"Everyday is a holy day!"

[wavy]

"Christ is now our rest!"

"I don't have to be holy one day a week. We are supposed to be holy every day!"

"I don't limit my worship to one day a week. I can worship God in the Spirit everyday!"

"I don't just do good on one day out of the week! With Christ as my rest, everyday is a day to do good and live righteously!"

"I don't just love God and my neighbor one day of the week. I love him everyday and will shout it from the hilltops!!!!"

...

...

...

I'm sure you've heard such statements before and may have made them yourselves (I used to too).

These types of comments are commonly used, in my experience in debate, whenever the subject of keeping the sabbath is in question. I know every one is tired of hearing about the sabbath, but I just had to bring this up and clarify such positions on this controversial commandment as I keep seeing examples of this thinking.

I don't seek to prove sabbath-observance or impose it on anyone (that is Yahweh's place), but I do want to explain why, regardless if whether or not sabbath-observance is something the bible commands, these arguments are not good ones to disprove sabbath-observance.

Let's examine the logic behind some of these statements.

Consider the title and first popular comment:

"Every day is a holy day!"

Usually, at least when people say this to me personally, they mean the sabbath no longer has to be observed and is useless as a holy day any longer. This, however, is a contradiction of terms.

To be "holy" means to be "set apart". Everyday cannot be set apart. That's like saying everyone is special above everyone else! This makes no sense. Aside from the contradiction created by this argument, there is also the cutting fact that no scripture says such a thing.

Consider the next one:

"Christ is now our rest!"

By saying "now", one assumes that Christ replaces the sabbath. Let's examine the scriptures that are commonly used to prove this. I'll do three of them:

#1.
Matthew 11:28
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest

However, Christ was not speaking about the sabbath. This could only be used to say he replaced the sabbath if replacing the sabbath was the nature of his words. Just because we see the word "rest" does not mean it has anything to do with the sabbath either. Consider these scriptures:

Exodus 5:5
And Pharaoh said, Behold, the people of the land now are many, and ye make them rest from their burdens.

Here the king of Egypt said Moses and Aaron had caused the sons of Israel to rest from their burdens. Were Moses and Aaron a special, spiritual, sabbath rest that caused Yahweh not to require literal sabbath observance from Israel when he gave it to them?

Philemon 1:7
For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother.

The word for "refreshed" here is anapauo. It is the same word used in Matthew 11:28. But here Paul says the saints are refreshed, or receive rest, from Philemon!!!

Is Philemon now our sabbath rest that replaces the literal seventh-day sabbath?

#2. The 4th chapter of Hebrews is used to prove "Christ is now our rest". Usually verses 3, 9, and 10 of this chapter. Nevertheless, the text does not say this, for one thing, and two, even if it was hinted at that Christ is some type of spiritual sabbath rest, this chapter does not say "as opposed to a literal seventh day sabbath".

The point of the author is not to prove why we don't have to keep a literal sabbath. The point of the author is to give us an example of why we should not be unbelieving, using the sabbath precept as an example.

"Christ is our rest so we do not have to keep a literal sabbath" is not the subject of the passage. That must be read into the text. Eisegesis. If you believe this is an acceptable interpretation, you can believe that personally. But comments like I've heard about "the 4th chapter of Hebrews makes it clear that Christ is now our rest and you don't know Christ if you don't see it" are unwarranted. This scripture cannot be used to disprove sabbath observance.

#3.
Colossians 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Colossians 2:17
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

The KJV does acceptable justice to the Greek here. Several, especially of the newer translations, add words and translate words to mean other than what the Greek actually says. Example, many translate the Greek word soma here as "substance" and "reality". However, the Greek word soma simply means "body". It is translated as such all throughout this epistle and all throughout the NT (and variations thereof like "bodily" etc). Never is it translated "substance" or "reality" and cannot be. Dishonest exegesics have been used here to support the biases of the translators. It's amusing how 8 times soma is used in Colossians, and in 7 instances the translators honestly translate it as "body, but when we get to 2:17 because we see things pertaining to the law in 2:16, it means "reality" and "substance" and other such things. The KJV translates it correctly. There are more examples of blatant corruption but, we can get to that later.

All this scripture is saying is that no one is to judge us when we do these things. It doesn't say for not doing them. Notice also that it does not say these things "were" (Greek is not in the past tense) shadows of Christ. It says they are shadows of things to come.

Consider the 3rd:

"I don't have to be holy one day a week. Now we are supposed to be holy every day!"

By saying this, one implies that at one time the sabbath was to be observed and one was supposed to be holy only on this day. However, this is wholly untrue and hangs on air.

Yahweh said, outside of a sabbath context, "be holy for I Yahweh your Elohim is holy". He did not mean only on the sabbath. He meant everyday, of course. Secondly, nothing about the sabbath says anything about you being holy on this day as opposed to other days. The sabbath is about keeping the actual sabbath day holy, not yourself holy on this day while walking unholy on other days.

The 4th:

"I don't limit my worship to one day a week. I can worship God in the Spirit everyday!"

