can I assume that you would qualify your remarks with the WCF?

Chapter XXI
Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day
[emphasis added]

....

VIII. This Sabbath is to be kept holy unto the Lord when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their wordly employments and recreations,[38] but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.[39]

Not quiet sure what you mean.

If your conscience condmens you then don't do it. If your conscience does not then go for it. Anyone who tells you that you are prohibited to cook on Sundays and tries to throw a guilt trip on you is a liar. Period. I do not care what tradtion or what anyone says. Christ is the fulfillment of the law.

Steve, your strong assertions, without any such qualifiers as WCF could sound either maverick or antinomian. I was offering you an opportunity to put your argument in a confessional context.

Originally Posted by Paul Nowlan

Originally Posted by Herald

If you have a scruple in that area, it's an issue. If you don't, then it's not.

So Exodus 16 -as it relates to the 10 commandments -is not applicable if you feel no guilt?

Again, the issue is do the 10 commandments - and moral law - still apply *in full*. Does the Sabbath law apply *in full.*

Can I consecrate my day to NFL football and Sunday home cooking and then condemn you for working a Walmart on Sunday to support your family. The operative word here is consecrate. I believe it means *dedicate in full*.

Or has Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the Law and now that we are led by the Holy Spirit, we have a more general duty to love and honour God, love your neighbour (which BTW is in the OT too.)

I have attended Pentecostal, Dutch Reformed, RCA, and non-denominational churches. This is the biggest question I've seen in every church. This one issue reveals more hypocrisy than anything else I've ever seen.

A Christian's entire life is affected by his/her view on this question.

Do the Sabbath laws apply *in full.*

Oh, it is not an act of necessity to cook on Sunday. Fresh fruit and vegetables, cold cuts, pre-cooked meals can be tasty and good for you.


Favourite Sabbath quote:
It's OK for me to eat at MacDonalds on Sunday because I'm not the one working and the MacDonald's worker is the one violating the Sabbath.

-----Added 8/25/2009 at 07:22:40 EST-----

You people should notice, I am asking questions.

Do all the Sabbath laws still apply? Should we attend to cooking *beforehand.* as the Bible and WCF suggest?

What does it mean to consecrate the Sabbath to God?

Do the 10 commandments still apply today?

P.S. cooking can be hard work, even today

Paul,

My comment had to do with one's conviction on the issue. If a brother has a studied opinion, based on scripture, that their conscience is not bound in that area, then all the arguing in the world is not going to change it. Likewise, if a person is convinced that they should prepare before hand for necessity on the Lord's Day, then they are not likely to be convinced otherwise. I have found both of these convictions operative among those who hold to the sabbatarian view.

This falls into the necessity realm so there is nothing wrong with it. It's easy to fall into legalism with the Sabbath.

Quite witty, Paul.

If we interpreted the law the way you're implying we should, we wouldn't even go out of our houses to church.

I've already said I agree that we shouldn't work in Walmart (Asda as it is here); listen to Black Sabbath; watch the telly; etc, etc.

Re the above, I don't know who these subscribers to the WCF are, but their pastors/elders should take them in hand.

The subject in hand is cooking/food preparation and dish-washing.

With modern conveniences and a bit of forethought the work of the ladies on the Sabbath can be kept to a minimum, unlike those poor Jews, or even servants in large or smaller households in Dabney's day.

Mr. Nowlan, I fear you are misunderstanding the confessional position of the Sabbath. As I stated in a post above, the caricature of hypocrisy which you are creating is simply beyond false (not to mention beyond offensive). As Confessional Presbyterians, we do say it is a violation of God's law to work on the Sabbath; and we also claim that it is a violation of God's law to watch the Simpsons or NFL, or to go to McDonalds and whatever other activities you keep bringing forth. Please note this and cease painting this overtly inaccurate caricature of yours.

