RE: The Inconvenience of Commandment Number 4
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
It is not selective. Jesus is rather consistent in interpreting the commandments in a more spiritual way than a purely legal one.
If you follow the letter of the law, for example, you are OK if you don't outwardly break any of the commandments. This is how a Prosecutor sees it.
However, Jesus teaches in Matthew 5 that if you you even think about breaking the commandment, you have sinned. For example, He expands on adultery and murder to include motivation and intention. Jesus was more concerned about what is in our hearts as sin originates in the heart. Sinful thoughts and desires can lead to sinful actions. This is not explicitly written in the commandments. This is how a judge sees it, and one assumes Jesus is the ultimate judge.
Judgement is extremely important, particularly in the commandment against murder as written in the original Hebrew, which is the intentional and unjustified taking of a human life. It's not a blanket prohibition against killing as we have taken it to be. But what's justifiable killing? Suddenly it's not so black and white. Does this mean Jesus was all for killing people for justifiable reasons? I don't have an answer for that one. But a strict interpretation would require accepting that.
Although not commandments, Jesus also addresses other matters, such as eating pork in Mark 7:18-19. Jesus teaches that it is not what you eat that defiles you, rather what comes out of your heart. Again, He teaches us against ritual purity in favor of inner purity and intentions.
My overall impression is that Jesus freed us from the superfluous rites of Judaism so that we could focus on the more spiritual aspects of our relationship with God. He does't do away with observation of the Commandments. However, he gives context to help us avoid being wicked in hour hearts (spirit of the law) even if we are not wicked in our actions (letter of the law).
This is just what I get out of reading into it.
However, as a Catholic, I defer to the Catechism, which lays out the reasoning for the Church choosing to celebrate Sabbath on Sunday.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7O.HTM
Some of this is addressed in Hebrews 4.
9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;
10 for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his.
11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience.
The passage is about Israel's disobedience and their denial from entering the land that was promised to them. But the passage is more about the new faithful entering the Kingdom of Heaven, which is promised if you are obedient. Thus, we are not absolved from observing Sabbath. But the rules aren't so hard like Moses had. In Hebrews 3 it is declared that Jesus is greater than Moses. Jesus does not have the same limitations that Moses had.
Therefore, we believe that this spiritual rest in Christ supersedes the physical rest of Sabbath. However, it does not free us from observing Sabbath completely. Rather, it moves Sabbath from being a purely physical act to a more spiritual act. This is also how we observe the Eucharist, which is a re-enactment of the Last Supper. Rather than sacrifice an actual lamb, pour its blood on the altar, and eat its flesh, Jesus provided us with a more spiritual option with his sacrifice in which his blood and flesh are sacrificed in the form of wine and unleavened bread.
This gets into the Catholic weeds a bit as the Eucharist is central to our relationship with God in fulfillment of Jewish tradition and also The Wedding Feast of the Lamb from the Book of Revelation. As Christ rose on Sunday, we celebrate his resurrection with the Eucharist, which is a symbol of God's new creation and our redemption. As we are "at rest with Christ", it fulfills the observance of the Sabbath on Saturday.
As far as I can tell, the Church does not argue that Sabbath is not on a Saturday. Rather, rest on Sunday, which coincides with the Eucharist, satisfies the requirement. When it comes down to it, Saturday is observing God's original creation, and Sunday is celebrating God's new creation and covenant.
Certainly, you can observe Sabbath on Saturday or Sunday. Or you can observe both, if you are so inclined. It's just that for us it's more of a spiritual observance of Sabbath, which we are still required to have. So it's not like we're getting away with NOT observing Sabbath. We're just fulfilling the Commandment in another way.
That's just Catholic catechism. I don't know how other Christian denominations work that out. But I think the overall premise is that Christ made faith and salvation more accessible.
Love the dialogue man.
I appreciate it very much!!
I mean I agree with some things, and obviously I will disagree with others. But I'll try to go through some points you brought up :)
Context is very important about this passage as well. Jesus is not saying swine is now clean. Keep reading, verses 20-24 shows what is making man unclean and defiles him.
