Thread: Fleeing on the Sabbath

Note: it is possible to skip all of this and go straight to my husband's much more concise statement at #23.

Mark's words about 'the spirit of the law', and the Sabbath example in the Ends Justifying the Means thread raised a question for me -- Don spoke of those who were instructed to pray that their flight would not be on the Sabbath, as this would rob them of their Sabbath rest. (Edit: considering that this is open to various interpretations, perhaps a better example is the one Evie raises, posts 6&7 on this thread.)

I looked up the larger catechism and it instructs us that the sixth commandment requires the use of all 'lawful' means to preserve life. I am not sure whether fleeing was or was not 'lawful' from the human govt. standpoint (and I am not sure if the use of the word 'lawful' in the catechism has to do primarily with human govt. or with the wider realm of moral law). But even God's law would seem to be broken in such a case, in breaking the fourth commandment. (& though God may have used the means of their prayers to keep them from such an exigency: yet He seems to allow for it.)

My first question is how are we to interpret this: does the sixth commandment take precedence over the fourth? Or is the fourth still being kept -- since the 'Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath', fleeing for one's life in an extraordinary situation is still a way of keeping the Sabbath?

My second is, If you think that the sixth commandment takes precedence over the fourth, is this 'situation ethics'?

Or, If you think that the fourth is being kept in such a case, would *not* fleeing be Sabbath breaking, immoral? (In other words, could an overly rigid fixation on the externals of the normal situation in which the command makes actions moral/immoral lead one to deny the spirit of law -- and so miss the 'letter' in an abnormal circumstance?)

Is there some other interpretation of that passage/prayer?

I hope that isn't too confused. Thank you in advance.

Is there another 'Seth' on the PB (not a very common name, you know)? Or did I say something I don't remember saying? Now I have to go and check!

I'm sorry Seth: I get your username confused with 'Satz'. Of course, that was Mark. I'll edit.

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

I'm sorry Seth: I get your username confused with 'Satz'. Of course, that was Mark. I'll edit.

No problem! You really made me wonder if I had posted in the "Ends Justify the Means" thread and forgotten that I had done so (it's happened to me before). Anyway, I'll stop getting this thread off topic now.

Originally Posted by sastark

No problem! You really made me wonder if I had posted in the "Ends Justify the Means" thread and forgotten that I had done so (it's happened to me before). Anyway, I'll stop getting this thread off topic now.

hmmmm . . . Heidi hatches nefarious plot to convince Seth he advocated outlandish theological positions . . .

If you hadn't raised this question, I would have assumed a fleeing situation was like an ox in a ditch. If you can pull your ox out of a ditch, surely you can remove yourself from a harmful situation? But now that you have brought up this passage, I'm not sure how it fits, so I look forward to seeing what other people say.

I wonder if it might have something to do with particular Sabbath-keeping practices that would have made it difficult to flee quickly, rather than the problem of Sabbath-breaking itself. In context, the people are also to pray that their flight will not be in winter, and Jesus mentions that women who are pregnant or nursing will have trouble. So maybe it is about physical impediments to flight rather than moral impediments.

Evie, that does seem like it must factor in. But the ox in the ditch situation confuses me with the same questions: did God allow for the 'breaking' of the law in an extra-ordinary circumstance, or was the spirit of the law such that in an extra-ordinary circumstance, the only moral thing to do was to seemingly 'break' the normal keeping of the command?

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

Evie, that does seem like it must factor in. But the ox in the ditch situation confuses me with the same questions: did God allow for the 'breaking' of the law in an extra-ordinary circumstance, or was the spirit of the law such that in an extra-ordinary circumstance, the only moral thing to do was to seemingly 'break' the normal keeping of the command?

Yes, this makes sense -- that is a deeper question.

Surely our Lord's words about "fleeing on the Sabbath" were meant as a reminder that Christians fleeing Jerusalem on the Sabbath would get no help from their legalistic fellow Jews who had added strict rules about "a Sabbath Day's journey" etc, which can be found in the Oral Law or Talmud.

Is our Lord in speaking of "the winter" and "Sabbath" not encouraging Christians to leave Jerusalem in good time and at the best time of their own choosing; as is Matthew with his parenthetic words, "Let him who reads understand."(?)

Re keeping the Ten Commandments, there are exceptions where the person may "break the law" and yet remain guiltless, to use Jesus's startling words about the activity of the priests on the Sabbath. What is happening is a higher law or deeper principle of God's Word is "kicking in"?

There is a discussion of this in Jochem Douma's "Ten Commandments:Manual for the Christian Life", especially in relation to the Ninth Commandment e.g. what happens in war where you are a Christian soldier and are asked to deceive the enemy?

Mr. Tallach, thank you.