Again (as above) note that this is a Confessional board and we maintain that the moral physical aspects of the Sabbath do apply in the New Testament, along with the New Testament-specific positive and ceremonial aspects thereof. The fact that you have an a priori attachment to an interpretation Exodus 16 which holds that the law maintains that one cannot dress meats (or more strangely, to leave the house!) on the Sabbath simply indicates that you will not interact with the historic understanding of that passage -- it simply is an unwarrantable stretch to argue what you're arguing from those verses. The historic Reformed position on the Sabbath is very consistent, and if you would to participate in a thread as to how the Reformed do understand Sabbath observance, I would be more than happy to join you; note, however, that in accordance with the board rules, the confessional stance may not be argued against.

Originally Posted by Madcow

This falls into the necessity realm so there is nothing wrong with it. It's easy to fall into legalism with the Sabbath.

Legalism is mentioned with the Sabbath a lot. It's actually possible to fall into legalism with any of the 10C. You can fall into licence with any of the 10C too.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Mr. Nowlan, I fear you are misunderstanding the confessional position of the Sabbath. As I stated in a post above, the caricature of hypocrisy which you are creating is simply beyond false (not to mention beyond offensive). As Confessional Presbyterians, we do say it is a violation of God's law to work on the Sabbath; and we also claim that it is a violation of God's law to watch the Simpsons or NFL, or to go to McDonalds and whatever other activities you keep bringing forth. Please note this and cease painting this overtly inaccurate caricature of yours.

Again (as above) note that this is a Confessional board and we maintain that the moral physical aspects of the Sabbath do apply in the New Testament, along with the New Testament-specific positive and ceremonial aspects thereof. The fact that you have an a priori attachment to Exodus 16 indicating that the law maintains that one cannot dress meats (or more strangely, to leave the house!) on the Sabbath simply indicates that you will not interact with the historic understanding of that passage -- it simply is an unwarrantable stretch to argue what you're arguing from those verses. The historic Reformed position on the Sabbath is very consistent, and if you would to participate in a thread as to how the Reformed do understand Sabbath observance, I would be more than happy to join you; note, however, that in accordance with the board rules, the confessional stance may not be argued against.

Paul, your post affords me the opportunity to clarify my poorly worded posts. I joyfully concur in observing the Lord's Day (sabbath) as explained in the 1689 LBC and WCF. My two posts had more to do with a brother who also holds a sabbatarian view, but disagrees as to preparing food or going to a restaurant. As an elder, I am learning not to argue with those who hold a different opinion, but rather to use any interaction as a teachable moment. It is my responsibility as an elder to point those under my charge to the truth of God's word. Not every deviation requires formal church discipline. If that were the case elders would be busy indeed! I appreciate your irenic response. It is well suited for this thread.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Mr. Nowlan, I fear you are misunderstanding the confessional position of the Sabbath. As I stated in a post above, the caricature of hypocrisy which you are creating is simply beyond false (not to mention beyond offensive). As Confessional Presbyterians, we do say it is a violation of God's law to work on the Sabbath; and we also claim that it is a violation of God's law to watch the Simpsons or NFL, or to go to McDonalds and whatever other activities you keep bringing forth. Please note this and cease painting this overtly inaccurate caricature of yours.

Again (as above) note that this is a Confessional board and we maintain that the moral physical aspects of the Sabbath do apply in the New Testament, along with the New Testament-specific positive and ceremonial aspects thereof. The fact that you have an a priori attachment to an interpretation Exodus 16 which holds that the law maintains that one cannot dress meats (or more strangely, to leave the house!) on the Sabbath simply indicates that you will not interact with the historic understanding of that passage -- it simply is an unwarrantable stretch to argue what you're arguing from those verses. The historic Reformed position on the Sabbath is very consistent, and if you would to participate in a thread as to how the Reformed do understand Sabbath observance, I would be more than happy to join you; note, however, that in accordance with the board rules, the confessional stance may not be argued against.

j'ai fini

Originally Posted by Paul Nowlan

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Mr. Nowlan, I fear you are misunderstanding the confessional position of the Sabbath. As I stated in a post above, the caricature of hypocrisy which you are creating is simply beyond false (not to mention beyond offensive). As Confessional Presbyterians, we do say it is a violation of God's law to work on the Sabbath; and we also claim that it is a violation of God's law to watch the Simpsons or NFL, or to go to McDonalds and whatever other activities you keep bringing forth. Please note this and cease painting this overtly inaccurate caricature of yours.