But you are right, Jesus did free us from the 'burden' of the law. But as God's law is perfect, I don't think this is the law that people think it is. The ordinances, Mosaic laws, found on the side of the ark, not in it. Those for sure were nailed to the cross. Not the 10 commandments. You can't nail stone to a cross :)
And fancy you mentioned the Catechism. This is what I found while digging into it a few years ago:
So you have to ask yourself....Are we following God or are we following the traditions of man?
I just feel like Christians today have absolutely no issue with the other 9 commandments. But they start doing biblical gymnastics to get away from the Sabbath commandment. Which is just as important that do not murder, and have no other gods before me...
But again, love the dialogue man. I agree with some much of what you said, I just can't find anywhere in scripture that let's us change the day we are told to keep holy, or that it's done away with (which you agree it is not.)
It's not me that decides such things. I've only been around for 50 of the past 2000+ years. The Catholic Church acknowledges that biblical Sabbath is on Saturday. However, the shift to Sunday is a Spirit-led development that fulfills the spiritual intent of the Sabbath commandment in the context of the New Covenant. We're all about the New Covenant.
The Council of Laodicea only formalized what the early Church had already instituted, which was Sunday worship. It was otherwise an organic Spirit-led process, which is explained thusly:
The Catholic Church does have divine powers granted by Jesus:
Both the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and the Presence of Christ can be seen to support the idea that the shift to Sunday worship was not arbitrary or a mere matter of human convenience, but rather a Spirit-led development guided by divine inspiration. As such, the Church, meaning the body as whole, is in fulfillment of the commandment.
I just want to reiterate that this only applies to Catholics. From the inside looking out, the issue is not something that is of any meaningful concern to us in terms of fulfilling our obligations to God as we see our observance of the Sabbath as fulfilled. The checkbox is ticked every Sunday that we show up to Mass whether we partake of the Eucharist or not.
From the outside looking in, I can see how a Sunday Sabbath seems arbitrary. But there are many scholastic works that address the issue for the Catholic Church. In practical terms, these scholastic works cannot satisfy other denominations that have a fundamental disagreement with how the Church views matters of faith.
In other words, just like the early Catholic Church wanted to distinguish itself from Judaism, Christian denominations make it a central motivation to distinguish themselves from the Catholic Church. By definition, we will have points of disagreement lest we become one and the same. Therefore, it's not my aim to convince anybody that they're wrong. All I can do is explain our point of view.
And I greatly appreciate that.
I dug into some of the history of the Catholic church. But it's obvious I dont know, or understand it all. That's why I do appreciate the dialogue.
That's something I know we will agree on. It's up to the Holy Spirit to convict us. Nothing I say or you say will change either of our minds.
That being said, you can see how heads have been bumping for a few centuries now lol
Yeah, it requires intimate knowledge of scripture and how things tie together in prophesies and fulfillment of those prophesies, and the original interpretation of scripture and Christ's reinterpretation.
For me, all the heavy lifting is done. If I want to get into the weeds on a topic, there are volumes of publications that address it specifically for Catholics. The fact that so much literature abounds means I can take it for granted that smarter people than me have given it thought and it has been incorporated into Church teachings. I can rest assured that I'm not being led astray, leaving me to only worry about improving my relationship with God. I know that what I have is built on a rock rather than on sand. I don't have to constantly test the foundations. And there's a freedom in that.
It just comes down to what we put our faith in a suppose.
For Catholics, it's the church.
For Protestants, it's the bible.
It's a fascinating look into our faiths for sure.
I don't think it's accurate to say that the Church is the focus. Our focus is the Eucharist, which requires us to try to be good. And the catechism are the principles that guide us so that we may be worthy of the Eucharist.
Besides requiring us to observe the ten commandments, Jesus also left us with a duty to have Communion. Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me" at the Last Supper. Therefore Eucharist is celebrated every Sunday to remember His death and resurrection. We build churches so that we can share the Eucharist. Scripture readings from the Old and New Testament are always a part of the Mass. We can't partake of the Eucharist if we have knowingly sinned, for which we must go to confession to be forgiven.
Just about every meaningful thing the Church does revolves around that one connection that Jesus left us. It is the only time we know for certain that He is with us. When He said that the wine and bread are His blood and flesh, for that moment, He is physically present with us.
Interesting stuff for sure.
Isn't that what baptism is for?
