Talk:Biblical Sabbath

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This page fills the remaining void in Sabbath coverage (IMHO), a lack which has now been made clearer by the other Sabbath articles. It is similar to Creation according to Genesis and other articles, in that it is intended for the textual tradition only, along with brief indications of the jumping-off points for divergence in interpretation, which can be referred to the articles on separate POVs. There is no article that accomplishes the scope of "Biblical Sabbath" at present, and the articles that do refer to "Sabbath in the Bible" refer to it both too briefly and too partisanly.

The prior spinoff into Sabbath in Christianity was useful in creating a parallel article with Shabbat, and it left the main Sabbath pseudo-disambiguation page much more stable, but I have noticed in my disambiguating of links that many people want a link to the concept of Sabbath as limited to the Bible only, instead of to all Sabbaths that have been observed around the world, which the main article has now properly accumulated quite a few of. To those who may doubt this concept, please give it some time to develop before making a judgment, as I believe this article as visualized will finalize the stabilization of this topic. Thank you for your contributions. JJB 13:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's incongruous for the article that's supposed to be a detailed presentation of the Biblical Sabbath to go into such detail about all the various kinds of ways Sabbath is kept by various Christian denominations. This all belongs in Sabbath in Christianity. AFAIK Sabbath's move to Sunday was post-Scriptural. I certainly didn't see a New Testament source for this practice quoted in this article! By the article's name, we should be sticking to a much narrower perspective: 1. Biblical sources mentioning Sabbath. 2. Biblical references to ways to keep the Sabbath! For example, punishments for doing work (also pointed out by someone in the death penalty section), lighting fire, or Isaiah 58:13 that talks about making the Sabbath a delight and restraining your foot from walking (guess St. Ignatius didn't like Isaiah's version of Shabbat...). There is a lot more to add here that is on-topic and a lot to take out that is off-topic. Any agreement here? MosheEmes (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome Willfults[edit]

You seem to have a lot to contribute to Sabbath articles, so I hope you don't mind my reverting some of your edits (mostly where sources were deleted or the edits were redundant with extant text). I know that such a response can look like quite a cutback, but work with WP process and nothing will be lost. I'm looking forward to what you have to add, as several articles are still in start status; you might begin with Sabbath in seventh-day churches. Here's my specific rationales, and please let me know right here under WP:BRD whether I omitted anything of significance:
The dates of Christ's death and resurrection are not agreed by a lot of Christians, and that ambiguity was covered by the text glosses already herein. Lk. 23 add was deleted because covered in the graf before Lk. 24. Sabbath remaining post-crucifixion is an important SDA point, but was redundant to mention in the separate frameworks under "Seventh day" (I moved your backup source there). However, the sourced textual note on Mk. 16:9 is significant for readers to know and should not have been deleted. The Ignatius quote was included as seventh-day without comment (and should remain) because it argues in favor of a spiritual seventh-day Sabbath (plus Lord's Day), and thus is an example of the subcategory of seventh-day Sabbatarianism that is tolerant of Lord's Day. The data on first-day assemblies is essential (and again, sources should not be deleted) because first-day Sabbatarianism switches the focus from rest to communal worship. On Col. 2, again a significant sourced POV should not be deleted, and I did not intend to set up a digression to Heb. 8, which should be discussed separately. I added Lev. 23 even though it is not the same threefold list as Col. 2 and other texts, and keyed your Col. 2 source to what I read it as saying, and supplied positions for Heb. 8.
God bless! JJB 01:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi John,

  1. First I appreciate you actually communicating your changes instead of just doing a bulk edit without any words.
  2. Also I appreciate your many changes on helping merge some articles together, as there was a lot of duplicate texts etc.
  3. I appreciate a discussion over an edit war any day and I think perhaps we can work together to provide a good article where both viewpoints are accurately represented.