Again (as above) note that this is a Confessional board and we maintain that the moral physical aspects of the Sabbath do apply in the New Testament, along with the New Testament-specific positive and ceremonial aspects thereof. The fact that you have an a priori attachment to an interpretation Exodus 16 which holds that the law maintains that one cannot dress meats (or more strangely, to leave the house!) on the Sabbath simply indicates that you will not interact with the historic understanding of that passage -- it simply is an unwarrantable stretch to argue what you're arguing from those verses. The historic Reformed position on the Sabbath is very consistent, and if you would to participate in a thread as to how the Reformed do understand Sabbath observance, I would be more than happy to join you; note, however, that in accordance with the board rules, the confessional stance may not be argued against.

j'ai fini

What, exactly, are you finished with? I'm sorry, I don't understand.

Having looked into this further I have got some help from Patrick Fairbairn's " The Typology of Scripture" and also Thomas Shepard's "Theses Sabbaticae" in the Section "The Sanctification of the Sabbath", which is at monergism.com.

It seems that this Q intersects with the Continental Reformers' misapprehension - if that's what it was - that the Jews had to keep the Sabbath more strictly than the Christians for ceremonial reasons.

That Exodus 12:16 was not mentioned so far in this connection shows my/our relative ignorance of the Torah :-

On the first day you shall hold a holy assembly, and on the seventh day a holy assembly. No work shall be done on those days. But what everyone needs to eat, that alone may be prepared by you.

These were seventh day Sabbath Days held at the beginning an end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Clearly preparing food was allowed on these weekly Sabbaths; and if on these Sabbaths, on all Sabbaths.

Here is Thomas Shepard on Exodus 16:23

For, first, it is not said, (Ex. 16:23,) Bake and seethe that today which may serve you next day; but, that which remains, (viz., which is not sod nor baked, ) lay it up until the morning, and consequently for the morrow of the next day, which being thus laid up, I do not find that they are forbidden to bake or seethe that which remains upon the next day; but rather, if they must use it the next day, they might then bake it or seethe it that day also, as they did that of the sixth day, and without which they could not have the comfortable use of it upon the Sabbath day. Indeed, it was as lawful to grind and beat the manna in mills and mortars, mentioned Num. 11:8, upon this day as now to thresh and grind corn this day; the meal there*fore, which did remain, is not forbidden to be baked or sod upon this day; nor would God's special and miraculous providence appear in preserving it from worms and stinking, if there had been any baking of it the day before, and not rather upon the Sabbath day.

Shephard on lighting of fires on the Sabbath :-

Although also they were forbidden to kindle fire upon this day, (Ex. 35:3, ) in respect of some use, yet they are not forbidden so to do in respect of any use whatsoever. For there was fire kindled for the Sabbath sacrifices, and it would have been a breach of the rule of mercy, not to kindle a fire for the sick and weak in the wilderness. Nehemiah also, a man most strict and zealous for the Sabbath, yet had such provision made every day as could not be dressed nor eaten without some fire upon the Sabbath day, (Neh. 5:18; ) and the Sabbath not being a fast, but a feast in those times as well as these, hence it is not unsuitable to the time to have comfortable provisions made ready, provided that the dressing of meat be not an ordinary hindrance to public or private duties of holiness upon this day, (Ex. 12:16: ) this kindling of the fire here forbidden must there*fore be understood in respect of the scope of the place, viz., not to kindle a fire for any servile work, no, not in respect of this particular use of it, viz., to further the building of the sanctuary and tabernacle, made mention of in this chapter; for it is said, whosoever shall do any work therein (i.e., any servile work, which is more proper for the week time) shall be put to death, (ver. 2 ; ) there is, therefore, either no dependence of these words in the third verse with those in the second, or else we must under*stand it of kindling fires restrictively for any servile work, which is there forbidden not only the Jews, but us Christians also.

The whole flavour of Shepard on these texts is that - unlike the weaker basis upon which the Continental Reformers based the Sabbath - the Sabbath of the Jews was the same as the Patriarchal Sabbath and the Christian Sabbath. Christ wasn't in any sense loosing the strictness of the Jewish Sabbath, but merely clearing away the interpretations by the Jews of texts such as these, and the imposed Pharasaical additions.

