The Sabbath day was made for man, not man for the Sabbath

[RandyK]

I post here because I don't think Sabbath should be a controversial topic.

We may not think Sabbath should be a controversial topic, but historically it has been. Consider the SDA conflicts with Establishment Christianity.

If you work a regular 40-50 hour job and rest at both Saturday and Sunday, you're already taking the Sabbath, it doesn't matter how you phrase it, whether you rest in observance of a "religous law" or not.

You are here using "Sabbath" as a synonym for "rest." But the word "Sabbath," as I've been using the word, refers to one of the 613 requirements of the Law of Moses comprising the Old Covenant. That was much more than taking Leave time.

And I'm not contradicting any Scripture, I explained what "work" means in the fourth commandment, it is you who's not interested in it at all, as you ridiculed me as a legalist, perhaps even a judiazer. You're the one who's incorrigible with no intention to exchange any idea, not me.

I don't know you--you may be a fine Christian, and not either a Legalist or a Judaizer. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression, because I really don't know the whole picture of what you believe.

What I do wish to say, however, is that any position that argues that we are still under the Law, including Sabbath Law, is by definition Legalism and Judaizing. This is the historic position of the Ebionites in the Early Church, so I'm not making this up.

Show me in which of my post did I call you that. You accusing me of "modernizing an assembly of an exclusive group of orthodox Jews" in post 159, I never called you a liar, and rephrasing a simple weekly rest as "my version of keeping the Sabbath", even though you admitted in post 163 that you need rest as well. Now who's really a liar bearing false witness of his neighbor?

If we have a misunderstanding we need to rephrase things. My point was and is that "Keeping the Sabbath Day holy" required more than "customary work" coming to an end for one whole day. If we wish to "keep the Law," as the Ebionites did, then we don't just take leave time from our jobs. We don't just stop working at our jobs--we stop working at home too. "Customary work" was defined as stopping *all work* of the kind that it was any kind of job--not just our job at work.

Furthermore, the Sabbath Law also required a "holy convocation," which is by definition a gathering of like-mined "holy" individuals who believe in the same laws. That is why I mentioned that a NT equivalent would be a gathering of people who were doctrinally orthodox and were not liberals.

Finally, Sabbath Law required an animal sacrifice. To create a NT equivalency to this would be "arbitrary," as I argued. But I'm not saying that we cannot find general principles in the NT that is in the same spirit as OT Law.

I personally might find it interesting to create a list producing comparisons between OT Law and NT practice and theology. I find nothing at all wrong with that. It has only been my aim to discourage any conflation between doing this and *requiring by law* Sabbath observance in its original form.

If you want to discuss this further, I'm game. But I'm disinterested in carrying on if it appears to get too personal. Thank you.

 

[RandyK]

Well that's strange, there was the rich young ruler who asked Jesus how to inherit eternal life, Jesus quoted the ten commandments, he didn't tell him to either love God or your neighbor, I wonder why is that? Wasn't he supposed to preach the "law of liberty"?

Almost all of what is recorded of Jesus' statements in the Gospels applied while the Old Covenant of Law was still in effect. So of course Jesus would not promote anything but the Covenant that was currently in effect.

But Jesus also predicted that he was soon to die, changing everything. The NT letters explain this in detail.

It is not wrong, of course, to preach OT truth because it was fulfilled in Christ's death and resurrection. We are not, however, preaching that we are still under the Old Covenant of Law.

Rather, we are preaching that it has been fulfilled in Christ's death and resurrection. Morality does not go away. But it is redirected or channeled through a new and different Covenant, ie the New Covenant.

In this Covenant the 613 requirements and its Jewish exclusivity have gone away. Now we have a universal Covenant that is focused not on Jewish ritual, but rather, on the need to spiritually abide in Christ, who has all the moral virtue we need. We simply need to abide in him and continue to be "like God" as Man was created to be.

 

[follower]

But Jesus also predicted that he was soon to die, changing everything.

Very Important and Interesting that this post contradicts what exactly and concisely
Jesus Says Plainly
will never change,
even unto the end of the world (or age).
To follow Jesus,
it is better never , never,
not ever,
to change what He Says.

p.s. if you later in the post or in other posts agree with all that Jesus Himself Says,
then I retract this post forthwith.

 

[Humblepie]

I'm trying to make our discussion less "personal." I don't wish to be the subject of the discussion. I believe the Bible--all of it. I've studied for a long time--that doesn't make me right. Let's talk issues, and not each other?

Actually, to me these are the issues. Is the Law of Moses still in effect, either literally or in some modified NT form? And does being under the Law of Moses disqualify us from Salvation by Grace?

I believe that those who are trying to be both Christian and under the Law of Moses are not necessarily disqualified frrom Grace and Salvation. It is a matter that had to be dealt with in Early Christianity. The outcome vs. the Ebionites exposed the pro-Jewish Law position as not sound Christian theology. That is my position too.

