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

[JLB]

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

Yes He doesn’t intend for us to sacrifice animals for our sins.

He doesn’t intend for us to have to travel to Jerusalem to worship God.

He doesn’t intend for Jews and Gentiles to be separated but rather He intends for us to be one new man in Christ.

He doesn’t intended for us to wear special clothes that aren’t mixed material to make us holy.

He doesn’t intend for us to eat special foods to make us holy.

He does intend for us to observe special days to make us holy.


And the list goes on some 600 more times.

 

[Humblepie]

Yes He doesn’t intend for us to sacrifice animals for our sins.

He doesn’t intend for us to have to travel to Jerusalem to worship God.

He doesn’t intend for Jews and Gentiles to be separated but rather He intends for us to be one new man in Christ.

He doesn’t intended for us to wear special clothes that aren’t mixed material to make us holy.

He doesn’t intend for us to eat special foods to make us holy.

He does intend for us to observe special days to make us holy.


And the list goes on some 600 more times.

It has always been righteousness by faith
It has never been righteousness by obedience.

He doesn’t intend for Jews and Gentiles to be separated

That is not Torah law, that was a commandment of MEN.
If you spent more time in Scripture you would know the difference.

The same today as 6000 years ago, righteousness by faith, not by obedience.

Obedience is the fruit of your faith.

 

[Humblepie]

Yes He doesn’t intend for us to sacrifice animals for our sins.

He doesn’t intend for us to have to travel to Jerusalem to worship God.

He doesn’t intend for Jews and Gentiles to be separated but rather He intends for us to be one new man in Christ.

He doesn’t intended for us to wear special clothes that aren’t mixed material to make us holy.

He doesn’t intend for us to eat special foods to make us holy.

He does intend for us to observe special days to make us holy.


And the list goes on some 600 more times.

Maybe God will share a pig with you when you arrive in heaven.

 

[Hopeful 2]

I say this in love brothers, not to judge.
We have all read these verses many times, we all say That couldn't be me.
It you go back to Original writing in Greek you will learn something that may not settle well with your soal, I urge you to at least pray about it.
The very last word in these verses doesn't really carry the weight it does in Greek.
You may have never studied it.
I pray you will not flat out reject it without at least looking for yourself.
The word iniquity.
In Greek.
You can Google it.
What's the Greek word for without.
Answer: A
What's the Greek word for Torah
Answer: Nomos
What's the Greek word for iniquity
Answer: Anamosanomos means WITHOUT TORAH.
Animos is the Greek word for iniquity.
Matt 7:22-23
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that are without Torah.

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Rom 8:1)

As you don't believe we can live without sinning anyway, why add even more demands to our agendas ?
One sin or twenty, the end will be the same !

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

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).

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.

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.

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.

As long as you phrase the weekend rest as “Sabbath law”, “requirement”, you are thinking like the Pharisees to whom men are made for Sabbath, not like Jesus to whom Sabbath is made for men. I’ve never met anybody who’s so obsessed over a day off and meanwhile denying that he’s obsessed.

Truth be told, Paul wasn’t obsessed over circumcision, his obsession was a response to the Jewish community’s obsession, it was a polemic. Circumcision is beneficial in preventing STDs and improving personal hygiene, that applies to both Jews and Gentiles, and the 8th day after birth is the best time to do it, less pain and blood loss, this has been proven by science. Therefore circumcision should NOT be a religious or identity issue.

The same logic goes to Sabbath, I’ve repeatedly explained to you how it’s a blessing, not a burden, it is you who don’t bother to listen, you can’t see it from another perspective but a religious one. Be honest to yourself, man, do you prefer your boss *require* you to work extra hours on Saturday as an alternative? If you don’t want the “requirement” of the Sabbath, don’t take the benefit of the Sabbath either. Your concern is invalid, nobody’s requiring anybody to “observe the Sabbath law”, yet the Bible says don’t forsake the gathering like those in the habit of doing so, when two or three gather together Christ is in their midst, is that a “requirement”? You tell me, man. You know, the activity is essential the same, always has been, the only difference is how you describe it.