If the Sabbath there is referring to the legalistic traditions of the seventh day of the week, that does alleviate that side of the concern (though the ox in the ditch question is still confusing). I don't know enough to know if it is speaking of that, or of the ongoing day we are to set apart for worship and rest (if the latter then the catechism would indicate that the normal way of keeping the fourth commandment would not be by such activities as are involved in fleeing for one's life). What you have said makes sense, and I will think about that.

I would also be interested if you had any further thoughts about whether then, in the case of the ox in the ditch, God was allowing for a breaking of the law because some other law took precedence -- or whether getting the ox out of the ditch was actually keeping the fourth commandment?

-----Added 4/23/2009 at 01:18:36 EST-----

(Matthew Henry takes this as a prayer that their flight will not be on either the Jewish or the Christian Sabbath, and seems to think that they are being instructed when to flee -- when the events described in Matt. 24 take place -- rather than being instructed to leave in a time of their own choosing? Is this a standard interpretation, or are there many?)

On the Sabbath we rest from work. We rest from the work of dominion given to us in the beginning. We need to understand work in that context. We allow for acts of mercy and necessity. I don't see those kinds of acts as violating the resting from the work of dominion. They are two different kinds of actions.
One is preserving life and the other is dominion.

No expert here but that is my

As God makes clear in the Old Covenant and our Lord Jesus makes clear against Pharisaical excesses, and which is therefore laid down in the Confession and Catechisms, works of necessity and mercy are not only permitted on the Lord's Day but may be required.

Works of mercy include helping and healing animals as well as humans. Doctors, nurses, policemen, firemen, powerstation workers and others may have to work on the Chrstian Sabbath.

There are good books out there that further explain the Christian Sabbath or Lord's Day.

The Lord's Day is for works of necessity, mercy, worship, and also for rest of soul, mind and body.

Yours in Christ,
Richie.

So far then the concensus seems to be that some acts which seem to be an allowed 'breaking' of the Sabbath in getting an ox out of a ditch, fleeing for one's life, etc., are actually required by the commandment?

-----Added 4/23/2009 at 01:26:43 EST-----

Just to clarify: though I'm grateful for the book recommendations and am looking into them at the local library: my concerns aren't so much about how does Sabbath keeping look persay (though of course that enters in) as about whether 'exceptions' to the commandments in unusual circumstances are because other commands take precedence; or if they are actually part of the requirements of the command understood in its spirit rather than its normal 'letter'.

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

So far then the concensus seems to be that some acts which seem to be an allowed 'breaking' of the Sabbath in getting an ox out of a ditch, fleeing for one's life, etc., are actually required by the commandment?

-----Added 4/23/2009 at 01:26:43 EST-----

Just to clarify: though I'm grateful for the book recommendations and am looking into them at the local library: my concerns aren't so much about how does Sabbath keeping look persay (though of course that enters in) as about whether 'exceptions' to the commandments in unusual circumstances are because other commands take precedence; or if they are actually part of the requirements of the command understood in its spirit rather than its normal 'letter'.

Well, as far as preserving life we uphold human dignity. That would preserve the unity of the Law?

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

My concerns aren't so much about how does Sabbath keeping look persay (though of course that enters in) as about whether 'exceptions' to the commandments in unusual circumstances are because other commands take precedence; or if they are actually part of the requirements of the command understood in its spirit rather than its normal 'letter'.

It seems that at least some of these are "exceptions," not requirements based on the spirit of the law. For example, in Luke 6, Jesus says to the Pharisees: "And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him; how he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?"

It was NOT lawful to eat the shewbread. I don't think that God would have looked lightly on any "Joe Smith" who went into the tabernacle and swiped the priest's hold food. Yet when David and his men were hungry, they ate it and it was okay. This sounds like an exception, although I am having trouble seeing WHY it was okay for him to break the law.

That would preserve the unity of the Law?

I was kind of wondering about this, but wasn't sure how to phrase it. Am I still thinking too much in terms of the law as ten separate things, and not one whole thing?

It was NOT lawful to eat the shewbread. I don't think that God would have looked lightly on any "Joe Smith" who went into the tabernacle and swiped the priest's hold food. Yet when David and his men were hungry, they ate it and it was okay. This sounds like an exception, although I am having trouble seeing WHY it was okay for him to break the law.

My confusion exactly: but your example is clearer, and expressed with more clarity.

Absolutely.

From Jesus's words and actions - who is the supreme interpreter of the Sabbath - He indicated it would be wrong not to heal on the Sabbath, and likewise to save an animal from death or suffering. Working animals were meant to rest on the Day.

Jesus upheld the Sabbath, but the main problem of His day was not with people ignoring the Sabbath (as is done by Christians today), but people - particularly the party of the Pharisees - adding their own rules to the keeping of the Day.

