Why were the Sabbath-breakers not punished in Exodus 16

[TonyChanYT]

Exodus 16:

23 he said to them, “This is what the LORD has commanded: ‘Tomorrow is a day of solemn rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD; bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over lay aside to be kept till the morning.’” 24So they laid it aside till the morning, as Moses commanded them, and it did not stink, and there were no worms in it. 25Moses said, “Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the LORD; today you will not find it in the field. 26 Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, which is a Sabbath, there will be none.”
27 On the seventh day some of the people [Label these people S1] went out to gather,

S1 disobeyed God's instruction.

but they found none. 28And the LORD said to Moses, “How long will you refuse to keep my commandments and my laws? 29See! The LORD has given you the Sabbath; therefore on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Remain each of you in his place; let no one go out of his place on the seventh day.” 30So the people rested on the seventh day.

There was no mention that S1 were punished. At that time, there was no specific prescription of punishment for violating the Sabbath except the general sin offerings. That changed in Exodus 35:

1 Moses assembled the whole Israelite community and said to them, “These are the things the Lord has commanded you to do: 2For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death.

After that, they continued their journey and celebrated the 2nd Passover in Num 15:

1 In the first month of the second year after Israel had come out of the land of Egypt, …
4So Moses told the Israelites to observe the Passover, 5and they did so in the Wilderness of Sinai, at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first month. The Israelites did everything just as the LORD had commanded Moses.

Some months later, in Num 15:

32 While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” 36So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord commanded Moses.

Why S1 were not stoned to death?

Because God didn't stipulate an explicit punishment at the time. He only did it later.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Exodus 16:


S1 disobeyed God's instruction.


There was no mention that S1 were punished. At that time, there was no specific prescription of punishment for violating the Sabbath except the general sin offerings. That changed in Exodus 35:


After that, they continued their journey and celebrated the 2nd Passover in Num 15:


Some months later, in Num 15:


Why S1 were not stoned to death?

Because God didn't stipulate an explicit punishment at the time. He only did it later.

That may be. Death was typically reserved not for those who made a poor judgment decision, but rather, for those who deliberately demonstrated contempt for God's laws in an open display of unbelief. Sometimes there is a lack of clarity as to how grave God views a particular act of disobedience.

Certainly that was true of Adam and Eve. And they lived on to live long lives. I think that if they had gone on to eat of a forbidden tree again, that would be an open display of contempt for God's Law.

I think God could've killed me a million times for things I've done, including things that I intentionally did that I knew was wrong. But none of the things I've done have demonstrated contempt for God or for His laws. I just showed poor judgment and paid the appropriate penalty later in my life.

I would not recommend anybody deliberately do things they know are wrong. But even more, I suggest nobody show contempt for God in an open display of lawlessness, particularly in a religious setting, which is blasphemous and sacrilegious.

To commit lewd acts, for example, in a religious gathering is testing God. I wouldn't want to be the one doing this.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

I think that if they had gone on to eat of a forbidden tree again, that would be an open display of contempt for God's Law.

That was not possible since the Lord kicked them out of the garden.

 

[Randy Kluth]

That was not possible since the Lord kicked them out of the garden.

Right, the only way Adam or Eve could've shown contempt for God would've been if they fully understood that eating of the Tree of Knowledge would be construed as an open rebellion against the Lord, and a complete rejection of fellowship with Him. I don't think they would've done that because they actively engaged in daily walks with the Lord. Or so it seems...

Gen 3.8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

Since neither Adam nor Eve were fully rejecting the Lord, but only disobeying His word out of self-interest, they could be forgiven as those who under duress had capitulated to an evil angel. In our age, people are making decisions all the time, whether simply out of self-interest or in open defiance of truth, to sin.

The Gospel message brings these realities to greater clarity in the minds to whom this message is brought. It also affords them the opportunity to repent more quickly, with the added bonus of coming to terms with what they can do to mitigate their previous failures.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

the only way Adam or Eve could've shown contempt for God would've been if they fully understood that eating of the Tree of Knowledge would be construed as an open rebellion against the Lord, and a complete rejection of fellowship with Him. I don't think they would've done that because they actively engaged in daily walks with the Lord. Or so it seems...

No, they understood completely that that would have been wrong!

We know this is true because the Lord told them not to do it, and the Lord held them accountable for their actions after they did it.

If they did not know it was wrong, then it would be unjust of the Lord to hold them accountable for something they had no idea was wrong.

This is exactly what the reformers teach man was born a sinner... so they can claim that they just can't help but sinning everyday in thought, word, and deed.