Since I've made my arguments against any notion we are still under the Law elsewhere, I won't repeat here. Have a nice day...

I have showed you your error through scripture, not through man's teachings,
Have a nice day yourself.

 

[RandyK]

...it doesn't matter how you phrase it, whether you rest in observance of a "religous law" or not.

Therein lies the problem. You are arguing the Sabbath in the general sense of taking a rest from employment. But I'm trying to establish that even though "rest" is necessary for all of us, it does not require specific attention to the Sabbath Law.

So apparently we agree that it doesn't matter whether the "rest" you speak of is a "religious law or not?" In such case, there is no necessary reference to Sabbath Law at all. And as I suggested, it would at any rate be difficult to transpose Sabbath Law with all of its details to any NT equivalency.

If all you're saying is that we need rest and that Sabbath Law teaches that, we're good. But if you wish to say that we must, by force of law, conform to the original Sabbath Law in all of its detail, I have to ask why?

I personally think that you're just in favor of maintaining the practice in a political State of allowing religious holidays. Returning to non-religious calendars tends to discourage worship, which is what the Law and Sabbath observance had hoped to encourage.

So are you saying we must conform to the original Sabbath Law? Or, are you saying that in some way the same principle is required in the NT era as a matter of God's eternal Law? If the latter, then it seems arbitrary to determine in just what way a NT equivalency can be established?

Many Christians feel they are observing a kind of NT equivalency of Sabbath Law by going to church on Sunday. I have little problem with that! I don't want our former Christian state (for me, the US) to be denuded of all Christian tradition.

Where it begins to be problematic with me is when someone arbitrarily decides what NT conformity to Sabbath Law requires, such as "going to church on Saturday, instead of Sunday," or "not doing any work one day a week."

The customary practice of not working one day a week is fine, but is more of a tradition than a law. I'm all for Sunday worship. I'm all for Saturday worship as well, and Wednesday worship, etc. etc.

 

[RandyK]

Very Important and Interesting that this post contradicts what exactly and concisely
Jesus Says Plainly
will never change,
even unto the end of the world (or age).
To follow Jesus,
it is better never , never,
not ever,
to change what He Says.

p.s. if you later in the post or in other posts agree with all that Jesus Himself Says,
then I retract this post forthwith.

I'm assuming you're referring to Jesus' statement here, which was while Israel was still under the Law?....

Matt 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

1) Jesus did not fail the Contract of Mosaic Law--Israel did. He therefore did not come to "abolish the Law," but rather, to "fulfill it."

2) Jesus said that the Contract of Mosaic Law was eternally binding, with the one exception that he successfully "fulfill it." That said, Jesus has indeed "fulfilled the Law."

The Gospels themselves, including Matthew, confirmed this.
Matt 26.52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”
55 In that hour Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. 56 But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.

So, Israel's Contract of Mosaic Law remains forever as an instrument of condemnation if Christ does not fulfill it. But it remains forever as an instrument of conviction, finding Israel forever incapable of fulfilling it themselves. The Law made it clear that Israel would always need coverage for their sins, as long as the current universe discloses human imperfection.

Jesus is no longer speaking to Israel under the Old Testament Contract. Jesus fulfilled that Contract. He did that by dying under terms of that Old Contract, thus establishing the need for a New Contract that could fulfill what it had promised.

What Jesus says to us today is not the Law of Moses, nor is it strictly for Israel. What he says to us today involves a universal Contract that is free of the need for sacrifices under the Law of Moses.

 

[RandyK]

Have a nice day yourself.

Thank you!

 

[Humblepie]

Almost all of what is recorded of Jesus' statements in the Gospels applied while the Old Covenant of Law was still in effect. So of course Jesus would not promote anything but the Covenant that was currently in effect.

But Jesus also predicted that he was soon to die, changing everything. The NT letters explain this in detail.

It is not wrong, of course, to preach OT truth because it was fulfilled in Christ's death and resurrection. We are not, however, preaching that we are still under the Old Covenant of Law.

Rather, we are preaching that it has been fulfilled in Christ's death and resurrection. Morality does not go away. But it is redirected or channeled through a new and different Covenant, ie the New Covenant.

In this Covenant the 613 requirements and its Jewish exclusivity have gone away. Now we have a universal Covenant that is focused not on Jewish ritual, but rather, on the need to spiritually abide in Christ, who has all the moral virtue we need. We simply need to abide in him and continue to be "like God" as Man was created to be.

Could you show me here where it's foretold, that the law changes, or is eliminated, or if it's a new law, replacing the old law?

New Covenant
Jeremiah 31
31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

 

[Humblepie]

56 But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.”

He fulfilled the prophecies in the OT concerning him, he pleroo Greek word for fulfill, fully lived preached, taught. The law
Not abolished.
Not even a dot.