The individual who argues in this manner assumes that the original sabbath commandment included a prohibition of worshipping on any other days or being together with brothers in the faith on any other days. This is erroneous and creates a false dilemma.

Analogy: I can say that every Tuesday you must go out with your friends and eat junk food. This does not mean you cannot do this on other days if you choose. All this means is that when Tuesday comes around, you must do it whether you would choose to of your own initiative or not.

We must also be logical. To quote John Hagee (whom I don't really like, but this quote was funny), you can't be so "heavenly minded" and therefore "no earthly good".

You can't have your head stuck in the clouds in spiritual mode when it supports your position. In this life, we have to work and make a living. You can't just go around gathering and worshipping with believers any time you choose. That is why the sabbath is a moed. This Hebrew word means "appointed time" (see the 23 chapter of Leviticus) This way, as well as being set apart from the world and their manmade ways and statutes and setting apart Yahweh, brothers can gather at an organized time and yet have no worry of earthly obligations because you know this day was given to you by Yahweh and he would not have you keep it at your inconvenience and not take care of you, though you rest and cease from labor on this day.

It has a spiritual significance to it. We can find an example in the 16th chapter of Exodus. Instead of having to go out and gather manna everyday, Yahweh was teaching Israel to count his sabbath as a "delight" or "luxury" (Isaiah 58:13). It's good to know that you can trust in Yahweh to sustain you at no cost to your livelihood. The weekly sabbath teaches this principle.

Consider the 5th:

"I don't just do good on one day out of the week! With Christ as my rest, everyday is a day to do good and live righteously!"

You can probably tell what I am going to say based off previous statements of mine above. But in brief, this person (not specific) creates a false dilemma by making it seem as if the sabbath was the only day, according to the original commandment, that you were supposed to do good and live righteously. Of course, that is absurd.

Consider the 6th:

"I don't just love God and my neighbor one day of the week. I love him everyday and will shout it from the hilltops!!!!"

Again, you probably know what I will say. :-D

That's all I have to say for now.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Thanks wavy ...absolutely true.

 

[TanNinety]

Colossians 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Colossians 2:17
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

All this scripture is saying is that no one is to judge us when we do these things. It doesn't say for not doing them. Notice also that it does not say these things "were" (Greek is not in the past tense) shadows of Christ. It says they are shadows of things to come.

Matthew 5:19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I do not find anything wrong about sputniks’s post or wavy’s post about sabbath because of the above scripture. Like it or not, it is the fourth commandment and breaking it or teaching any “do away†theories according to matthew 5:19 will make you be called the least in heaven.

While I keep that in mind I have to comment that we have to keep the audience of Jesus in mind. Who was Jesus talking to? While there is a lot of truth that we believers can absorb from the gospels I think that this mainly pertains to the lost sheep of israel. Jesus did not talk to the lost sheep of the world but israel mostly in the gospels. So we need to understand as believers in Jesus and not as a jew or an israeli what is it that pertains to us?

Matthew 15:24 Then he said to the woman, "I was sent only to help the people of Israel-God's lost sheep-not the Gentiles."
25 But she came and worshiped him and pleaded again, "Lord, help me!"
26 "It isn't right to take food from the children and throw it to the dogs," he said.

You ask me to show what scripture does it say that “Jesus became this place of rest†but I ask you what scripture does it say that a gentile needs to abide by the law? Were the 10 commandments passed on to us or do we abide by the commandments of love? Are we to perfect our ways before God according to the 10 commandments or by kissing His Son and living our lives according to the commandment of love?

When did God or holy spirit transfer these 10 commandments to us? We see the commandments in a new light. In a new light of love rather than law.

Galatians 2:16-21 is a good read. It talks about what law is for a gentile believer.

All this scripture is saying is that no one is to judge us when we do these things.

But isn’t this what the previous “sabbath†discussion was about by sputnik? About WHEN we do these things?

Are not the saturday sabbaters judging the sunday sabbaters?

Since you made a point on how we DO need to keep the sabbath, how do we keep it?
No work done, no kindling of fire, no traveling, no trading, no marketing is this not how we need to keep a sabbath? Shall we also keep the penalty of breaking the sabbath just as God commanded? Death?

There were Christians rising up from different walks of life. From jews to gentiles. All Colossians 2:16 is telling me is that let not a jew who follows the law judge a gentile believer: in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]

In closing I need to ask
1. When were the gentile believers in Jesus asked to follow the law and not love?
2. Where and when were the 10 commandments given to the gentiles and not the commandments of love?
3. How are the gentile believers made righteous?
4. How do gentile believers keep the sabbath (IF they have to) in truth and not legalistically?

I am not talking about jews or israel. The answers to the above will greatly help me.

 

[Soma-Sight]

wavy,

Your post is logical form a literalist point of view....

Which is exactly what Fundamentlsit Baptists claim to be!

