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

[RandyK]

It's not "hostile" to me, I abhor the religious label you put on Sabbath and your false accusation of me demanding strict observance of a "law" which wasn't originally legislated as a "law" at all. In my conscience, Sabbath is a labor and a spiritual issue, a labor issue regarding the rest from work, a spiritual issue regarding the commemoration of God's rest. It's a natural way God intends us to live, hence "Sabbath day was made for man", it doesn't Judaize me or identify me in any particular capacity that makes me different from everybody else. You deliberately made it into a religious issue for no obvious reason. You can't see it from any other perspective.

I'm not sure why you "abhor" this discussion? I've had hundreds of such discussions without any such emotional reaction at all. Regardless, if it's of concern to me I'll treat it according to my conscience because I consider it my duty from God to address such issues. And I do it with an aim to *serve you,* and not to stir things up, nor to depreciate you.

Your stated aim of using Sabbath as a "labor issue" is conflated with using it as a relevant "law" for today on the same thread. So I'm careful to say that I'm dealing with Sabbath Law as a "law," and not strictly as a form of nostalgic look at the origins of labor concerns.

 

[Humblepie]

Because it aligns with God’s word.

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

Yeah, ok

 

[JLB]

Yeah, ok

Yes. God’s word.

 

[RandyK]

Then why complicating and obsessing over a day of rest? Why are you following the pharisees' example...

There you go again, creating "unity?" I do *not* follow the Pharisees' example. And I'm not "obsessing." It is a concern when some here connect Sabbath nostalgia with Sabbath law. I want to clarify for those on the fence that we are *not under the Mosaic Law,* and not under any Sabbath Law. This is a valid concern, since Paul himself "obsessed" over the same issue when he dealt with the "Circumcision Party" who wanted all Christians to get circumcised (if they were a male).

I've addressed this before - if there's no "modern equivalent", then the bible is an irrelevant ancient book, there's no reason for any of us to read and study it. As long as the word of God is living and active, "modern equivalent" is the raison d'etre for this entire discussion, it's related to the Sabbath law in each and every way.

But this is changing the script somewhat. I agree that the OT Bible can be learned from today, no matter how obsolete the old covenant. I was talking about *requiring* as a law the following of Sabbath Law today as a modernized version of the original Sabbath Law.

Let me give you an example. Let me say that I arbitrarily believe that the original Sabbath Law exists today in the form of labor laws today, allowing me to take holidays off and granting me weekends off to go to church. And so, based on my view that Sabbath Law is still in effect today *as a law* I consider it my legal right to take Saturdays or Sundays off, as well as Easter and Christmas. And I require all Christians to do this because it is "Sabbath law for today."

Do you see the issue? It may seem ludicrous, but there are Christians today who are still teaching that Christians must not work on Sundays, but must forego any work activity on Sundays due to this modernized Sabbath requirement.

It may seem foolish to you, but I've seen this kind of thing, which is a burden, for many years. People do need to go to church, to stop fishing so much on Sundays, but it has nothing to do with a *requirement* under some assumed NT law.

The way I see it, Sunday service has moved the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, the rest from regular job and the holy convocation, according to the description of the 4th commandment, are essentially the same, it's simply a schedule change.

The point is that Sabbath was already in practice BEFORE it was signed into "law". Sabbath had a start in the wilderness, Sabbath LAW did NOT until Moses received the two tablets.

No, it was the way God started the practice in order to place it into the Law, in my view. There was no precedent before God actually started requiring it. There was no built-in sense prior to God's Sabbath mandate that people practice one day a week off.

It's not jsut about the number, there's a substantial connection between the regular weekly rest and the millennial rest for all mankind, the end was declared from the beginning. See this is why I said it's "beyond your comprehension".

What's beyond my comprehension is any sense that Sabbath requirements are in any way related to a Millennial Sabbath. If anything God is requiring of Himself that He give the earth a thousand years off, and He is under no obligation to a law--only to His own will.

 

[RandyK]

Can you please point that part out in Jeremiah's description of exactly what the new covenant is?

You can copy and paste it please.


31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

35 Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is his name:

36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

37 Thus saith the Lord; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord

What the New Covenant specifically is is not elaborated on for the simple reason it had not come yet. What is clear from the context is that the New Covenant would accomplish something that the Old Covenant would fail at, namely establish Israel forever.

We know from history that the initiation of the New Covenant by Christ did not immediately restore the nation of Israel. So Jeremiah was not stating when the New Covenant would bring this about for Israel, nor even when it would be initiated. He did say it would bring Israel heart to heart with God, but all of God's covenants were intended to be "from the heart." It's just that a covenant that ultimately succeeds also has to be one "from the heart."

 

[JLB]

I want to clarify for those on the fence that we are *not under the Mosaic Law,* and not under any Sabbath Law. This is a valid concern, since Paul himself "obsessed" over the same issue when he dealt with the "Circumcision Party" who wanted all Christians to get circumcised (if they were a male).