They want to have an excuse to continue in their sin and play like they just can't help it

 

[Randy Kluth]

No, they understood completely that that would have been wrong!

That's not what I said, however. I said Adam and Eve did not think disobeying God would be a complete rejection of God and fellowship with Him. Why else would they have to hide from Him, unless they were embarrassed? If they had fully rejected God they would've been proud of their rebellion, in my view.

In my view, Adam and Eve were seduced and "deceived." They would not have had to be deceived if they could simply be invited to the party of rebellion, openly. They had to be tricked, which is a form of duress, legally. They could not excuse their sin, but they could in fact explain it. And they did.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

In my view, Adam and Eve were seduced and "deceived."

No, Eve was deceived... Adam was not

1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was NOT deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Adam committed straight up high treason against God by knowingly and willing sinning against God.

At least Eve had an excuse as she was deceived... but Adam was in authority and did know he was doing wrong and he did it anyway!

 

[Randy Kluth]

No, Eve was deceived... Adam was not

1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was NOT deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Adam committed straight up high treason against God by knowingly and willing sinning against God.

At least Eve had an excuse as she was deceived... but Adam was in authority and did know he was doing wrong and he did it anyway!

Yes, Eve was the one specifically deceived. I still think that Adam was seduced by his wife, and thus manipulated by her.

Gen 3.11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”
12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

When Adam is defined as the one who blatantly disobeyed God's command, it was an indication that God could forgive all sins. The Law, after all, is modelled on the notion that all Israel was susceptible to disobeying the Law, requiring fixes under the system of Law. If so, then Israel's sins were as forgivable as Adam's sin.

Rom 5.14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

So Adam's sin of violating God's express command does not necessarily denote active rebellion to the degree God Himself is rejected. It isn't even necessarily the sin of apostasy or sedition. It is simply a failure, for whatever reason, to comply with God's word, and extenuating circumstances were obviously involved in Adam's own specific transgression.

As such, not only was Adam forgiven, but he was promised a future hope, following a period of judgment. God did not abandon him, but gave him children to extend his future. Certainly, since then, many have been born who grew up to be rebels, openly rejecting God and His laws. God will decide who belongs in His Kingdom, and who doesn't.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Adam was seduced by his wife, and thus manipulated by her.

God specifically said in His Word that... Adam was not deceived.

This means he knew what he was about to do was wrong and he did it anyway.

That's high treason against the Lord!

It is simply a failure

When one knows what they are about to do is wrong and they do it anyway... it's far more than a failure or a mistake.

 

[Randy Kluth]

God specifically said in His Word that... Adam was not deceived.

This means he knew what he was about to do was wrong and he did it anyway.

That's high treason against the Lord!

When one knows what they are about to do is wrong and they do it anyway... it's far more than a failure or a mistake.

Okay, that is your belief. You're welcome to it. I don't happen to agree, and I told you why.

Adam's transgression could *not* have been "high treason" against the Lord in the sense that he was rejecting the Lord for all time. And he was in fact "manipulated" by the woman. And the woman, in manipulating the man, had been deceived by the serpent.

Then, as I understand it, Adam's transgression was the product of duress. Legally, the crime is forgivable...in my opinion. Some rebel and disobey God's Law under duress, or out of weakness. Some utterly reject God. How you would decipher this difference I don't know?

But you've rejected my argument, and that's okay. I'd just like to clarify my argument in front of others who may read this.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Okay, that is your belief.

Actually... it's not my belief, it's what God said in His Word!

1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was NOT deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Actually... it's not my belief, it's what God said in His Word!

1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was NOT deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

That point was already made and accepted. My point went beyond that. Adam was manipulated by Eve, who had been deceived by the serpent. It is a case for duress.

It doesn't excuse Adam and Eve, but it lays the groundwork for claiming "extenuating circumstances" necessary if God is not going to see them as determined rebels or seditionists.

You have not proven that Adam's clear-headed choice to disobey God's word was the equivalent of rejecting God Himself. Obviously, you've read my points and have chosen not to respond to them.

Quite frankly, it's pretty boring to hear, once again, a fellow Christian claim that "his opinion is equal to God's word!" It is one thing if the word is beyond dispute and has near-unanimous consensus among conservative believers. But on disputable matters, such as we're discussing, which is highly speculative, you shouldn't claim *your thoughts are equal to God's word.*

I would appreciate it if you'd show a little more "friendliness" in this regard? We can discuss things without getting judgmental, right?

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

That point was already made and accepted. My point went beyond that. Adam was manipulated by Eve, who had been deceived by the serpent. It is a case for duress.

It doesn't excuse Adam and Eve, but it lays the groundwork for claiming "extenuating circumstances" necessary if God is not going to see them as determined rebels or seditionists.

