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.