 

[Humblepie]

But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.”

Prophets fulfilled like this

Isaiah 53
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Very Important and Interesting that this post contradicts what exactly and concisely
Jesus Says Plainly
will never change,
even unto the end of the world (or age).
To follow Jesus,
it is better never , never,
not ever,
to change what He Says.

p.s. if you later in the post or in other posts agree with all that Jesus Himself Says,
then I retract this post forthwith.

Didn't the "age" change ?

 

[Humblepie]

Didn't the "age" change ?

Dispensations are not biblical

 

[Humblepie]

Dispensations are not Biblical.

Didn't the "age" change ?

Ephesians 2:11-12
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:




We were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel.


Ephesians 2:19
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but ((((fellowcitizens)))) with the saints, and of the household of God;

Clearly, if one is a part of the New Covenant established by Yeshua then one is grafted into the House of Judah or the House of Israel and is thus part of Israel. The new covenant is not stated to be made with anyone else. One either becomes part of the one holy nation, as Peter said, Israel, or one is not part of the new covenant. In addition, God said that he would write his law on the hearts and minds of his people (which, by the way, is the exact opposite of abolishing it. He establishes it). It is a little difficult to
subscribe to a theological interpretive framework that separates Israel from the Church when Scripture clearly states that we are grafted into Israel and actually, made citizens of it.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Dispensations are not biblical

Is circumcision still necessary too ?

 

[Hopeful 2]

Dispensations are not Biblical.






Ephesians 2:11-12
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:




We were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel.


Ephesians 2:19
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but ((((fellowcitizens)))) with the saints, and of the household of God;

Clearly, if one is a part of the New Covenant established by Yeshua then one is grafted into the House of Judah or the House of Israel and is thus part of Israel. The new covenant is not stated to be made with anyone else. One either becomes part of the one holy nation, as Peter said, Israel, or one is not part of the new covenant. In addition, God said that he would write his law on the hearts and minds of his people (which, by the way, is the exact opposite of abolishing it. He establishes it). It is a little difficult to
subscribe to a theological interpretive framework that separates Israel from the Church when Scripture clearly states that we are grafted into Israel and actually, made citizens of it.

You see Gentiles joining with Jews.
I see Jews, joining with Gentiles !
Starting at the house of Cornelius.

 

[eddif]

Luke /6:16 kjv
16. The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[Humblepie]

You see Gentiles joining with Jews.
I see Jews, joining with Gentiles !

That would be wrong, and
I do not claim that on my authority, that's exactly what scripture says.
Read it for yourself.

Remember what Jesus said in
Matthew 15:24

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


Ephesians 2:11,12 &19
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the.

covenants*

of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
*(covenants plural)

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;


<<<<The lost sheep of Israel were scattered amongst the nations for their adultery. God divorced them. They became Gentiles, they lived with them, they worshiped with them, they lost their Heritage. God sent them packing.
He promised to bring them back into covenant though and make them a unified nation again.>>>>

The only way God could Lawfully remarry Israel is by death, releasing Israel from the Law.

When Christ died on the cross, he bore the curse of the guilty wife.



Many fine details happened during the
Crucifixion.

His stomach swelled, he was mocked, his thighs wasted away, he was given bitter drink.
These are directly related to the law of the jealous husband.
Numbers 5:29-30

Christ died for The lost tribe of Israel dying in place of the guilty wife so God could bring them back into covenant again.

This scripture has a duel meaning.

Colossians 2:14
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Blotting out the oral law written by men that made void Gods law, and the written offense against Israel for their adultery.

Now we are citizens of Israel, all that enter the faith, the lost sheep, (the Israelites) and Greeks.

 

[Humblepie]

Luke /6:16 kjv
16. The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

To finish quote just to add context.

Luke 16:17-18

17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

The kingdom of God can be preached as well as the law, because the law was never meant to save anyone, ever, it was to define sin, it was an instruction on HOW to live righteously, not to make you righteous.

Remember without the law sin is not imputed. So if there isn't a law to impute sin, there isn't a need for salvation after the cross.
I can't believe that for a second.

I need a Saviour because I am a sinner.

Romans 7:7-8
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

 

[JLB]

Some 1700 years before the law of Moses was written on stone, Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean animals.
He also made a sacrifice to God using clean animals.

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. Genesis 9:3



I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Romans 14:14

 

[Humblepie]

I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Romans 14:14

More study from you would actually profit you.

In Romans 14:14, the Greek word koinos is used to refer to food being common, not the Greek word akathartos which means unclean. Koinos is used to refer to Jewish cultural traditions regarding food. Paul's message is that people are not required to follow Jewish cultural food requirements. However, Paul is not teaching that God's laws about unclean foods are no longer applicable.