You have not proven that Adam's clear-headed choice to disobey God's word was the equivalent of rejecting God Himself. Obviously, you've read my points and have chosen not to respond to them.

Quite frankly, it's pretty boring to hear, once again, a fellow Christian claim that "his opinion is equal to God's word!" It is one thing if the word is beyond dispute and has near-unanimous consensus among conservative believers. But on disputable matters, such as we're discussing, which is highly speculative, you shouldn't claim *your thoughts are equal to God's word.*

I would appreciate it if you'd show a little more "friendliness" in this regard? We can discuss things without getting judgmental, right?

Frankly, it's - no, frankly, you're, pretty boring

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Okay, that is your belief. You're welcome to it. I don't happen to agree, and I told you why.

Adam's transgression could *not* have been "high treason" against the Lord in the sense that he was rejecting the Lord for all time. And he was in fact "manipulated" by the woman. And the woman, in manipulating the man, had been deceived by the serpent.

Then, as I understand it, Adam's transgression was the product of duress. Legally, the crime is forgivable...in my opinion. Some rebel and disobey God's Law under duress, or out of weakness. Some utterly reject God. How you would decipher this difference I don't know?

But you've rejected my argument, and that's okay. I'd just like to clarify my argument in front of others who may read this.

<... the product of duress. Legally, the crime is forgivable...in my opinion.> Forgivable crime! God, have you heard, the crime is forgivable, in Randy Kluth's opinion?!

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

That point was already made and accepted. My point went beyond that. Adam was manipulated by Eve

That's speculation because... God's Word never says that.

Unless you have scripture references showing where God says in His Word "Adam was manipulated by Eve"

If you could post that up for us to check out, that's be good!

You have not proven that Adam's clear-headed choice to disobey God's word was the equivalent of rejecting God Himself.

God's Word very clearly tells us that Adam was NOT deceived... this means He knew what he was wrong and he choose to do it anyway... this is a great example of someone who decides to put what they want before what God wants which is a form of idolatry.

He put self in front of God as himself being of more value than God by deciding to do what he wanted to do instead of what God told Him to do... this is rejecting the Lord in favor of self!

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Death was typically reserved not for those who made a poor judgment decision, but rather, for those who deliberately demonstrated contempt for God's laws in an open display of unbelief.

Where will one find more deliberately and blatant demonstrated contempt for God's laws in an open display of unbelief than Adam and Eve's?

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Where will one find more deliberately and blatant demonstrated contempt for God's laws in an open display of unbelief than Adam and Eve's.

That's what I'm thinkin... they had God's instructions as the Lord made it very clear.

And yet they decided to do what they wanted to do in direct opposition and rebellion against God.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Randy Kluth has much to teach the Almighty.

 

[Cyd]

No, Eve was deceived... Adam was not

1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was NOT deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Adam committed straight up high treason against God by knowingly and willing sinning against God.

At least Eve had an excuse as she was deceived... but Adam was in authority and did know he was doing wrong and he did it anyway!

I like what you said, but would like to also say this being a woman. God told Adam not to eat of the trees, you do not see God speak to the woman till after this event. So woman to me heard from Adam about the trees yes?? Not from God. So woman was not told by God but Adam must have told the woman? We are not told how the woman even knew.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Where will one find more deliberately and blatant demonstrated contempt for God's laws in an open display of unbelief than Adam and Eve's?

Cain's sin was much worse than the disobedience of Adam and Eve. God suggested that Cain could overcome his sin tendency, but insisted on indulging it. Cain, therefore, was not just disobeying God's word in murdering his brother--he was actively and deliberately indulging his hatred for his brother and his contempt for God.

In the Law there are those who sin "intentionally" and those who sin "unintentionally." I don't think this refers to conscious decision-making, or to awareness that God's word is being disobeyed.

Rather, I think this refers to a *full awareness* that not only is God's word being disobeyed but God Himself is being treated with contempt and is being rejected for other gods and for other systems of righteousness. It is a deliberate act of sedition or apostasy to the extent God Himself is being consciously rejected.

Many sin, in fact all sin, in the way of disobeying God's word for selfish purposes or out of weakness. David sinned out of weakness, and Moses sinned out of weakness, but neither of them rejected God. They lacked a full awareness of the consequences.

Adam and Eve did not want to die and be separated from God in their bodies. They just capitulated to their flesh by listening to lies and deceptions.

So there are different kinds of sins. Some separate us from God for a time. Some separate us from God for eternity. They are not just a disobedience of God's word, but much more, a rejection of God Himself for a completely autonomous existence.