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

So far then the concensus seems to be that some acts which seem to be an allowed 'breaking' of the Sabbath in getting an ox out of a ditch, fleeing for one's life, etc., are actually required by the commandment?

-----Added 4/23/2009 at 01:26:43 EST-----

Just to clarify: though I'm grateful for the book recommendations and am looking into them at the local library: my concerns aren't so much about how does Sabbath keeping look persay (though of course that enters in) as about whether 'exceptions' to the commandments in unusual circumstances are because other commands take precedence; or if they are actually part of the requirements of the command understood in its spirit rather than its normal 'letter'.

Heidi, I just wrote a long and incoherent post, and abandoned it, but this was my problem: It's easy to show how killing in self-defense may be required by the Sixth Commandment, and how it doesn't even violate the (more ambiguous) letter of the Sixth Commandment. Yet doing any work seems to violate the letter of the Fourth Commandment, and I'm not sure if there are other -- I don't want to say "exceptions," but perhaps, "tensions" -- in the application of the Ten Commandments that allow for violation of the letter. Maybe Beth's distinction between works of dominion and works of mercy brings the ox-in-the-ditch back within the letter. And maybe I'm being too lawyerly in trying to reconcile everything with the letter, and assuming the point in question -- that the letter of one commandment doesn't take precedence over the letter of another. This post just adds to the questions in the thread, and doesn't answer anything, but those were my thoughts.

Evie -- ach -- I just wondered if this is against the spirit of love -- I am glad that at least others comprehend my confusion, as well (and state it much more clearly than I am confusedly doing.)

There is an underlying unity to the Ten Commandments expressed in love to God and love to one's neighbour, but you have to know what you are doing when you "break" one of the Ten, and have a biblical basis for it.

The Ninth Commandment is a classic case: we have the examples of the Hebrew midwives, Rahab and others apparently "lying" to God's enemies in order to save lives and being commended for it. I believe that these exmples are there to show us that there may be very limited circumstances where we can tell an untruth.

Mr. Tallach, you have hit upon the very the example of the sort of 'tension' in the law Evie referenced that is routinely and hotly debated on the board :-); I believe as you say, that deception is used in Scripture in a way that is not condemned: but this is one reason why I am trying to understand better (from what I hope are less disputed examples) about seeming 'exceptions' to the commandments: how the commands relate to each other, whether they take precedence over one another in some situations -- or perhaps each informs our understanding of the others in some way that goes beyond their 'normal' requirements, in an extraordinary situation?

Well if you cannot run (to save yourself on the sabbath)
They can not run (on the sabbath to chase you)

You're asking if the commandments are hierarchical, so that in some situations (as of preserving life) the 6th commandment outranks the 4th or the 9th, and so on.

If the answer is "yes, they are hierarchical" I assume you would like to know further how to tell which commandment outranks which in a given circumstance.

If the answer is "no, they are not hierarchical" I assume you would like to know further what account is to be given of the exceptions we see practised and in some cases approved in the rest of Scripture.

Can they be harmonised by paying strict attention to the letter of the law? Does their justification depend on the spirit of the law?

Is that close?

We really shouldn't get so legalistic about the Sabbath.

Originally Posted by py3ak

You're asking if the commandments are hierarchical, so that in some situations (as of preserving life) the 6th commandment outranks the 4th or the 9th, and so on.

If the answer is "yes, they are hierarchical" I assume you would like to know further how to tell which commandment outranks which in a given circumstance.

If the answer is "no, they are not hierarchical" I assume you would like to know further what account is to be given of the exceptions we see practised and in some cases approved in the rest of Scripture.

Can they be harmonised by paying strict attention to the letter of the law? Does their justification depend on the spirit of the law?

Is that close?

You know me so well.

Originally Posted by py3ak

You're asking if the commandments are hierarchical, so that in some situations (as of preserving life) the 6th commandment outranks the 4th or the 9th, and so on.

Isn't that graded absolutism? Geislerean ethics?

If the answer is "yes, they are hierarchical" I assume you would like to know further how to tell which commandment outranks which in a given circumstance.

I don't think it is. This would assume that in some circumstances God's commandments come into conflict. I don't think that this can be the case.

If the answer is "no, they are not hierarchical" I assume you would like to know further what account is to be given of the exceptions we see practised and in some cases approved in the rest of Scripture.

Can they be harmonised by paying strict attention to the letter of the law? Does their justification depend on the spirit of the law?

It is my personal opinion(not having studied this thoroughly yet) that the letter of the law should resolve any apparent conflicts. I am open to other ideas though.

Thanks Skyler.

Just a note that I have started a new thread here, where the questions are stated more clearly, so that people will not have to wade through my morass of confusion to attempt an answer.

Closed at original poster's request.