 

[wavy]

While I keep that in mind I have to comment that we have to keep the audience of Jesus in mind. Who was Jesus talking to? While there is a lot of truth that we believers can absorb from the gospels I think that this mainly pertains to the lost sheep of israel. Jesus did not talk to the lost sheep of the world but israel mostly in the gospels. So we need to understand as believers in Jesus and not as a jew or an israeli what is it that pertains to us?

True, but once a believer, regardless of biological heritage, believes in Christ, he becomes "near" to the "commonwealth (or citizenship) of Israel", according to Ephesians.

You ask me to show what scripture does it say that “Jesus became this place of rest†but I ask you what scripture does it say that a gentile needs to abide by the law?

It does say that those without it perish without it. And that those who have knowledge of things in them will be judged according to that knowledge.

Do you believe in cursing the blind or forgetting the poor or stealing, or having multiple gods? I doubt it. If you don't, then you are abiding by the law.

We have to remember that "the law" is not just those things people don't want to keep.

Were the 10 commandments passed on to us or do we abide by the commandments of love? Are we to perfect our ways before God according to the 10 commandments or by kissing His Son and living our lives according to the commandment of love?

I never mentioned the ten commandments. I believe that all the law hangs off of love and should not be made into conflicts like 10 commandments vs. love or law vs. love etc.

]When did God or holy spirit transfer these 10 commandments to us? We see the commandments in a new light. In a new light of love rather than law.

However, the love principle is not "new".

Galatians 2:16-21 is a good read. It talks about what law is for a gentile believer.

That only applies to gentiles? Paul included himself in that category, and he was a Jew. He admitted to that and being an observer of the law several times:

Acts 22:3
I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward Elohim, as ye all are this day.

Romans 11:1
I say then, Hath Elaha cast away his people? Never be! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Galatians 2:15
We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

Philippians 3:5
Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

No individual, including Jews, were ever justified by the law in the sight of Yahweh. That includes Sinai and onward. David understood this:

Psalm 143:2
And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.

But isn’t this what the previous “sabbath†discussion was about by sputnik? About WHEN we do these things?

I meant when we do them according to the commandment. I didn't mean choosing when to do them, but not being judged about what you do when (which would be according to the commandment) you do them.

The things like, "Touch not, nor taste, nor handle" - Colossians 2:21.

No work done, no kindling of fire, no traveling, no trading, no marketing is this not how we need to keep a sabbath? Shall we also keep the penalty of breaking the sabbath just as God commanded? Death?

You can travel on the sabbath. But anyway, as far as the death penalty, that couldn't be done even if you wanted to. There was a system designed to carry out that kind of thing that is no longer in place, and hasn't been for one thousand seven hundred some odd years.

There were Christians rising up from different walks of life. From jews to gentiles. All Colossians 2:16 is telling me is that let not a jew who follows the law judge a gentile believer: in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]

Passage doesn't say anything about Jews judging gentiles.

In closing I need to ask
1. When were the gentile believers in Jesus asked to follow the law and not love?
2. Where and when were the 10 commandments given to the gentiles and not the commandments of love?
3. How are the gentile believers made righteous?
4. How do gentile believers keep the sabbath (IF they have to) in truth and not legalistically?

1 and 2 are false dilemmas/distinctions/dichotomies. For 3, gentile believers are made righteous the same way Jewish believers are: by faith.

As far as 4, doing what it says according to the Word.

 

[TanNinety]

gentile believers are made righteous the same way Jewish believers are: by faith.

Faith in what?

 

[wavy]

gentile believers are made righteous the same way Jewish believers are: by faith.

Faith in what?

In Yahweh, of course.

 

[TanNinety]

And that faith in Yahweh requires for us to keep the sabbath? if I understand it correctly?

 

[wavy]

And that faith in Yahweh requires for us to keep the sabbath? if I understand it correctly?

Not necessarily. Faith = persuasion and trust. If you're heart is set on obeying him and you are spiritually mature enough, I believe it is Yahweh's timing and judgment which commands any individual to keep a commandment like the sabbath.

Faith has nothing to do with any action. Rather faith leads to action as one learns and grows. Like if you became a believer on Monday and died on Tuesday, you wouldn't have to be afraid in the judgment. Yahweh is not going to say, "You didn't believe long enough to make it to the sabbath and keep it, therefore you cannot be saved. Depart into everlasting fire!!!!"

That's funny, but it's nonsense.

One thing I know one can't say is, "I don't have to keep the sabbath or the law because it is bondage and Yahweh did away with it".

 

[wavy]

I notice that you said one isn't supposed to travel on the sabbath. I want to come back and say something on this (gotta find something to do).

I assume you take this or have heard some one take this from Exodus:

Exodus 16:29
See, for that יהוה hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.

However, this was talking about to get the manna and is specific to this context and this context alone.

 

[TanNinety]

Romans 14:3 Those who think it is all right to eat anything must not look down on those who won't. And those who won't eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to condemn God's servants? They are responsible to the Lord, so let him tell them whether they are right or wrong. The Lord's power will help them do as they should. 5 In the same way, some think one day is more holy than another day, while others think every day is alike. Each person should have a personal conviction about this matter.