 

[RandyK]

Thank you JLB!

 

[Humblepie]

it as a relevant "law" for today

Torah is means instruction.
Instruction for what?

Do you really think that Jesus changed his mind about how we should live after he died cross?


1 John 2:6
6Those who say they live in God should live their lives as Jesus did.


Hebrews 13:8
8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.


He followed the Torah, and set an example for us. John said, "should live their lives as Jesus did."

If what you believe Paul says about the law doesn't line up with 1john 2:6
Maybe you should quit following man.

I don't read Paul's epistles like you do anymore. The pre conceived belief that the law is void brings a whole new truth to what he is actually saying.

If one wants to obey the commands out of obedience and love for God, is it a sin? Is their salvation made void because of their obedience?

If you all want to eat pig, go ahead. I will do what 1 john 2:6 tells me to do.
Live like Jesus did.
I know Jesus didn't eat pig, and he observed every Sabbath day.

 

[RandyK]

Torah is means instruction.
Instruction for what?

Torah instructed Israel how to live by God's written word, as well as by His spoken word. The written Law at that time today is obsolete inasmuch as what it represented was the need for a final atonement. And Christ fulfilled that final atonement.

Do you really think that Jesus changed his mind about how we should live after he died cross?

Yes. He still expected the Moral Standards present in the Law to continue to be upheld. But the covenant had changed, which Jesus anticipated when he held the 1st Communion sevice. That was a *New Covenant* celebration that would take hold on the Cross.

I don't read Paul's epistles like you do anymore. The pre conceived belief that the law is void brings a whole new truth to what he is actually saying.

Are you saying you don't believe Paul anymore, that you wish to reinterpret what Paul explicitly said? Jesus, who had promoted the Law during his earthly ministry, commissioned Paul from heaven to teach about the New Covenant.

Paul stated clearly that the Law was no longer applicable as a covenant, though the Moral Law underlying it still applies as a general "Law of God." It is the *covenant* aspect of the Law that changed--not God, and not His holy standards for human conduct.

If one wants to obey the commands out of obedience and love for God, is it a sin? Is their salvation made void because of their obedience?

If you choose to obey an outmoded system and teach others they must do so, then you are obviously misrepresenting God's word, which is in fact a sin. "Don't take the Lord's name in vain."

We should put no stumbling block in front of Christians and others. To require obedience to the Law of Moses has that effect. It distracts away from God's pure grace to require things that are of no benefit with respect to our Salvation.

If you all want to eat pig, go ahead. I will do what 1 john 2:6 tells me to do.
Live like Jesus did.
I know Jesus didn't eat pig, and he observed every Sabbath day.

Pig is perfectly clean once it is properly cooked. It was symbolic of spiritual uncleanness because pigs were created to depict that. But they can be made perfectly clean as food. Science knows this. Theology teaches it. Peter was shown that in a vision.

 

[Humblepie]

Paul himself "obsessed" over the same issue when he dealt with the "Circumcision Party" who wanted all Christians to get circumcised

You are missing the context.

Acts 15:1 sets the context, you can't change that.

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.


They said you can't be saved unless you are circumcised.

That's not what Paul taught.

He taught salvation through faith, not salvation through works of the Law.

The circumcision party claimed you must follow the law ****** first****** in order to be saved.

Acts 15:21 is Always skipped by non Torah Christians.

In their decree they said

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Two are actually food laws from the Torah, one is sexually morality, from the Torah, and one is having no other Gods except Him. From the Torah.


All of those are written in the Law of Moses, then he sums it up by saying this in verse 21
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

He said they will learn the rest of the Torah on the Sabbath day where Moses is taught every week.

 

[Humblepie]

Peter was shown that in a vision.

He wasn't shown pig is clean.
Go back and read it again.
He tells us twice, exactly what the vision meant and it had NOTHING to do with food.

 

[Humblepie]

Are you saying you don't believe Paul anymore, that you wish to reinterpret what Paul explicitly said?

I believe everything Paul taught, I just read it in context.

All letters should be read and understood from the first verse to the last verse in context and must line up with ALL scriptures in the OT, and that's exactly what they do.
You would understand this if you would rid yourself of your pre conceived notions and doctrines of men.

 

[Humblepie]

What the New Covenant specifically is is not elaborated on for the simple reason it had not come yet. What is clear from the context is that the New Covenant would accomplish something that the Old Covenant would fail at, namely establish Israel forever.

We know from history that the initiation of the New Covenant by Christ did not immediately restore the nation of Israel. So Jeremiah was not stating when the New Covenant would bring this about for Israel, nor even when it would be initiated. He did say it would bring Israel heart to heart with God, but all of God's covenants were intended to be "from the heart." It's just that a covenant that ultimately succeeds also has to be one "from the heart."

Can you please point that part out in Jeremiah's description of exactly what the new covenant is?