Baptism is the sacrament that welcomes you into the Church. As Jesus was baptized, we also follow the example. It's the first freebie cleansing of sins, particularly original sin.
The other sacraments prior to marriage are First Communion, in which you first partake of the Eucharist, but prior to that you have your first confession, which doesn't get much hype. And there is Confirmation in which is a stronger personal commitment to the Faith when you are older and can make such a commitment.
Baptism would not be enough to remind us of His death and resurrection as we only do it the one time, and often as babies. Compare baptism to the Eucharist, which is offered daily. If we are so inclined, we have an opportunity to be physically and spiritually with Christ every day. Something like that only reminds you of your shortcomings. So, it's a frequent reminder to try to deserve his sacrifice.
I'm confused. This just doesn't make sense to me. If we are to choose Christ as our Lord and Saviour, how can a baby decide that they wish to choose Jesus?
I don't think infant baptism is biblical, simply because Christ (our example) was a full immersion baptism when he was 30 years old.
Isn't it a personal decision? How can a baby decide at such a young age?
One Lord, one faith, one baptism? Ephesians 4:5
Walk me through this one man. Appreciate the insight.
This isn't part of the Church dogma. It's just something I remember from childhood when visiting old people with my Grandma. It was once common, at least among people of Mexican heritage, to ask people whom they have just met if they have children. And then the big question, how many of them are still living? Children weren't expected to always survive into adulthood. It's only relatively recent that growing into adulthood is expected. My Grandmother once told me that she would pray that if her baby died, she would prefer it be early before she got a chance to really bond as it would otherwise break her heart.
Now, moving in to the dogma. First, there's original sin. If your baby dies, you want them to have been cleansed of that sin. You'd want your child to have the best shot at going to Heaven.
Second, baptism also infuses God's sanctifying grace and the Holy Spirit into the baby so that they can grow in their relationship with God.
Third, it's a welcoming into the Church. Often, this is the first time the community is introduced to a couple's new baby.
Fourth, baptism is necessary for salvation. It's such a simple thing to do with a great reward. Why would you deny a baby salvation?
Fifth, and finally, as Catholic parents, there's a good chance the child will be Catholic. How can a parent fulfill their responsibilities of raising a good Catholic when they're on the fence about whether the kid could possibly be Episcopalian? You raise the kid Catholic and they can always decide they want nothing to do with the Church when they are older. It happens often. Nothing is lost. But in baptizing them, we are fulfilling our parental obligation to get them started in the Faith until they decide otherwise.
It's not spelled out, but the child still has the opportunity to opt out at Confirmation. If they do the Confirmation, they accept their place in the Church. If they don't do the Confirmation they are still welcome but are lacking in the sacrament that relies on their free will.
it is more about a choose ,obey God or man . God says shabath is his day ,man says Sunday .So you decide.
Certainly other Christians are able to choose for themselves.
As Catholics, it's not really a choice. It's baked in to being a member.
That is fascinating to me. I have to plead ignorance to a lot of how the Catholic faith works. But wow, what a statement you made man. How does that all work?
This is a big question.
Without going into the weeds, we rely largely on objective truth, which has been spelled out by centuries of religious scholasticism. It gets harder and harder to change the church as it must remain consistent in how it interprets God's will. Part of the faith is that the Church itself is infallible. Individual clergy and members can be fallible, and often are.
Our controversial new Pope Francis who has caused quite a stir has only clarified the existing Catechism to address more present social concerns. What he has stated, while shocking to many, has not changed the catechism. When you go back and compare what he said with what the catechism is, he's not wrong. It may be uncomfortable and new. But it's not wrong. Maybe Pope Francis is a big Socialist. But what he says remains true to Church doctrine.
We have to trust that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church to change when it is necessary to change.
And we see the Church as Christ's bride as is described in Revelation 19:7. To us, questioning the Church is like questioning Christ. We can question a priest. But it would be quite arrogant to question the Church.
So, if the Church says Sunday Sabbath is OK, it is. We believe it because we believe the Church is inspired by the Holy Spirit and by Christ's presence. The Church is Christ's gift to us so that we can become closer to Him. And if we shun the Church, we shun Christ. We don't get to tell Christ the conditions under which we will follow Him. So, like I stated, it's baked in. We are in; or we are out. Do, or do not. There is no try.