What are your views on the above?

 

[wavy]

This translation you used has added "more holy" when the Greek says no such thing.

Many people try to turn this chapter into a sabbath issue, but the text doesn't say anything about the sabbath, or any other of the moadim (the "appointed times" found in the 23rd chapter of Leviticus).

And let's say that it did say anything about what is "holy". It would only be in reference to man considers holy.

However, it isn't man who considers the sabbath day holy, it is Yahweh. "And Yahweh blessed the sabbath day and sanctified it/set it apart".

As far as the moadim, Yahweh says they are his feasts, not man's.

 

[TanNinety]

Romans 14:5 One doth judge one day above another, and another doth judge every day [alike]; let each in his own mind be fully assured. 6 He who is regarding the day, to the Lord he doth regard [it], and he who is not regarding the day, to the Lord he doth not regard [it]. He who is eating, to the Lord he doth eat, for he doth give thanks to God; and he who is not eating, to the Lord he doth not eat, and doth give thanks to God.

Colossians 2:16 Let no one, then, judge you in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a feast, or of a new moon, or of sabbaths.

Jew does not become a gentile after hearing the gospel nor does a gentile become a jew after hearing the gospel. The above makes it clear [to me] to not judge my brother or sister who does what he does unto Yahweh. You said Colossians is not talking about a jew judging a gentile about sabbath. Who else do you think is judging? Who was this third party around that time that was keeping the sabbath and is eligible to judge the ones that weren’t keeping the sabbath?

I agree God blessed the sabbath. But I also agree that we are not to judge our brothers and sisters on when/where/how long to keep the sabbath.

Many people try to turn this chapter [Romans 14:5] into a sabbath issue, but the text doesn't say anything about the sabbath

Then what is the text talking about judging one day above another?

"And Yahweh blessed the sabbath day and sanctified it/set it apart"

Mark 2:27 And He[Jesus] said to them, `The sabbath for man was made, not man for the sabbath'. “Having†to keep the sabbath is man serving the sabbath not sabbath serving the man. Man is the master of not the slave of sabbath, for it was for us it was made according to Jesus.

I still need to see where disciples told the converting gentiles to abide by the law. The only commandments that I saw the disciples preaching to the gentile populace were the commandments of love. Gentiles did not have the law, they HAD to be given it if they were expected to follow it. In the wealth of scripture it would not get overlooked to have written “as the gentiles rejoiced in the good news the disciple [insert disciple name here] preached them the lawâ€Â.

But I am praying about this issue, I believe in "seek and ye shall find"

 

[wavy]

Jew does not become a gentile after hearing the gospel nor does a gentile become a jew after hearing the gospel. The above makes it clear [to me] to not judge my brother or sister who does what he does unto Yahweh.

About what he/she does concerning personal, manmade, unbiblical practices -- not what is commanded in the Word. Yahweh's Word is truth, not a collection of suggestions for one to personally choose whether or not to obey.

You said Colossians is not talking about a jew judging a gentile about sabbath. Who else do you think is judging? Who was this third party around that time that was keeping the sabbath and is eligible to judge the ones that weren’t keeping the sabbath?

I don't believe it was about judging who was and who wasn't keeping the sabbath. It was about judging how and adding extrabiblical criteria.

I agree God blessed the sabbath. But I also agree that we are not to judge our brothers and sisters on when/where/how long to keep the sabbath.

Well, I disagree, but I guess there's no point in arguing. I have my opinions and you have yours.

Then what is the text talking about judging one day above another?

I believe it is talking about days of eating. Fasting days etc. If we look in the chapter on towards the very end, we see "the day" only mentioned in verse 5 and 6. Paul does not continue talking about it, but sticks to the subject of eating.

Look how he concludes the matter as we read through the chapter:

Romans 14:17
For the kingdom of Elaha is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.

Romans 14:20
For meat destroy not the work of Elaha. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.

And the last verse of the chapter:

Romans 14:23
And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

The sabbath is a big issue. Bigger than anything considered "unclean". Yet Paul continues to touch on eating. He introduces the chapter that way and ends it with the same theme.

Mark 2:27 And He[Jesus] said to them, `The sabbath for man was made, not man for the sabbath'.

“Having†to keep the sabbath is man serving the sabbath not sabbath serving the man. Man is the master of not the slave of sabbath, for it was for us it was made according to Jesus.

Well, I believe that when he said that, based on context, he was talking about manmade tradition. The Sanhedrin of the day had many laws concerning what to do and what not to do on the sabbath. They thought that by restricting the people further, it would be easier not to break the actual commandment. They also believed the people, according to Exodus 19:6, should be a "kingdom of priests" and should be extra holy in matters of practice.

When Christ said that, he meant the sabbath wasn't made for us to find ways to serve it, therefore extra dogma added by the Jewish leaders was wrong. The disciples were merely picking corn as they walked through the fields to eat. They were not violating the sabbath by doing such a simple thing. They were hungry.