We know that the Jewish interpretation of such texts has led them to great lengths in avoiding cooking on the Sabbath or lighting a fire on the Sabbath. Which techniques would not have been available in the wilderness.

On the Continent - after the passing away of the Reformers - the widespread belief that the OT Sabbath of the Jews was kept more strictly than the Sabbath of the Christians for ceremonial reasons led in part to a looser "Continental Sabbath" than that in Great Britain.

I think the general principle here is the ordering of our lives to glorify God. Can I say it's OK to make biscuits on Sunday but not yeast bread because one takes longer? No. But I can say, that judicious use of the other six days of the week can greatly minimize what we have to do on Sunday. Done carefully, it can create a holiday (i.e. holy day) feel to it because no one is stressed to do much, but you can enjoy a nice meal, fellowship, and extra time in study and prayer.

Contrast that to, "honey, Johny doesn't have any socks" ... "oh no, they're still in the washer." "Mommy, we're out of milk, what are we supposed to have for breakfast." Going into church 15 minutes late, then coming home to start a meal from scratch ....

Yeah.

I was just interested in how we deal with these Old Covenant texts honestly. If they did teach that cooking should be avoided, then we'd have to find a way of following that?

-----Added 9/23/2009 at 11:27:57 EST-----

Thomas Shepard on the man who gathered sticks:-

The man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath (Num. 15:30) was put to death. What! for gathering of sticks only? Why then did not the just God put them to death who were the first offenders, (and therefore most fit to be made examples,) who went out to gather manna upon this day? (Ex. 16.) This gath*ering of sticks, therefore, though little in itself, yet seems to be aggravated by presumption; and that the man did presumptuous*ly break the Sabbath, and therefore it is generally observed, that this very example follows the law of punishing a presumptuous transgressor with death in this very chapter; and though it be said that they found a man gathering sticks, as if it were done secretly, and not presumptuously, yet we know that presump*tuous sins may be committed secretly as well as openly, though they are not in so high a degree presumptuous as when they are done more openly: the fear of the law against Sabbath breakers might restrain the man from doing that openly which before God was done proudly and presumptuously; and though Moses doubted what to do with the man, who had that capital law given him before against Sabbath breakers, yet they might be ignorant for a time of the full and true meaning of it, which the Lord here seems to expound, viz., that a Sabbath breaker sinning presumptuously is to be put to death; and although it be doubted whether such a law is not too rigorous in these times, yet we do see that where the magistrate neglects to restrain from this sin, the Lord takes the magistrate's work into his own hand, and many times cuts them off suddenly who profane his Sabbath presumptuously; and it is worth inquiring into, whether pre*sumptuous Sabbath breakers are not still to be put to death; which I doubt not but that the Lord will either one day clear up, or else discover some specialty in the application of this judicial law, to that polity of the Jews, as most fit for them, and not so uni*versally fit for all others in Christian commonwealths; but this latter I yet see no proof for; nor do I expect the clearing up of the other while the temper of the times is loose and lukewarm.

-----Added 9/23/2009 at 11:35:03 EST-----

Shepard on the expression servile work which expression from the Law I do not remember being pointed out to me, but further explains our Lord's distinction between what is allowed and what isn't :-

Thesis 9. Considering, therefore, that some work may be done upon the Sabbath, and some not, and that man's heart is apt to run to extremes, either to gross profaneness or pharisaical strictness, we are therefore to inquire what works we must rest from, and what not from, upon the Sabbath day.

Thesis 10. If the Scriptures may be judge herein, we shall find that when they forbid all manner of work, they interpret this of servile work. The work forbidden in the annual Sab*baths, (which did but shadow out the rest on this Sabbath,) it is servile work, (Lev. 23:7, 8; ) and hence the rest on the Sab*bath (in this fourth command) is opposed to the labor on the week days, which is properly servile, lawful to be done then, but unlawful upon the Sabbath day.