Let me first give some background on why I performed some of the changes I made and you are welcome to comment. (it's hard to mention everything in the edit summary) Willfults — continues after insertion below

Thank you, I'll use the {{interrupted}} template to comment in place. The first principle to keep in mind is that paraphrasing the Bible without spinning toward any controverted POVs is considered unobjectionable WP:PRIMARY-source research, similar to a plot summary, and that is intended to be the majority of the verse list section. Then when we allude to a controverted POV it should be balanced by others (there are a lot more than two) and preferably with sources. Also keep in mind the work-in-progress nature of many sections on WP, meaning that tagging a flaw is almost always better than deleting it, especially if deletion might imbalance the remaining text. If you are getting familiar with WP core policies this should come naturally. JJB 19:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

For Assembilies paragraph 2 I deleted it originally because I never used the Epistle of Barnabas as a defense to keep Sunday, likewise I have never heard any Protestant minister use it as such. I don't think that is the mainstream defense text for Protestants (at least I never heard it). And so I don't believe it well represents their position, they don't consider it at canon. Although perhaps it is used for Roman Catholics and then should be mentioned as a Roman Catholic reason specifically. If neither primarily use it is it rather WP:Fringe. Are there Protestants who use this defense? Willfults — continues after insertion below

If you want a source saying that Barnabas has been used by first-day apologists, that can be found unfringily – you simply add a tag (WP:INLINE has many good ones; {{bettersource}} applies). We generally don't rely on our own experience of "I've never heard" as final here; we ask around to see if anyone else has heard, and then wait a couple weeks to see what happens. Deletion may then be useful after what you think others would consider a fair airing. Also the issue is not Barnabas as canon but Barnabas's interpretation of Isaiah being very early.

For Assemblies paragraph 1, there were 0 3rd party citations when I deleted it, it was not significantly sourced, and it is POV and unbalanced, thus I had a right to delete it. Granted these texts are a primary defense for Sunday observers and I believe it should be in the article, I just wanted sourced material. (check the logs, there were no refs in that paragraph). Also this section is still very unbalanced, for one, none of the assembly texts mention the word Sabbath? Secondly, (a minor article improvement point) if there could be some Protestant/Catholic articles which use the texts mentioned as a defense it would be good to cite some (I'm sure there are). Thirdly, there are plenty of assembly texts that do mention the Sabbath, for example... On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God. 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. ~ Acts 13:44, Acts 16:13 etc. Those are better direct and clear references to the Sabbath. Such as... And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks. ~ Acts 18:4 Perhaps I'll add some of these in later. Willfults — continues after insertion below

That is a large graf of primary-source material, with a summary sentence intro and a counterweight sentence close, which is why I had let it stand without secondary refs (though I was able to flesh out the Didache part; I trust you've gotten used to reviewing the edit histories?). In general, the first development task of this article was to get all the texts and all the POVs out there, which is largely complete; those POVs that are attributed to mass beliefs but unsourced can now be filled in as part of the work in progress. Since this is the part where the POVs are explained, it is proper to state the POV and the responses from other POVs; and since they don't mention Sabbath (as Biblically defined) but only the formative day later called "Sabbath", they were not listed separately with other Scriptures and inline glosses. The point that the assembly texts are not about rest is already present in the first sentence. The Scriptures you cite are already listed separately in the first summary graf under "Frameworks" (seventh-day events); most of the Scriptures in this article need not be quoted in full because of WP:UNDUE weight, and should only appear if there is a textual question or if they are the best texts in the whole Bible. JJB 19:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you added some sources for that paragraph, a minor question for the ref...

Holmes, M. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations.

Is there a page # or url? Willfults — continues after insertion below

When I have them I put them in; others often don't. That came from another WP page and so I haven't web-searched for more details (I'm in the same spot as you about access to that ref). JJB 19:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents on my thoughts so you know where I'm coming from hope that helped. Again not trying to start a war here, not trying to argue that one side should have 100% of the article, not saying you're wrong to revert my changes as you added some sources, just letting you know my thought process, your comments are welcome.

And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all (2 Tim 2:24) :) Willfults — continues after insertion below

Yes! JJB 19:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, For Luke 24 section...