He didn't mean it was a personal choice to obey or not to obey.

I still need to see where disciples told the converting gentiles to abide by the law. The only commandments that I saw the disciples preaching to the gentile populace were the commandments of love. Gentiles did not have the law, they HAD to be given it if they were expected to follow it. In the wealth of scripture it would not get overlooked to have written “as the gentiles rejoiced in the good news the disciple [insert disciple name here] preached them the lawâ€Â.

That is not the proper order of the gospel. To place the law upon new believers, especially starting with circumcision is a heresy proclaimed by those that came from the Jerusalem council and was refuted by Paul in Galatians. Christ takes direct and supreme precedence and importance over the law. That is what the disciples had to make sure was grounded in new believers.

However, I do believe they did preach the law in a gradual manner. They just did not do it in the way the Jewish leaders did it (trust me, "the law" was much more to the Jews of the first century than what it is in the actual Pentateuch, or the first five books of Moses).

Isaiah does say,

Isaiah 8:20
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

The law and the testimony (of Yahshua) are found together in several scriptures as the full package for a believer. One scripture is the one I just quoted. Here are others:

Psalm 19:7
The law of יהוה is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of יהוה is sure, making wise the simple.

Psalm 78:5
For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children:

Isaiah 8:16
Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.

Revelation 12:17
And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments [obvious reference to the law, imo, as there was no NT] of יהוה, and have the testimony of Yahshua ha Mashiach.

But I am praying about this issue, I believe in "seek and ye shall find"

Indeed. So should we all. Sometimes believers (and myself not the least) think we all have it figured out.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Nice intelligent posts from both wavy and TanNinety. Thanks guys.

Do you ever find it a little frustrating that we are not told EXACTLY what the problem or the issue was in many cases? And so we just have the 'address' by Paul without really knowing for sure what, specifically, he was addressing. As I said in another thread, it's rather like hearing 'this end' of another's telephone conversation. We don't get to know from the other party what the precise issue is. We only hear the responses and then we might attempt to piece them together to make them fit what we 'think' the issue might be.

The writings of Paul are fraught with many such examples and this is where so many Christian scholars are led astray. Many times, Paul's responses can be applied to whatever part of the jigsaw we want them to fit. We may be way off the mark but they seem to fit well enough to be generally accepted.

 

[wavy]

I agree, Sputnik. Take the 14th chapter of Romans, for example.

We just not may know at all what "the day" is Paul was talking about. The text doesn't specify.

Nowhere is the sabbath called "the day" in scripture (other than supposedly in the 14th chapter of Romans).

But a mislead believer might look at that and conclude:

A. "I don't want to keep the sabbath".

B. "Romans mentions a day that man regards that people shouldn't judge one another about".

C. "It must be talking about the sabbath, so I don't have to keep it".

 

[TanNinety]

Yahweh's Word is truth, not a collection of suggestions for one to personally choose whether or not to obey.

Then wouldn’t that be all of what Yahweh said and not just parts we like? In that case Exodus 35:3 ye do not burn a fire in any of your dwellings on the sabbath-day. What if we had unexpected hungry guests and had to cook something and had to kindle a fire? Should we or should we not? It’s not extra-biblical to say “we shouldn’t†because it is one of those tittles of the law that do not pass away until heaven and earth have passed away without being fulfilled. Should we call an exception to this Yahweh’s ordinance that moses received and gave to israel? My concern is, how can we keep the sabbath and not pull a pharisee on it.

On another note, isn’t keeping the sabbath a covenant that God had with israel and gave it to israel to keep? Are Christians spiritual israel called onto follow the law?

Hebrews 7:11 If indeed, then, perfection were through the Levitical priesthood -- for the people under it had received law -- what further need, according to the order of Melchisedek, for another priest to arise, and not to be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 for the priesthood being changed, of necessity also, of the law a change doth come, 13 for he of whom these things are said in another tribe hath had part, of whom no one gave attendance at the altar, 14 for [it is] evident that out of Judah hath arisen our Lord, in regard to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet more abundantly most evident, if according to the similitude of Melchisedek there doth arise another priest, 16 who came not according to the law of a fleshly command, but according to the power of an endless life, 17 for He doth testify -- `Thou [art] a priest -- to the age, according to the order of Melchisedek;' 18 for a disannulling indeed doth come of the command going before because of its weakness, and unprofitableness, 19 (for nothing did the law perfect) and the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw nigh to God

However, I do believe they did preach the law in a gradual manner.

I agree, but what did they teach about the law? The above chapter in Hebrews shows that they said since there was a change in the priesthood it necessitates a change in the law. Is it blasphemy for the scripture to read it necessitates a change in the law according to our new priest? A new priest came not according to the law of fleshly command but according to the power of an endless life [ i.e., the resurrection] Talks about disannulling and weakness and unprofitableness of the law. If indeed the disciples wanted the gentile believers to walk according to the law they were doing a pretty bad job at selling it to them.