 

[RandyK]

As long as you phrase the weekend rest as “Sabbath law”, “requirement”, you are thinking like the Pharisees to whom men are made for Sabbath, not like Jesus to whom Sabbath is made for men. I’ve never met anybody who’s so obsessed over a day off and meanwhile denying that he’s obsessed.

You seem bent on trashing me to defend your "unimportant" position?

Truth be told, Paul wasn’t obsessed over circumcision, his obsession was a response to the Jewish community’s obsession, it was a polemic. Circumcision is beneficial in preventing STDs and improving personal hygiene, that applies to both Jews and Gentiles, and the 8th day after birth is the best time to do it, less pain and blood loss, this has been proven by science. Therefore circumcision should NOT be a religious or identity issue.

Under the Law circumcision was a law. That is the point. It was not being done primarily for "health reasons." It was done for "religious reasons," to show that the men were in covenant with God. Probably in their weakest area they were visually reminded of the need to obey God in social matters.

Paul wasn't actually "obsessing" over Circumcision. He saw NT requirement that circumcision be engaged in as a "return to the Law of Moses," and thus a confusion of his Gospel of Grace. Without the Law of Moses in effect anymore, insistence that men still be circumcised was a throwback to another, out-moded covenant seemingly negating the new covenant and the grace it promised.

Salvation could never come by circumcision, and it was never meant to. So when Salvation came by Christ the need for circumcision went away. And Paul didn't want any confusion about that.

Circumcision divided Jews and non-Jews, and this circumnavigated Paul's Gospel. Nobody is more qualified for heaven strictly because they indulge in circumcision. Circumcision was intended to point to a Salvation that faith obtains only through the death of Christ.

The same logic goes to Sabbath, I’ve repeatedly explained to you how it’s a blessing, not a burden, it is you who don’t bother to listen, you can’t see it from another perspective but a religious one.

That's because I disagree with you. Sabbath Law is not a blessing today--it is a curse, along with the entire Law. It was intended to bring blessings to Israel, but it also reminded them that they were forbidden access to the Tree of Life.

To return to the Law is a reminder of our sin. And the Law is no longer capable of bringing blessing since it is a covenant that has long been abandoned by God, and fulfilled by Christ.

Be honest to yourself, man, do you prefer your boss *require* you to work extra hours on Saturday as an alternative? If you don’t want the “requirement” of the Sabbath, don’t take the benefit of the Sabbath either.

You are conflating Sabbath Law with Labor Law. I can take Leave without any resort to the Sabbath at all. I would want, perhaps, to take Sunday off to go to church--not to rest.

But if rest comes with taking a day off, that's great--we all need rest. We all need a break.

The Sabbath represented that to some degree, but it is not integrally related to Labor Law. If it was, then only Saturday would be given off, and nobody could do home jobs on their day off.

Your concern is invalid, nobody’s requiring anybody to “observe the Sabbath law”, yet the Bible says don’t forsake the gathering like those in the habit of doing so, when two or three gather together Christ is in their midst, is that a “requirement”? You tell me, man. You know, the activity is essential the same, always has been, the only difference is how you describe it.

You have to understand that having a holy convocation does not have to relate to Sabbath Law at all. Yes, gathering together as Christians is a requirement, but not under the Old Covenant that required *all of the 613 requirements be kept.*

If you're going to require Sabbath Law as part of the entire Law, then you're going to have to get back the Temple, the Priesthood, and the animal sacrifices, along with the dietary laws, and the holy calendar, along with all of the purification rituals, which never could completely purify men for Eternity.

It wasn't just common morality, but much more--feast days celebrating the sacred history of Israel along with the promises specifically made to them. And so, the Law was primarily for Israel, and if Sabbath Law was followed, it was followed by those who were citizens of Israel. It wasn't for non-Jews.