Thesis 11. The schoolmen and some of their late idolizers, (like the Pharisees of old,) ever blind in interpreting the spiritualness of the law of God, describe a servile work in that man*ner, so as that the grinding of watermills and windmills, as also the counsels of lawyers to their clients, the herring trade of fishermen, are with them no servile works on this day ; and in*deed they scarce make any work servile, but what is slavish and external bondage and burden.

Thesis 12. But if we consult with Scriptures and the very words of this fourth commandment, we shall find two things con*curring to make up a servile work: 1. If any work be done for any worldly gain, profit, or livelihood, to acquire and pur*chase the things of this life by, (which is the principal end of week-day labor, Eph. 4:28; 1 Thess. 4:12,) this is a servile work, all one with what the commandment calls “thy work.” Hence buying, selling, sowing, reaping, which are done for worldly gain, are unlawful on this day, being therefore servile works ; hence also worldly sports and pastimes (which are or*dained of God to whet on worldly labor, not necessary every day, but only at some seasons) are therefore most proper appur*tenances unto days of labor, and are therefore unlawful upon this day. Holy times are no more to be sported on than holy places; hence also, on the other side, to rub the ears of corn, to dress meat for comfortable nourishment of man, because they respect not worldly gain, are no servile works, nor yet unlawful, but may be more lawfully done for the comfort of man than to lead his horse to the water this day, (Luke 6:2, and 13:15, and 14:5; ) hence also such works as are done only for the preservation of the creatures, as to pull a sheep out of a ditch, to quench fire in a town, to save corn and hay from the sudden in*undation of water, to keep fire in the iron mills, to sit at stern and guide the ship, and a thousand such like actions, (being not done properly for worldly gain,) are not unlawful; God himself not ceasing from works of preservation, when he did from those of creation; hence also such works as are not works of immediate worship, but only required necessarily thereto, as killing the sac*rifices in the temple, traveling a Sabbath day's journey to the public assemblies, being no servile works for outward gain, are not unlawful upon this day.

2. Such worldly works, which though they be not done for worldly gain or profit, yet if by a provident care and foresight they might be done as well the week before, or may as well be done a week after the Sabbath, these also are servile works; for thus the commandment expresseth it: “Six days thou mayest do all thy work,” (meaning which can be done as well the week be*fore,) and if all can not be done, it may therefore be as well done the week after. Hence the building of the tabernacle, (which was not so much for man's profit as God's honor,) because it might be done upon the six days seasonably enough, hence it is prohibited upon the Sabbath day. (Ex. 31.) If a man hath corn in the field, though he may pretend that the weather is un*certain, and it is ready to be brought into the barn, yet he is not to fetch it in upon the Sabbath day, because there is no imminent danger of spoil the Monday after, and then he may fetch it as well as upon that day; the like may be said concerning seamen's setting sail upon the Sabbath day, though they be uncertain of a fair gale upon the day after. Yet we must trust God's providence, who almost in all such matters keeps us at uncertainties; hence also the sweeping of the house ought not to be done now, if it may as well be done the day before; so also to buy any things at shops, or to wash clothes; if they may be done the week before or after, they must not be done upon this day; hence, on the other side, works of necessity, which can not be so conveniently done the day before or after, are not unlawful upon this day, as to fly in persecution, to watch the city, to fight with the enemy. (Matt. 24:24. 2 Kings 1:2.) Hence also works of necessity, not only for preservation of life, but also for comfort and comeli*ness of life, are not unlawful; for it is a gross mistake to think that works only of absolute necessity are allowed only upon this day; for to lead an ox to water, which in the strictest times was not disallowed of, is not of absolute necessity, for it may live more than a day without it; only it is necessary for the comfort of the life of the beast: how much more is allowed to the comfort of the life of man! The disciples possibly might have lived longer than the Sabbath without rubbing corn ears, and men may live on Sabbath days generally without warm meat, yea, they may fast perhaps all that day; yet it is not unlawful to eat such meat, because it is necessary for the comfort of life. Hence also to put on comely garments, to wash hands and face, and many such things as are necessary for the comeliness as well as the comfort of life, are not unlawful now; there is sometimes an inevitable necessity by God's providence, and sometimes a contracted necessity through want of care and foresight: in this case the work may sometimes be done, provided that our neglect beforehand be repented of: in a word, he that shall conscientiously endeavor that no more work be done on the Sabbath than what must be done for the ends men*tioned, that so he may have nothing else to do but to be with God that day, shall have much peace to his own conscience here*in, against Satan's clamors: hence, lastly, not only outward ser*vile work, but servile thoughts, affections, and cares, are to be cast off this day from the sight of God, as others are from the eyes of men; servile thoughts and affections being as much against the fourth commandment as unchaste and filthy thoughts against the seventh.

