This verse seems to imply that this is an objective unit of distance, which all the readers of the text (as dont forget the original christians were jews) would be familiar with (for if not, this term would be meaningless to the readership). But nowhere in the scripture is there specified a maximum permissible distance which one may walk on the sabbath. All scripture states (Ex. 16:29) is that everyone should stay where they are and not go out of their place, on the sabbath. This is certainly not specific at all, and can even be construed as expressly forbidding any travel/walking on the sabbath at all. Perhaps once can construe Is. 58:13 as having some bearing on the matter, but that verse certainly does not add any further clarity regarding any objective definition of a sabbath's day walk.
What objective and universal standard for that which is considered to be a sabbath day's walk can there be, seeing that it is not specified anywhere in scripture?
Thanks.
2007-06-20
02:23:48
·
8 answers
·
asked by
supcch063
2
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
Gilbert- Acts is clearly referring to a unit of distance measurement, and not to sabbath-appropriate activities.
Primoa and Machaira-If Ex. 16:29 specifies that one is to remain in his place on the sabbath, then it follows that the law must specify what constitutes ones place. For how could G0d have required the Israelites to keep the sabbath if he did not clearly define for them what constitutes keeping of the sabbath? How would a person be able to even make effort to keep this law or to confess over its violation if the particulars of the law are nowhere specified. How could the courts ever mete out punishment for violating these laws (as the scriptures show us was to be done) if there is no objective standard regarding what constitutes a violation. Therefore, if the details of this law are not specified anywhere in scripture, then this tradition that the Jews had and to which the apostles referred must by necessity be valid and divine in origin (and not thw traditions of men
2007-06-20
05:54:08 ·
update #1
which was created by the rabbis.) That is the only way in which sense can be made out of this matter. Also, the fact that the NT and the apostles refer to themselves, in their daily lives (as the scripture does not even say that it was the sabbath on which they were travelling, in Acts 1:12), in terms of these traditions, shows that these were traditions that they felt connected to and embraced- and not traditions from which they were trying to divorce themselves. The apostles themselves obviously respected these traditions.
The reason all of this is relevant is, why does the church and the christian not maintain and revere and study and apply these extra-scriptural traditions to their own lives. Just as the scriptures were adopted from the Jews, these teachings too, which go hand in hand with scripture (and without which scripture cannot be completely understood- as we see in this instance), should have been adopted by the christians, just as they were embraced by the apostles,
2007-06-20
05:54:44 ·
update #2
who were jewish. But yet today we see the Jews regarding these traditions and holy and studying them and passing them down and being devoted to them, and the Christians have rejected them. How can this be?
2007-06-20
05:54:56 ·
update #3