You can copy and paste it please.

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

35 Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is his name:

36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

37 Thus saith the Lord; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord

 

[RandyK]

They said you can't be saved unless you are circumcised.
That's not what Paul taught.

I agree.

He taught salvation through faith, not salvation through works of the Law.

I agree--this has been the whole point I've been making.

Acts 15:21 is Always skipped by non Torah Christians.

I've never skipped Acts 15.21, and like you indicate above, Paul was against any notion of Salvation by Law.

Acts 15.21 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.

There is a difference between "reading the Law and preaching the Law" and knowing that the Law is no longer enforced by God.

In their decree they said
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Two are actually food laws from the Torah, one is sexually morality, from the Torah, and one is having no other Gods except Him. From the Torah.

Yes, Paul elsewhere said that he became "like the Jew to win the Jew." That is, he was willing to adopt Jewish customs that he felt were no longer in force simply to be able to reach them with the Gospel, and not create an impassible barrier by offending their own cultural values.

The prohibition on sexual immortality was, however, a Moral Law and is valid in the NT as well as it was in the OT. So Paul put currently valid laws on a par with laws not required of the Christian, indicating that showing respect for those of other cultures were as much a moral issue as sexual immorality. "Love" was the rule, which involved respect for God as well as for people.

All of those are written in the Law of Moses, then he sums it up by saying this in verse 21
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

He said they will learn the rest of the Torah on the Sabbath day where Moses is taught every week.

To reach the Jew Paul could only reach them where they met as Jews. And since he also was a Jew he could meet them on their own turf. It didn't at all mean that Paul was advocating for the command to "Keep the Sabbath Day."

 

[RandyK]

He wasn't shown pig is clean.
Go back and read it again.
He tells us twice, exactly what the vision meant and it had NOTHING to do with food.

No, Peter was shown this....
Acts 10.15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
Acts 11.9 “The voice spoke from heaven a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’

The context was "unclean food," which includes "pigs."

Acts 10.11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

So what was the purpose of this vision? It was to show Peter that what appears outwardly to be unclean can be made clean through internal conversion. This is a good argument to see that food that looks "unclean" can be made "clean" simply by cooking it.

Acts 10.34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.

Christians were initially concerned because the OT pattern of avoiding unclean people, ie pagans appeared to be violated by Peter when he reached out to Gentiles.

Acts 11.1 The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him 3 and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

You should not judge Christians for eating pork, or for eating anything formerly considered "unclean" under Jewish Law. What God makes clean is clean.

In fact, pig meat was never unclean in and of itself--only by the Law of Israel. Good cooking could always render what God said in the beginning true...

Gen 9.3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

 

[RandyK]

Can you please point that part out in Jeremiah's description of exactly what the new covenant is?

I already answered this. Post #245.
What the New Covenant specifically is is not elaborated on for the simple reason it had not come yet. What is clear from the context is that the New Covenant would accomplish something that the Old Covenant would fail at, namely establish Israel forever.

We know from history that the initiation of the New Covenant by Christ did not immediately restore the nation of Israel. So Jeremiah was not stating when the New Covenant would bring this about for Israel, nor even when it would be initiated (note: the New Covenant was actually initiated at Christ's death).

He did say it would bring Israel heart to heart with God, but all of God's covenants were intended to be "from the heart." It's just that a covenant that ultimately succeeds also has to be one "from the heart."

It is often said that the New Covenant is distinguished by being able to impart mutual knowledge of God to all Christians...

Jer 31.33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.

But 1) having God's Law written on their minds, and 2) teaching each other about the Lord are characteristic of every move of God, OT and NT. This is not intended by the Prophet to indicate the difference between the testaments.

Rather, it is the fact that the New Covenant will end the struggles of the present age in which Israel largely fails to enter into their eternal inheritance...

Jer 31.34 “For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

 

[Humblepie]

I already answered this. Post #245.

No you didn't.

 

[Humblepie]

You should not take lightly NT Theology which indicates that the Old Law of Moses is outdated, and we are now under a New Covenant that exclusively is able to give you Eternal Salvation. I am indeed proudly without the Law of Moses because unless I am, then I'm not a recipient of Eternal Life, which came only through Christ, whose New Covenant alone gives me that guarantee.

Gal 4.17 Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may have zeal for them. 18 It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good, and to be so always, not just when I am with you. 19 My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, 20 how I wish I could be with you now and change my tone, because I am perplexed about you!
21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?

Can you please point that part out in Jeremiah's description of exactly what the new covenant is?

You can copy and paste it please.

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

 

[RandyK]

No you didn't.

I gave you the post number, quoted from it, and explained how it answers your question. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you....

 

[RandyK]

Can you please point that part out in Jeremiah's description of exactly what the new covenant is?

You can copy and paste it please.

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

I'm not playing... I answered this, and you say I didn't. I suppose that ends the conversation?