Here's a link to Thomas Shepard "Theses Sabbaticae"

http://thomasshepard.org/sabbaticae.shtml

and Patrick Fairbairn's "Typology of Scripture". In his sections and appendices on the Sabbath, Fairbairn mentions the Continental divine Altingius as refuting the Continental Reformers' false notion that the Sabbath of the Old Covenant was stricter and more rigid for ceremonial reasons.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1...age&q=&f=false

Interesting also Mr. Shepard is of the view that the sabbath begins and ends at sundown. It is a substantial part of his very insightful work.

Thanks for all of the posts...I have been wondering about some of these same issues. I do, however, agree with Sarah, in that we can get a bit "legalistic" if we are not careful.

Originally Posted by Houchens

Thanks for all of the posts...I have been wondering about some of these same issues. I do, however, agree with Sarah, in that we can get a bit "legalistic" if we are not careful.

True enough. You can get a bit legalistic in applying any commandment. But it's important to know what God's will is, and if God's Word in the Old Testament said we weren't to prepare food/cook/wash up on the Sabbath then we'd have to take that on board - whether that would mean the same in the New Testament is a moot point.

It looks like it doesn't/didn't teach that for the Jews or us, in line with our Lord's instruction in the New Covenant. I wouldn't call such research legalistic, just seeking God's will.

-----Added 9/24/2009 at 03:27:57 EST-----

Originally Posted by Scott1

Interesting also Mr. Shepard is of the view that the sabbath begins and ends at sundown. It is a substantial part of his very insightful work.

I haven't read the whole treatise. Does he give any reasons why that is better than the Sabbath beginning and ending at midnight; which would be/ may be slightly less confusing than the sundown to sundown Sabbath in our society?

Richard Tallach
I haven't read the whole treatise. Does he give any reasons why that is better than the Sabbath beginning and ending at midnight; which would be/ may be slightly less confusing than the sundown to sundown Sabbath in our society?

He has a whole section dedicated to when the sabbath begins. It is a substantial part of his treatment of the subject.

The treatise being organized by "theses" (a well laid-out paper in classical form), he particularly says it mirrors the command as observed in the Old Testament (sundown to sundown), changed to the first day of the week in recognition of Christ's resurrection.

III. OF THE THESES CONCERNING THE BEGINNING OF THE

SABBATH.





1-2. Five several opinions concerning the beginning of the Sabbath,



3-12. The time for beginning of the Sabbath not according to the various customs of divers nations,



13-27. The time of the artificial day not the beginning and end of the Sabbath, as it begins and ends,



28-47. The beginning of the Sabbath not midnight,



48-49. The morning doth not begin the Sabbath,



50-57. That place of Matt. 28:1, usually alleged for the be*ginning of it in the morning, cleared,



58. The resurrection of Christ not aimed at by the evangel*ists to be made the beginning of the day, although it be of the change of it,



59-63. John 20:10, cleared,



64-67. Paul's preaching till midnight no argument of the begin*ning of the Sabbath in the morning,



68. The various acceptation of the word day and morrow to answer many proofs alleged for beginning the Sab*bath in the morning,



69-71. Some that hold the beginning of the Sabbath was from even to even until Christ's resurrection, and then the time was changed, confuted,



72. There is not the like reason for the Sabbath to begin at the first moment of Christ's entrance into his rest, as for the first Sabbath at the beginning of the Father's rest,



73-74. The reasons for the change of the day are not the same for the change of the beginning of the day,