  1. My bad on not seeing Luke 23 mentioned above, for some reason I missed that (is it me or is this article a little harder to find stuff than others?). (Although I would like to add my refenced sentences in Luke 23, as the Luke 23 has no references, just comments such as "The women who wished to prepare his body rested on this Sabbath, intending to finish their work on the first day of the week (the day after weekly Sabbath)." perhaps a ref could go there. Sorry, when I see bible commentary that has a POV (whatever it may be) in a wikipedia article without a ref it drives me nuts :) Willfults — continues after insertion below
If there is any POV in the gloss that's not in all primary POVs, that's when it drives me nuts too (let me know). There is also the temptation to put SDA comments on this verse in line with the verse: but when one does that, one also needs a rebuttal of some kind, which is harder to source as this passage is used more by SDAs than most anyone. So the verse is re-referenced under 7th-day framework to support the point that Sabbath "remains part of the New Covenant after the crucifixion of Jesus", which is all that an in-line ref would be expected to say. JJB 19:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Second point, "The dates of Christ's death and resurrection are not agreed by a lot of Christians, and that ambiguity was covered by the text glosses already herein."

If that is so (which it must be as you challenged it) then I agree with you deleting such a point. I thought Catholics and Protestants agreed on Good Friday and the resurrection of Sunday, thus one of the primary reasons the mention of Luke 24 and the resurrection. If they don't agree, then the statements in other paragraphs stating that Christ rose on Sunday and therefore the observance ...should be deleted or better stated as Protestants and Catholics or Sunday observance denomination XYZ don't completely agree that Christ rose on Sunday and use it as a point for observance. (just simply trying not to mistate someone's position is my point) Willfults — continues after insertion below

This is to accommodate the significant group of 7th-day and non-Sabbath people (and occasional first-day) that favor a Wed or Thu crucifixion and often an end-of-Sabbath Sat evening resurrection. Barnabas would be retained as is, as Sun resurrection was his POV, but the point could be expanded at Mk. 16:9. On that one I haven't had a good source saying how far the unanimity extends so it has stayed open. JJB 19:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Some changes that I think need to be made.... For Col 2, In Col 2 the very last part the sentence "one should not let others judge one's Sabbath-keeping." Is inaccurate in regards to the Seventh-Day Sabbath keepers. Also the Jewish NT reference is an inaccurate defense for Seventh Day Adventists, and thus I removed it originally. Willfults — continues after insertion below

That last clause is actually just a gloss of the verse itself and seemed fine as a primary source in that most all camps are expected to take the text literally; but if a source says otherwise that's fine too. As you could see I added your source so that the sentence provides both the Messianic Jewish and the SDA position in close proximity, as they are in the same camp but reach the result differently. But is there something specific that you see as showing inaccuracy? JJB 19:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Hebrews 8 mentioned in Col 2, actually there is a section that already covers this, and it is duplicate content (again didn't see that section). Thus I think I'll put the Hebrews 8 directly below Col 2, try to make them flow together (yet leave separate sections) Willfults — continues after insertion below

I added the Heb 8 yesterday in its sequential order (i.e., after Heb 4) and copied just one or two clauses. I wouldn't see a reason for discussing both texts together because any apologetic that jumps from one to the other should IMHO make only the allusion in one place and spell it out in the other. Then each text is interpreted on its own merits, with context remaining at the allusion level. JJB 19:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of uncited commentary in certain portions of this article and if eventually we could get everything to have a source (or close to everything) that would be good.