“Want to die? Join the army!†That’s not a good way to get people to join the army is it? But whenever you read about the law in the NT that’s the kind of propaganda you derive from it. But this could be a strawman though on my part if you believe that the sabbath was blessed even before there was a law or a jew. But my point is it wasn’t given to man to keep the sabbath until the law came, until there was a covenant with israel.

How can we tell a poor Christian who has to work 7 days a week to feed his family that he is breaking the sabbath? Or is it not breaking the sabbath when it becomes a bondage?

Good post sputnik and wavy’s response to it. I will have to consider that when I read paul next time around. It is true that we are only getting one side of the story.

 

[wavy]

Then wouldn’t that be all of what Yahweh said and not just parts we like?

Of course.

In that case Exodus 35:3 ye do not burn a fire in any of your dwellings on the sabbath-day. What if we had unexpected hungry guests and had to cook something and had to kindle a fire? Should we or should we not? It’s not extra-biblical to say “we shouldn’t†because it is one of those tittles of the law that do not pass away until heaven and earth have passed away without being fulfilled. Should we call an exception to this Yahweh’s ordinance that moses received and gave to israel?

Yes, this would be an exception. The preservation of life would be of greater importance in this case.

My concern is, how can we keep the sabbath and not pull a pharisee on it.

Hosea 6:6.

On another note, isn’t keeping the sabbath a covenant that God had with israel and gave it to israel to keep? Are Christians spiritual israel called onto follow the law?

Ephesians 2:12-13.

As far as Hebrews, here is my study on that very passage (it's long):

This is a popular passage that is brought up whenever the observance of the torah is in discussion. Many people look at the torah as some lengthy document that is all held together in a chain of letters, and if is not completed to each and every letter by any singular man or woman, then it collapses.

Something like, "well if you keep the sabbath, why don't you make sacrifices? it's all in the law isn't it? why don't you take a lamb to the priest to atone for your sin? why don't you stone people? because if you disobey one you disobey all of it, right?" is an argument I personally encounter all of the time.

Now, it's logical to assume that if the order of Aaron and the Levites that were given to them (Numbers 3:5-9) have been set aside in favor of Yahshua and his priesthood, which is after the order of Melech-Tzadik (“Melchisedecâ€Â, who was actually priest long before Aaron and the Levites were), that this affects the manner in which we keep all the rest of torah. It's logical to assume that a new covenant (request “A New Covenant†at savemeOYah@aol.com) means all the "old laws" or what are usually called the "ceremonial laws" are done away but the "moral laws" remain because of the writing on the heart.

I try not to knock people for thinking that. I really believe it is not their fault, but that of their teachers and of traditional forms of Christianity. But here is why I believe this is not good enough to prove that if we look at the whole of scripture according to the sum of the Word (Psalm 119:160). Within the torah are a few things that when compared with the revelation of the NT, legitimately disprove that impression. Please keep an open mind.

Firstly, we want to define what torah is. Torah is Genesis-Revelation. All of it is Yahweh's Word (and therefore abides forever; Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 119:89; 1 Peter 1:23-25).

The torah we are focusing on mainly is the Torah of Moshe (Moses), which is the first 5 books of our bibles, or the Pentateuch.

Secondly, it must be established that not every single commandment in torah applies to every single person, as most of us [should] know.

Thirdly, I want to make it clear that the torah is not a document from Sinai that must be kept to the letter perfectly by every single individual or otherwise, you need to just "believe" in Messiah.

A lot of people ask as an argument, "well, do you keep the law perfectly?" And if your answer is "no", they resume to say that you shouldn't even try to keep it then, and you should just accept Yahweh's grace and stop doing "your own works".

What I want to say is that "keep it perfectly or don't keep it at all" is never stated by Yahweh anywhere in the bible. Instead, what he says is:

Leviticus 18:5
Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am יהוה.

And what this means is, is that if you claim to live by torah, you'll live your life in full devotion to torah. Many might then recall this verse:

Deuteronomy 27:26
Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

But this does not mean you must keep every letter of the torah throughout your lifetime perfectly or be cursed. This is talking about as a lifestyle. Turning aside from the way of torah as a whole (as goes for James 2:10 also). This is not talking about an incidental breaking of a single commandment, which we can repent from.

If this is the case, none of you should be sinners if you claim to be a believer. Why? John says in 1 John 3:6 and 1 John 5:18 that whoever is in Messiah and born of Yahweh “sins notâ€Â. Every single last one of us that has a brain and isn't an extremely arrogant and ignorant fool would say that we are not perfect, and that sometimes we stumble in our walk; even John here. But what John is really talking about here is sinning as a lifestyle.

Yet the same argument pops up: "you must keep the law perfectly or be damned and forced to accept christ as the 'fulfillment' of the law and forget all the 'ceremonial regulations' and just go with the 'morals' of the law".