If you want to advance a new kind of Covenant modelled after the Law of Israel then you'll end up placing modern nations back under conditions of Law and Judgment for Sin--not Grace. But if you convert the Law of Moses to the NT system of Grace you no longer have a means of creating equivalencies between the covenants--they are completely at odds with one another. One led to judgment. The other leads to Eternal Salvation.

There is no NT equivalency of the OT Sabbath. It blessed Israel and condemned them at the same time, because apart from Christ the Law pointed out that all men fell short of God's glory.

If there is any NT equivalency of Sabbath at all, it is not as a law. It is rather freedom from failure under the Law, marked by failure by Israel to observe Sabbath Law.

It is not through our Works that we're saved, but only through what Christ did and through his free gift to us. Moral law exists, but nothing remaining of pre-redemptive Law. Creating a NT equivalency of the Mosaic Law can only be expressed in liberty--not in new laws that express human failure under that old system.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You seem bent on trashing me to defend your "unimportant" position?

Under the Law circumcision was a law. That is the point. It was not being done primarily for "health reasons." It was done for "religious reasons," to show that the men were in covenant with God. Probably in their weakest area they were visually reminded of the need to obey God in social matters.

Paul wasn't actually "obsessing" over Circumcision. He saw NT requirement that circumcision be engaged in as a "return to the Law of Moses," and thus a confusion of his Gospel of Grace. Without the Law of Moses in effect anymore, insistence that men still be circumcised was a throwback to another, out-moded covenant seemingly negating the new covenant and the grace it promised.

Salvation could never come by circumcision, and it was never meant to. So when Salvation came by Christ the need for circumcision went away. And Paul didn't want any confusion about that.

Circumcision divided Jews and non-Jews, and this circumnavigated Paul's Gospel. Nobody is more qualified for heaven strictly because they indulge in circumcision. Circumcision was intended to point to a Salvation that faith obtains only through the death of Christ.

That's because I disagree with you. Sabbath Law is not a blessing today--it is a curse, along with the entire Law. It was intended to bring blessings to Israel, but it also reminded them that they were forbidden access to the Tree of Life.

To return to the Law is a reminder of our sin. And the Law is no longer capable of bringing blessing since it is a covenant that has long been abandoned by God, and fulfilled by Christ.

You are conflating Sabbath Law with Labor Law. I can take Leave without any resort to the Sabbath at all. I would want, perhaps, to take Sunday off to go to church--not to rest.

But if rest comes with taking a day off, that's great--we all need rest. We all need a break.

The Sabbath represented that to some degree, but it is not integrally related to Labor Law. If it was, then only Saturday would be given off, and nobody could do home jobs on their day off.

You have to understand that having a holy convocation does not have to relate to Sabbath Law at all. Yes, gathering together as Christians is a requirement, but not under the Old Covenant that required *all of the 613 requirements be kept.*

If you're going to require Sabbath Law as part of the entire Law, then you're going to have to get back the Temple, the Priesthood, and the animal sacrifices, along with the dietary laws, and the holy calendar, along with all of the purification rituals, which never could completely purify men for Eternity.

It wasn't just common morality, but much more--feast days celebrating the sacred history of Israel along with the promises specifically made to them. And so, the Law was primarily for Israel, and if Sabbath Law was followed, it was followed by those who were citizens of Israel. It wasn't for non-Jews.

If you want to advance a new kind of Covenant modelled after the Law of Israel then you'll end up placing modern nations back under conditions of Law and Judgment for Sin--not Grace. But if you convert the Law of Moses to the NT system of Grace you no longer have a means of creating equivalencies between the covenants--they are completely at odds with one another. One led to judgment. The other leads to Eternal Salvation.

There is no NT equivalency of the OT Sabbath. It blessed Israel and condemned them at the same time, because apart from Christ the Law pointed out that all men fell short of God's glory.

If there is any NT equivalency of Sabbath at all, it is not as a law. It is rather freedom from failure under the Law, marked by failure by Israel to observe Sabbath Law.

It is not through our Works that we're saved, but only through what Christ did and through his free gift to us. Moral law exists, but nothing remaining of pre-redemptive Law. Creating a NT equivalency of the Mosaic Law can only be expressed in liberty--not in new laws that express human failure under that old system.