75. The conceived fitness for the beginning of the Sabbath in the morning rather than in the evening is a vanity,



76-77. The evening begins the Christian Sabbath,



78-80. The place Gen. 1:2, cleared,



81-85. The darkness mentioned Gen. 1:2 was not punctum temporis,



86-89. The separation of light and darkness (Gen. 1:2) cleared,



90-93. Levit. 23:32 proves the beginning of the Sabbath at evening,



94-96. Nehemiah an exemplary pattern for beginning the Sabbath at evening,



97-99. Those that prepared for the burial of Christ began their Sabbath in the evening,



100. Christ's lying three days in the grave,



101-102. Those northern countries who have the sun in view divers weeks together in a year yet know when to begin the day,

I think in the light of Shepard's comments and recognising the fact that our Saviour's words about the Sabbath being made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath, apply to the Patriarchal Sabbath and the Mosaic Sabbath, as well as the Christian Sabbath, it seems reasonably clear that the idea that preparing/cooking food is not for the Sabbath is another Jewish imposition based on a poor interpretation of Exodus 16:23 and other passages about lighting fires.

Where we have servants or where someone in particular is responsible for preparing/ cooking food, that should be kept in mind by others, and some possible preparations can be made the day before, in order that the individuals' Sabbaths are not ruined by too much hard work.
But the extremes that orthodox Jews go to are a legalistic and over-zealous misapplication of certain passages.

It seems fairly clear that the Continental Reformers' - including Calvin's - view that the Old Covenant Sabbath was meant to be stricter and more rigid than the Christian one, in its normal application, because the Old Covenant Sabbath was a type of believers resting from sin and sinful ways of justifying themselves is also erroneous and led to a looser Sabbath on the Continent.

It's also comforting to see how our Lord in Matthew 12 explicitly allowed the plucking and eating of grain (a form of food preparation) on the sabbath.

In my understanding, food preparation per se has never been prohibited completely on the sabbath, but the Israelite was under various ceremonial and civil law aspects of that food preparation as "a church under age."

It seems the key is that the focus and priority of the day is to cease from ordinary work and play in thought, word and deed and not to allow the day to become unduly burdened by even the necessary aspects of eating and meal preparation. If we prepare in advance to do that, and work on making it a mind and speech aspect, we go a long way to obeying our God and calling the sabbath the delight that God made it to be.

This is an important topic for me; Good insights on all sides

I don't cook food on the Sabbath Day because I'm such a bad cook that it would just become a warzone in the kitchen and this hinders the true purpose of the Sabbath for me. So I usually prepare food like cold pasta / sushi / cold sandwiches the night before and keep them in the fridge and they are ready to eat on the fly the next day.

That's what I do. But I have a question for Paul_Nowlan as to what entails "preparing" food? If I were to eat just fruits (which obviously don't need cooking, unless you're from another planet), and I cut them into bite sized pieces would that be considered "preparing?"

I don't think it is necessarily so clear cut as to how we can completely not prepare food on the Sabbath Day.

When you have your first nursing baby all of your legalistic opinions about the sabbath and "work" go out the window. It takes hours to feed a baby.

Then you have another, and have to feed them too, with a toddler. I had four spaced two years apart. With going to church ( 3 hours total usually) added to the day I felt like my ox had fallen into a well every week, and that was with a wonderful helpful husband.

Nursing babies with toddlers around, and rest- ha. They don't mix. I don't know what I think about the subject anymore, but I try to make any opinions I do have apply to nursing moms.

This may be the reason that the reformed church in Scotland developed the custom of women with new borns not attending Sunday services until the child was two years old.

Quote from Lynnie

When you have your first nursing baby all of your legalistic opinions about the sabbath and "work" go out the window. It takes hours to feed a baby.

Good point.

I hope this has been - rather than an exercise in legalism - an attempt to understand the interpretation and application of Scriptures, which may be thought to have pointed in one direction by the Jews and others, including Calvin, (i.e. not preparing food on the Sabbath) and yet which are after all completely reconcilable with our Lord's words on the Sabbath, that the Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath.

It would be interesting to see what James Alting (Jacobus Altingius) said about this, as referenced by Fairbairn, but, after a search of the internet, there doesn't seem to be anything available from him.