This, in essence, is what I hear all the time. The problem is, however, this is not in scripture! I’ve heard this so much, I’ve come up with my own title for it: the "You Fail Doctrineâ€Â. Torah was not given to say "you are a failure so give up on keeping me and just accept grace". If this is the case, Yahweh had no right all those centuries for kicking Israel's butt up and down the earth for breaking it (as a lifestyle) if he knew it was impossible to keep it (as a lifestyle). Sadly, this is exactly what many people are suggesting that we should believe (although maybe not intentionally, and this is rebuked in Deuteronomy 30:14).

So let’s take a look at Hebrews.

Hebrews 7:11
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Hebrews 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

But what specifically, in context, was changed/shifted? The whole torah? Many use this passage to say this, but that is not in the context (there is also no definite article “the†in the Greek, so it reads “change of lawâ€Â, not specifically the law). The continual topic is the priesthood and how Messiah has taken over the priestly office in exchange for Aaron and the Levites. Hebrews 7:12 has not switched the context to the whole torah, but only in context of how Messiah is scripturally our priest without actually violating torah.

I have my own opinion as to what the “change of law†is in context, but I want to mention that there are two other good explanations of what this “change of law†is that I know of. The preceding verses talk about tithing in Hebrews 7:2-10. The “change of law†could possibly and logically be tithing (which was given according to torah to the Levites). So the priesthood, being shifted, requires a “change of law†concerning the tithes.

The second explanation is that it is speaking of the sacrificial system of atonement. The priesthood changed from the hands of sinful, earthly men to Yahshua in heaven, and so therefore, the sacrifices and system of atonement has been shifted to him also in his one-time sacrifice and his intercession for us before the Father in the heavenly Tabernacle. This is also logical in context.

I believe it is referring to the act of shifting/changing the priesthood within two tribes. It was told to Aaron (who was a Levite) and the tribe of the Levites given to him that the priesthood was theirs to perform. But how do we change it to Messiah after the order of Melech-Tzadik who came out of Yahudah (Judah)? This is the “change of law†that occurs based on the continual flow of the very next verses:

Hebrews 7:13
For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
Hebrews 7:14
For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
Hebrews 7:15
And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

It becomes perfectly clear what the “change of law†(not all torot/laws or specifically the torah) is. He's making an apologetic as to how Messiah Yahshua can be Cohen HaGadol (High Priest) although he is not a descendant of Levi or one of the sons of Aaron. He goes on to explain that Yahshua is not appointed as priest after a “pertaining to the flesh†(carnal) commandment/precept (Hebrews 7:16 - since the sons of Aaron and the Levites were flesh and passed the priesthood down through the flesh), but is made High Priest because of the power of an endless life. What is this endless life?

In context, it is that of Melech-Tzadik. Because he is not mentioned in a genealogy, and it is never recorded when he was born or when he died, this is a hint that this priesthood remains forever (Hebrews 7:3). This is Yahshua’s eternal priesthood (Psalm 110:4), because like Melech-Tzadik, he lives forever.

Hebrews 7:18 says there is a disannulling, or a setting aside of the former precept that made Aaron and his sons and the Levites priests because of this.

Continuing:

Hebrews 7:19
For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto יהוה.

Torah alone (in context, the priestly ministry of the sons of Levi) cannot put a new heart in you by making atonement for you by the blood of animals, like Yahshua could by his blood and the outpouring of the Spirit. Paul testifies in Hebrews 10:1 that the torah (concerning specifically the Yom Kippur sacrifices) cannot make anyone perfect (that is, change their heart by the means of that atonement). He states in Hebrews 10:3-4 that in those sacrifices was merely a reminder of sins for the people (Israel) because they could not take away sin (meaning, the sinning tendencies of the inner person, not that it didn't atone for sins).

And this is what he states here in Hebrews 7:19. We looked for a better hope (a new covenant that changed our consciences and renewed our spirits through Messiah).

Does this just randomly change Yahweh's torot? Or is their justification for this in torah? The weakness/unprofitableness of the Levitical priesthood (because of their nature - Hebrews 7:18,28) is what caused the need for this change/shifting of the priesthood from Levi to Yahudah and from men to the immortal Mashiach.

Leviticus 21:16-23 and Leviticus 22:2-9 list a number of ineligibilities for those ordained in the priestly office, the main one being “blemishesâ€Â.

The author of Hebrews clearly gave reference to these "blemishes" as the part of their disqualification and a need for something new (Yahshua's Priesthood, although, in torah, it is actually before the Levitical priesthood – Genesis 14:18).

Continuing from the previous Hebrews 7 references:

Hebrews 7:20
And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
Hebrews 7:21
(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, “יהוה sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedecâ€Â)

Because of this declaration with an oath, an oath Yahweh said he would not turn from, Yahshua's priesthood continues forever. The Levites, however, were ordained first without an oath (Exodus 32:29) when they had joined Yahweh's side after they killed all the idolatrous children that were foolishly worshipping the golden calf. Aaron and his sons were ordained, but they had terms and conditions. They still had no oath to swear them in continually and unchangeably. They had blemishes (though, according to scripture still, they will be restored – Isaiah 66:21; Jeremiah 33:18-22; Malachi 3:3; Ezekiel 40:46 and many more) But Messiah Yahshua was “without spot†and “without blemish†and “without sin†(1 Peter 1:19; Hebrews 4:15).