Your antinomian religous position is the unimportant one. All laws are made for the stiff-necked, immature, rebellious Israelites who can't be trusted with their own initiative, it's the kind of person who always have to be monitored, regulated and told what to do, they live with a slave mentality, that's why he who's under law is under a curse.

Christians are supposedly under grace, blessed with the freedom in Christ, but this freedom is not free, it demands spiritual maturity, from which comes love, peace, joy, long suffering, self-discipline. But if you still walk in the flesh and abuse this grace to sin, then you'll lose it, and you'll put yourself back into the bondage of sin. You consistently consider Sabbath as a restriction instead of a blessing, and the Torah as law instead of instruction, that shows this slave mentality in you. You're not able to think like a free man with common sense. I call you a pharisee because Sabbath is a blessing not a curse, you turn a blessing into a curse by framing it "requirement by Mosaic law", and yet you yourself have been taking the benefit from it, you're behaving exactly like the pharisees. You can keep denying that church service is the equivalent of "holy convocation" till your last breath, and somehow that "requirement" is a blessing while "keeping the Sabbath holy" by doing the same thing is a curse, you're only deceiving yourself.

Many Christians fail to understand the difference between blessing and salvation, they often conflate the two, which brings forth all kinds of heresies, and it seems you're definitely one of them. So to clarify, salvation is a free gift that requires no work, blessings on the other hand are worldly benefits, including those health benefits I mentioned, and they are CONTINGENT upon observance of the law. If you don't obey, you won't lose your salvation, but you'll lose God's blessings; and depending on how far you've strayed, you'll lose what you have before you were saved, you'll be ruled by pagans and becoming more miserable than them, says not I but the bible, it's all written in Deut. 28, the list of curses is three times as long as the list of blessings. If you dismiss that is irrelevant, well, open your eyes and think again. We're living in a dystopia, a spiritual Egypt and Sodom, that's the fulfillment of Deut. 28.

Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the Lord your God will set you high above all nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, because you obey the voice of the Lord your God ... (Deut. 28:1-2)

But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you ... (Deut. 28:15)

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

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.

I don't abhor a meaningful discussion on the topic of Sabbath day itself, I abhor your ungrateful caricature of it and your hypocritical attitude. I have presented Ex. 16, in which Sabbath was already in practice before Moses receive the "law" from Mount Sinai, that debunks your claim of "Sabbath law". If you truly believe we're not under law, then why are you still dealing the Sabbath as a "law" - instead of a simple labor issue? Why do you still think as though you were under the law?

 

[eddif]

Roman’s 14:5 kjv
5. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Looking at a day is looking at a shadow. Searching for a higher order meaning is searching for the ultimate reality. Christ Jesus accomplished the rest we need. When Jesus sait ( it is finished) he rested. We need to enter His rest the same as the creation rest.

Symbolism is hard to see.
If the seed is the Word of God
The ground is men’s hearts
And
The Parable of the Sower is a key to understanding all symbolism, then let us pray the eyes of our understanding be enlightened to the hope of his calling.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[JLB]

It has always been righteousness by faith

Again, your opinion like so many other of your posts are diametrically opposed to what the scripture teaches us in the New Testament.

Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.” Galatians 3:12

I have asked several question that you just ignore and won’t be honest in your discussion.

Please be honest. No one is saying we as Christians are without law.

We are under grace; the law of Christ and His commandment's.

I have asked you to point out where Jesus or Paul have instructed the Church to observe the Sabbath.

So far you have not.


I have also asked you if you believe the “Seed” ( The Messiah) has come. The reason I asked this question which comes from the following scripture, is Paul says the law was added UNTIL the Seed should come.

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.
Galatians 3:19

Jesus taught the same thing, yet you ignore these direct and clear statements from both Paul and Jesus.

UNTIL indicates the law was temporary UNTIL the Seed should come.

Jesus plainly stated Nothing would pass from the law UNTIL it was fulfilled. Jesus said He came came to fulfill the law.