Comments, questions? Will make some changes (maybe just one small one today and the rest this coming Monday on points discussed (and read any comments and take them into consideration if you leave any). Thanks, have a blessed week! Willfults (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we'll keep working on it and watch the sourcing improve! Keep putting in the section or inline tags as appropriate and feel free to continue bold changes as you see fit (hope I don't revert too much), and it'll all flow together. "Happy Yom Kippur!" I like to say. JJB 19:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm restoring the following points: Sabbath in Lk 18 as meaning "week" (adding clarification); that some 7th-day people believe Sabbath remains as a memorial of creation per Col 2 (in your source); and that some also believe in not judging for one's Sabbath-keeping (adding clarification). Each of those is a significant POV about the passage in question. Whether Col 2 refers only to annual Sabbath is discussed earlier in that graf, and since a yes or no to that question is not particular to any camp, the question was mentioned only generically; so I'll add your Scripture cites in the earlier place instead. JJB 22:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm writing to express my concern regarding the phrase μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων and the argument built on it. When I first looked at the Greek underlying 1 Cor 16:2 "On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside...", I noticed the word σαββάτων and thought, "Aha! A case of biased translation suppressing the notion of the Sabbath!" But when I looked into it a bit more, I discovered that this phrase actually means something like, "the first of the sabbaths" or "number one of the sabbaths". Apparently when the Greeks borrowed the Hebrew word for sabbath, they changed it a little to mean every day of the week. (Apparently the Greek word for week, outside of the New Testament, is βδομαδα.) So, μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων is best translated "the first day of the week". Further evidence for this is that the phrase is used for the day of Jesus' resurrection, in Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1 and John 20:1. So, this phrase cannot be used to refer to the seventh day of the week. Therefore, I request that the main author of this article rethink the argument built on this phrase and rewrite the paragraph. Thank you and God bless you. Bruce E Tuggy (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I accidentally left out some references. In Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, under "ONE", paragraph "A", entry (5), he writes "as an ordinal number, equivalent to protos, first, in the phrase "the first day of the week," lit. and idiomatically, 'one of sabbaths,' signifying 'the first day after the sabbath,' e.g., Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2." The rest of the time that σάββατον and its derivatives is used in the N.T., it appears to refer to the Sabbath or seventh day, as evidenced by Vine's discussion under "SABBATH", and has been translated as such. When the translators mentioned the word "week" in translating μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων, they were expressing implicit information carried by that phrase. Although there is no mention of "week" in μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων, the genitive plural form ("of the sabbaths") does not make sense unless one brings in the concept of seven weekdays. Please be careful not to assume too quickly that the translators were translating inconsistently or confusing the meanings of "week" and "Sabbath". Again, thank you and God bless you. Bruce E Tuggy (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


I'm disappointed to report that it appears Willfults has removed large sections of applicable material without enough explanation to satisfy a first glance. Many of these sections relate to the topic of Biblical Sabbath in certain POVs, all of which should be represented here, and the current article appears quite unbalanced by comparison. I intend to be working on this and I hope Willfults and I will continue to have an amicable discussion to ensure all significant, sourced POVs are represented. JJB 19:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Death penalty[edit]

The Bible tells us repeatedly that there is a death penalty for working on the seventh day. E.g., Exodus 31:13-15 "Six days my work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death." or Exodus 35:2 "Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death." This is to a large degree omitted in the article. Isn't a clear death penalty in for working during the Sabbath very relevant for an article about the Sabbath? An article about the Sabbath can hardly be said to be complete without a reasonable coverage on how the death penalty for working during the Sabbath has been practiced up through history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Who,and when,established which day was which. I forget all the time what day is which. If I was running through the jungle trying to stay one step ahead of a tyrannisoris rex, one of the first things I would forget was what day it was. (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's not forget what year this is, either; it makes it easier to keep ahead of the T-rex. Most of Christianity considers Mosaic law to have been fulfilled by Jesus during his ministry on earth. Since his coming, it does not apply in the same literal manner as before. Jesus also had some clear discussions with the Pharisees about their interpretations of the law even while it still applied, notably in the direction of the dismissal of legalisms and even condemnation of their attitude. Not everything Biblical is equally relevant, and not everything is to be taken literally. Some Christians may take issue with that statement, but it would be widely accepted. The article, too, needs to sort by relevance and notable interpretations. In my opinion, this topic does not make the cut. I expect it is the same with many other editors. Not a hot spot for reliable sources, either. Evensteven (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)