This is why the priesthood was shifted to Yahshua according to a new covenant. No other laws are mentioned to be "shifted" or "changed". If we are honest, only the ones concerning the priesthood were, and it is perfectly acceptable according to torah and the sum of Yahweh’s Word. This is how the torah was a shadow. Not every aspect of every commandment (otherwise "love YHWH with all your heart..." would be changed too), but the things concerning the priesthood. Other commandments in torah, like keeping the Sabbath, the moadim/appointed times, are shadows of things to come, not shadows of Yahshua, as many people mistakenly think Colossians 2:16-17 is saying (request this study at savemeOYah@aol.com).

The new covenant is actually based upon torah (Hebrews 8:6). In the KJV, and perhaps most translations, it says “establishedâ€Â. However, the word for “established†is nomotheteō. This is how the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance defines the word:

[quote:b22ac]G3549

νομοθετέω

nomotheteō

nom-oth-et-eh'-o

From G3550; to legislate, that is, (passively) to have (the Mosaic) enactments injoined, be sanctioned (by them): - establish, receive the law.

This is actually the same word used in Hebrews 7:11, where it says under the Levitical priesthood, the people “received the law†(the word for these three words being nomotheteō). The new covenant is sanctioned by the torah. Do away with the torah and you have no new covenant.

So what about the idea that if the priesthood has been changed, then that means everything else has been changed in this manner? Isn't the torah supposed to be a collective that if one thing is changed, then the whole thing falls apart?

No, not at all. In fact, I can give you an example within the torah where Yahweh did change/shifted something, and yet it never effected the rest of what Yahweh commanded. In Exodus 13:1-2, Yahweh makes it clear that he wants all the firstborn of the children of Israel, humankind and animal, to be given to him for service (not sacrifice for humans).

Yet later, first mentioned in Numbers 3:41, Yahweh reveals that he wanted the Levites and their cattle “instead of†all the firstborn of the children of Israel and their cattle.

So it is clear Yahweh can change one aspect of torah to accommodate something better without changing all the rest, yet keep within the boundaries of his own torah. Therefore comments and arguments such as "well, you don't make sacrifices or go to the priest, and so you are breaking the law; quit trying to keep it because you will fail and just accept grace" (more or less) are irrelevant. Not to mention that the temple was destroyed once before 70 C.E. This never voided any commandments concerning the priesthood. It was also rebuilt (and as is proven above, it will be restored again in some fashion or another).

Also, we see Yahweh make changes (or rather, additions) as torah progresses. He built a temple through Solomon (after denying David's request to undertake the task, if you'll remember) instead of abiding in the tabernacle. This never did away with or changed the method of keeping any other torot/laws.

Another argument is always brought up: "why don’t you stone people?" To briefly address this I will ask you to see Exodus 21:22 (divinely appointed judges deal out restitution), Leviticus 20:2 (people of the land stone with stones), Numbers 25:5 (judges charged to execute death penalty), Deuteronomy 1:16 (judges charged to judge righteously between the people of the nation), Deuteronomy 16:18 (judges and officers set up to judge the people), and Deuteronomy 19:17-18 (judges and priests given the job of hearing witnesses and dealing out judgment). So it is clear that only under this system (which is not active today, and hasn't been for some time) would this be allowed.

Obeying to the letter, void of outward mistakes, is not the issue with Yahweh. What is the issue is doing his Word, and doing it with the right type of heart. Are you willing? That is the issue. So the argument that not being perfect at all times voids the purpose and establishment of torah as our duty is a vain one. It is established as a way of life and not a means of perfection. Our only perfection comes from the righteousness of Yahweh, who is the Messiah Yahshua.

Peace and Love in Messiah[/quote:b22ac]

Talks about disannulling and weakness and unprofitableness of the law.

Not the law, but the priest system (because of the infirmities of the priests).

If indeed the disciples wanted the gentile believers to walk according to the law they were doing a pretty bad job at selling it to them.

Not imo.

How can we tell a poor Christian who has to work 7 days a week to feed his family that he is breaking the sabbath? Or is it not breaking the sabbath when it becomes a bondage?

Yahweh, since he is faithful, is not going to command you to do something at your inconvenience. The man doesn't have to work seven days. He may think so, but obeying Yahweh's law reaps great reward and prosperity. He commands in Isaiah 58:13 to call his sabbath a delight. That word for "delight" means "luxury". A luxury, as I'm sure you know, is something that is not necessarily needed but something extra that makes life a little easier, or more pleasant.

That's the thing with the sabbath. You don't have to worry about working. Yahweh, in his Word, promises to take care of you himself.

 

[TanNinety]

That makes a lot of sense to me. I will prayerfully consider your post. Thanks for all the work you have put into it whenever you did.

 

[TanNinety]

This probably is asking for a long reply from you. Can you look at Galatians chapters 2 and 3 for me?