Jesus is not a liar. Jesus did not fail at what He came to do.


“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Matthew 5:17-18

• one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled

Do you believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah who fulfilled the law?

Do you believe Jesus Christ is the Seed who has come?





JLB

 

[Humblepie]

So far you have not.

I have, but you,must not have read that post.

I actually showed you multiple times,

 

[Humblepie]

Jesus plainly stated Nothing would pass from the law UNTIL it was fulfilled. Jesus said He came came to fulfill the law.

Lol,
The Messiah came, but the lion has not, it has not been fulfilled yet.

Therefore the law remains.






Did you stop reading at THINK NOT?

I believe so.












17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

[RandyK]

I don't abhor a meaningful discussion on the topic of Sabbath day itself, I abhor your ungrateful caricature of it and your hypocritical attitude. I have presented Ex. 16, in which Sabbath was already in practice before Moses receive the "law" from Mount Sinai, that debunks your claim of "Sabbath law". If you truly believe we're not under law, then why are you still dealing the Sabbath as a "law" - instead of a simple labor issue? Why do you still think as though you were under the law?

Calling me a "hypocrite" is inciteful, and will accomplish nothing.

As I said, Sabbath practice before Mt. Sinai was, in my view, the start of Sabbath law for Israel, and not a precursor of it. The incident with quail seems to have provided the lesson behind the Sabbath law, which had to do with trusting God for His provisions.

Although we still trust God for His provisions today, the specific ritual God determined with Israel was pre-redemptive, ie it occured before Christ and in anticipation of his redemption. So today, although we trust for God's provision we no longer await Christ's redemption--we already have it.

A lot of Christians do not understand the relationship between Sabbath ritual and Christian rest. Rather than try to explain it to them I 1st show them that one is a law for a specific era and that that era is no longer here.

If this can be accepted then I go on to explain the difference between Sabbath ritual and Christian rest. If I try to do things in reverse they never seem to work. The difference in eras must be accepted first.

I do not have disrespect for Sabbath nor am I hypocritical about it. This is my consistent view of it. I'm not obsessed with it, and can drop the discussion with you right now. But as long as you continue to ask me questions about Why I believe as I do, I feel the need to respond.

I'm just not interested in your calling me a "hypocrite." That doesn't lead to a good place. So if you think the discussion is worthless, don't ask me any more questions about why I believe as I do.

However, your making public proclamatioins that Christianity endorses Sabbath Law in any way causes me to respond publicly as well--not to argue with you, but to defend others against what I see as errant doctrine.

 

[RandyK]

Your antinomian religous position is the unimportant one.

My position is not "anitnomian." I believe in Christian Law--just not Mosaic Law! God's Word is near us and speaks to our heart. When God speaks to us it becomes a "law" for us. When He calls us to live in love, that is "law."

Christians are supposedly under grace, blessed with the freedom in Christ, but this freedom is not free, it demands spiritual maturity, from which comes love, peace, joy, long suffering, self-discipline.

The kind of "freedom" that the Bible speaks of on behalf of the Christian is not freedom from lawful behavior. Rather, it is freedom from bondage to the Law of Moses, as well as freedom from our own selfishness.

Grace suggests that we are free from condemnation because any law we have ever broken or ever will break has been covered by the redemption of Christ. There is no law we need to observe to earn that redemption since only Christ could do it and did do it.

But if you still walk in the flesh and abuse this grace to sin, then you'll lose it, and you'll put yourself back into the bondage of sin. You consistently consider Sabbath as a restriction instead of a blessing, and the Torah as law instead of instruction, that shows this slave mentality in you.

Sabbath Law, along with all of the other ritual laws in the Mosaic Law, are indeed "restrictions." They are obligations that were doomed to fall short of obtaining Salvation. In that sense, although they were a blessing at the time, they were also a curse, because they could never achieve their end-goal, which was Eternal Salvation.

You can keep denying that church service is the equivalent of "holy convocation" till your last breath, and somehow that "requirement" is a blessing while "keeping the Sabbath holy" by doing the same thing is a curse, you're only deceiving yourself.

There is commonality between a church service and an OT "holy convocation" during the Sabbath, but they are not the same thing. The "law" requiring Christians to gather together is different from the Sabbath Law requiringg a "holy convocation." They are similar, but different. One falls short of Salvation, and the other is a celebration of our Salvation.

So to clarify, salvation is a free gift that requires no work, blessings on the other hand are worldly benefits, including those health benefits I mentioned, and they are CONTINGENT upon observance of the law.

This was true only when the Law of Moses was still in effect. When that covenant was in effect, then the provisions of the Law were that if Israel obeyed the Law they would be blessed and prosper in this world. It would not, however, result in Eternal Salvation apart form Christ's atonement.

You are again conflating "health benefits" with "keeping the Law." Although there may be health benefits in keeping a law that required not touching contaminated animal carcasses, the purpose was not to provide health in this way. Rather, the purpose was to display holiness in a pre-redemptive way until redemption through Christ had actually arrived.

Divine Law, therefore, is not just to bring about worldly benefits. Rather, it also requires men to accept His means of Salvation, namely receive Christ.

This is a "heavenly benefit," which also can bring about some worldly benefits. God's word always provides some benefits in the world, while leading, ultimately, to Eternal Salvation.

We should not, therefore, differentiate between Salvation and Worldly Benefits, between Grace and Divine Law. I speak of of "Divine Law" in the generic sense, and not in the strictly Mosaic sense.

Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the Lord your God will set you high above all nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, because you obey the voice of the Lord your God ... (Deut. 28:1-2)

This is not Eternal Law, but rather, a limited Covenant that expired with the death of Christ. Though the principles of God's word remain eternally, we must distinguish how God Himself views a temporal covenant and properly relate it to His eternal Word.

God will *always* require conformity to His Word, whether it is during a temporal covenant or beyond it. It is whatever God is saying to your heart today.

 

[RandyK]

Oh well
I thought I gave the time context regarding the Law of Moses (The Schoolmaster till Christ did come).

Mississippi redneck
eddif

You're right. Jesus said, "17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

The Law, ie God's Word, never failed. It was a covenant embedded in time, and being God's Word never failed and can never fail--not even after the universe has passed away and is replaced by a modifed, better one.

It is Israel that failed the covenant of the Law, and God knew they would. Sin would always seep through a "mixed society" gobbling up those who love paganism and those who are weak to compromise, until the entire nation fails any covenant with God. God knew this would happen, and did not expect the covenant of Law to last until the end of time.

Israel would fail, and the Covenant would pass. But God's Word never fails, and it didn't fail with the Mosaic Covenant either. It was Israel who failed it, causing it to lapse.

So yes, the Law, ie the "schoolmaster" was until Christ came, who could fulfill the Law for Israel. And Israel could never fulfill the Law.

Israel's Salvation could never come by the Law of Moses, but only through Christ's redemption and ultimately, through the judgment that Christ will bring at his Coming. God's word was determined to be fulfilled through a New Covenant, and not by the hands of sinful men whose works would always fall short of Eternal Life.

 

[RandyK]

Lol,
The Messiah came, but the lion has not, it has not been fulfilled yet.
Therefore the law remains.
Did you stop reading at THINK NOT?\I believe so.
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

From post #275....
Jesus said, "17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

The Law, ie God's Word, never failed. It was a covenant embedded in time, and being God's Word never failed and can never fail--not even after the universe has passed away and is replaced by a modifed, better one.

It is Israel that failed the covenant of the Law, and God knew they would. Sin would always seep through a "mixed society" gobbling up those who love paganism and those who are weak to compromise, until the entire nation fails any covenant with God. God knew this would happen, and did not expect the covenant of Law to last until the end of time.

Israel would fail, and the Covenant would pass. But God's Word never fails, and it didn't fail with the Mosaic Covenant either. It was Israel who failed it, causing it to lapse.

So yes, the Law, ie the "schoolmaster" was until Christ came, who could fulfill the Law for Israel. And Israel could never fulfill the Law.

Israel's Salvation could never come by the Law of Moses, but only through Christ's redemption and ultimately, through the judgment that Christ will bring at his Coming. God's word was determined to be fulfilled through a New Covenant, and not by the hands of sinful men whose works would always fall short of Eternal Life.

You misread what Jesus said in his Sermon on the Mount. He clearly said...
1) he came to fulfill the Law
2) the righteousness of the Pharisees under the Law fell short and had to be exceeded

He also said that God's word can never fail. It didn't fail under the Law of Moses, and what God said and did under the Law of Moses is as true today as it was then. It just lapsed as a covenant when Israel rejected Jesus. Do you see that?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Calling me a "hypocrite" is inciteful, and will accomplish nothing.

As I said, Sabbath practice before Mt. Sinai was, in my view, the start of Sabbath law for Israel, and not a precursor of it. The incident with quail seems to have provided the lesson behind the Sabbath law, which had to do with trusting God for His provisions.

Except it was not a law at that point, but a practice and, as you said, a lesson. Moses received the law at Mount Sinai, until then there was no formal law. Your view is just your bias.

A lot of Christians do not understand the relationship between Sabbath ritual and Christian rest. Rather than try to explain it to them I 1st show them that one is a law for a specific era and that that era is no longer here.

If this can be accepted then I go on to explain the difference between Sabbath ritual and Christian rest. If I try to do things in reverse they never seem to work. The difference in eras must be accepted first.

If you truly believe that we're living in the era of grace where the law is no longer in effect, then stop calling Sabbath a law and take it as a day off. It never seems to work because you yourself haven't accepted that difference in eras.

I do not have disrespect for Sabbath nor am I hypocritical about it. This is my consistent view of it. I'm not obsessed with it, and can drop the discussion with you right now. But as long as you continue to ask me questions about Why I believe as I do, I feel the need to respond.

I'm just not interested in your calling me a "hypocrite." That doesn't lead to a good place. So if you think the discussion is worthless, don't ask me any more questions about why I believe as I do.

However, your making public proclamatioins that Christianity endorses Sabbath Law in any way causes me to respond publicly as well--not to argue with you, but to defend others against what I see as errant doctrine.

I've consistently expressed my view of Sabbath - not Sabbath "law", but Sabbath itself - the seventh day in which God rested, which foreshadows the millennial reign of Christ, in which all mankind will rest in Christ. "Endorsing" Sabbath law is a false accusation, I endorse it as much as I endorse other commandments - you shall not kill, steal, commit adultery, etc. Didn't Jesus himself tell the rich young ruler to keep these commandments? How would it be any different after his death and resurrection? All I see in your proclamation is antinomianism, despite your denial.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

My position is not "anitnomian." I believe in Christian Law--just not Mosaic Law! God's Word is near us and speaks to our heart. When God speaks to us it becomes a "law" for us. When He calls us to live in love, that is "law."

I believe Mosaic law is a guidance of healthy and godly living, especially the ceremonial laws in Leviticus. Observance gives you certian benefits, but it's not a salvation issue.

The kind of "freedom" that the Bible speaks of on behalf of the Christian is not freedom from lawful behavior. Rather, it is freedom from bondage to the Law of Moses, as well as freedom from our own selfishness.

Grace suggests that we are free from condemnation because any law we have ever broken or ever will break has been covered by the redemption of Christ. There is no law we need to observe to earn that redemption since only Christ could do it and did do it.

No, that freedom is the freedom from the bondage of SIN, not law. Law is not sin, but a reflection of sin. Like without diagnosis you don't know the disease, without law you don't know sin, and without knowing sin there'd be no need for Christ, for Christ died for our sin.

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”" (Rom. 7:7)

Sabbath Law, along with all of the other ritual laws in the Mosaic Law, are indeed "restrictions." They are obligations that were doomed to fall short of obtaining Salvation. In that sense, although they were a blessing at the time, they were also a curse, because they could never achieve their end-goal, which was Eternal Salvation.

Ironically, the end goal is Christ's millennial reign of his kingdom, which would be all mankind's ultimate Sabbath rest in Christ. Every Sabbath is the end of a weekly cycle that foreshadows the kingdom, by keeping the Sabbath you get a small taste of the kingdom exprience, that's its purpose. It was never meant to be a "restriction", the Pharisees made it a "restriction" and so did you.

There is commonality between a church service and an OT "holy convocation" during the Sabbath, but they are not the same thing. The "law" requiring Christians to gather together is different from the Sabbath Law requiringg a "holy convocation." They are similar, but different. One falls short of Salvation, and the other is a celebration of our Salvation.

Yet both are rituals of "holy convocation", and neither is tied to salvation, the only requirement for salvation is to be baptized in water and spirit, Jn. 3:5.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

This is not Eternal Law, but rather, a limited Covenant that expired with the death of Christ. Though the principles of God's word remain eternally, we must distinguish how God Himself views a temporal covenant and properly relate it to His eternal Word.

God will *always* require conformity to His Word, whether it is during a temporal covenant or beyond it. It is whatever God is saying to your heart today.

If this has "expired", then how about Rom. 1:18-32? Why does God still exhibit his wrath of unrighteousness after the death and resurrection of Christ? Why would God give up on his own children who were saved through the blood of Christ? Keep in mind that this is not for pagans who don't know God, this letter was written for the Romans church. Seems to me a simplified version of Deut. 28 curses. And unless you're living under a rock, we're living in the midst of these curses, in the judgement of God on the entire western civilization. Of course it's just "temporary", but God will judge each one of us accoding to what we've done and what we've left undone in this "temporal covenant", our works be tested, our rewards be determined, 1 Cor. 3:14-15. What is temporal is a sneak peek of what is eternal. Again, it's not a salvation issue, but a blessing issue.

 

[RandyK]

Except it was not a law at that point, but a practice and, as you said, a lesson. Moses received the law at Mount Sinai, until then there was no formal law. Your view is just your bias.

The account of the quail appearing just before the formal giving of a Law that includes Sabbath, means that they are connected. Sabbath was made a law immediately before the formal giving of the Law which, in my view, connects them.

If you truly believe that we're living in the era of grace where the law is no longer in effect, then stop calling Sabbath a law and take it as a day off. It never seems to work because you yourself haven't accepted that difference in eras.

This is very confusing to me. I have accepted the difference between the era of Mosaic Law and the era of Christian Grace. And I call Sabbath Law a "law" not being concerned about what era I'm in, but only to describe what it was in the era of Mosaic Law.

Those who practice Sabbath Law as a law today are observing a strictly human law, and not a Divine law, in my view. If I take a day off, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Sabbath Law.

It is just the product of Labor laws which for many has nothing to do with Sabbath Law. For many others, who were Christians, they saw Sabbath Law more in the sense of a Christianized version of taking Sunday off to go to church.

Even if they said they were "observing Sabbath" they knew it was a Christianized version, and not the original command to observe the Jewish Sabbath Day. Otherwise, they would've wanted Saturday off, like SDAs.

I've consistently expressed my view of Sabbath - not Sabbath "law", but Sabbath itself - the seventh day in which God rested, which foreshadows the millennial reign of Christ, in which all mankind will rest in Christ. "Endorsing" Sabbath law is a false accusation, I endorse it as much as I endorse other commandments - you shall not kill, steal, commit adultery, etc. Didn't Jesus himself tell the rich young ruler to keep these commandments? How would it be any different after his death and resurrection? All I see in your proclamation is antinomianism, despite your denial.

Yes, I deny the NT doctrine of Grace is "antinomianism." Paul himself denied such.

What Jesus said to Jews during his earthly ministry involved commandments that ceased to apply as such after the Cross. After his death and resurrection he gave us "New Commandments" that were separate from the Law, and yet containing the Morality of the Law. This is NT Theology 101.