Originally Posted by - DRA -
However, the issue at hand is to decide if this observance continued when the law of Moses ended. According to Colossians 2:14 and Hebrews 9:15-17, that old law ended and Jesus' law went into effect.
When Jesus died on the cross he caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. This signified the end of the law of animal sacrifice, not Gods Royal law. Paul explained this in;[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman] (Heb.10:1, 9-10,18,26-27) (v.1) For the law [/FONT][/FONT](what law, the law of animal sacrifice?) [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. (v.9) Then said he, (Jesus) Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first that he may establish the second. (v.10) By which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. [/FONT][/FONT]
When Jesus died on the cross that was the end of the first covenant, which consisted of the blood
of animals and the keeping of Gods commandments. And his death also brought in the second covenant, which consist of the blood of Jesus and the keeping of Gods commandments.
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](v.18) Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. [/FONT][/FONT]In other words, no more animals are going to die for your sins. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](v.26) For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. [/FONT][/FONT]Now do we understand whats being said here? If you sin willfully after you have knowledge of what the truth is, no more animals are going to die for you. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](v.27) But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. [/FONT][/FONT]Now if you are being deceived into believing that once you are under Gods grace you no longer have to keep his commandments, all you have to look forward to is the day of judgement and the lake of fire (fiery indignation).
First of all, I appreciate your response.
Now, let's discuss a few things.
Let's note Colossians 2:14-17 (NKJV):
14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,
17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
For Thought: Per this text, as a result of Jesus' death on the cross, God's people were no longer to judge each other by the law of Moses. Note the things specifically mentioned. Does it give us the impression only the animal sacrifices and the things relating to them passed away? No. It was a broader scope that involved matters such as food, drink, and sabbaths. The point was these things were no longer in effect, therefore, they are not a part of the standard by which God's people can judge each other any longer. Today we live under the law of Christ, not the law of Moses. That's the point.
As for the book of Hebrews, it is a fascinating study. I would like to direct your attention first to chapter 7 ... where the details and implications are given of Jesus being a priest after the order of Melchizedek (versus the Levitical priesthood under the law of Moses). Let's note verse 12: "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law." The point is that priesthood and the law (i.e., the law of Moses) were connected. Thus, the declaration that Jesus was a priest after the order of Melchizedek meant a change in priesthood - which, of necessity, meant a change of the law. Let's continue with thought into the next chapter of Hebrews. According to 8:6-13, Jesus offers a better covenant than the first. Let's note that first covenant in Exodus 19:7-8 and 24:3 ...
19:7 So Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before them all these words which the Lord commanded him.
8 Then all the people answered together and said, "All that the Lord has spoken we will do." So Moses brought back the words of the people to the Lord.
and,
24:3 So Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the judgments. And all the people answered with one voice and said, "All the words which the Lord has said we will do."
For Thought: In fairness and due diligence to the text, did that first covenant involve the Israelites agreeing to keep all that God commanded, or just the part that involved animal sacrifices? Now, getting back to Hebrews 8, God prophesied through Jeremiah of a new covenant he would make with the Israel. Thus, the promise of a new covenant meant the old covenant would vanish away when the new covenant went into effect. And, according to chapter 9, that new covenant went into effect after Jesus' death (9:15-17). Thinking back to chapter 8, the new covenant involved God no longer remembering sins and lawless deeds (vs. 12). Considering the sequence of events following the death of Jesus, the remission of sins was extended in the name of the Lord (i.e., by His authority) in Acts 2:38. Therefore, that is when the new covenant went into effect. Fast forwarding in the book of Acts, I would again refer you to chapter 15. It deals with which aspects of the law of Moses were carried over into the law of Christ. I strongly suspect you will
not find the observance of the Sabbath listed as one of the requirements.
As for Hebrews chapter 10, I encourage you to rethink your understanding that "the law" in verse 1 only alludes to the animal sacrifices. True, the annual sacrifice of the high priest under the law of Moses foreshadowed Jesus' one-time sacrifice. However, are you positive it's the only shadow/type/copy under consideration in the context? For your consideration, let me direct your attention the veil in the tabernacle/temple, the one that separated the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place ... the one that was torn into from top to bottom at Jesus' death (Matthew 27:51). It is mentioned in Hebrews 9:3 and its antitype is discussed in 10:19-20. Perhaps I should also direct your attention to the admonition in verses 10:25-31,39. It presents God's judgment upon the disobedient Israelites as foreshadowing what can/will happen to those disobedient under the law of Christ (see also 1 Cor. 10:1-13). I suspect if you would like to dig deeper, you will find other types in the book of Hebrews (e.g., Melchizedek being a type/copy/shadow of Christ in chapter 7). With all fairness with the whole of the law of Moses and the O.T., I think you find numerous types/copies/shadow of Jesus - and not just in the animal sacrifices.
For Additional Thought: Let's consider your statement: "When Jesus died on the cross that was the end of the first covenant, which consisted of the blood of animals and the keeping of Gods commandments." The observance of the Sabbath was one of those commandment, right (Exodus 20:8-11)? Therefore, the requirement to keep this commandment ended on the cross per Col. 2:14 and Heb. 8:13, right? Right!
Originally Posted by - DRA -
Second, let's note Acts 13:14 (similar to several other passages in the book of Acts):
(Acts 13:13-15, 42, 44) (v.13) Now when Paul and his company loosed from Pa-phus, they came to Per-ga in Pam-phyl-I-a: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem. (v.14) But when they departed from Per-ga, they came to An-ti-och in Pi-sid-I-a, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Paul went into the church (synagogue) on the sabbath day the seventh day not the first day (Sunday). [/FONT][/FONT](v.15) And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on. (v.42) And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The Gentiles didnt asked Paul to come preach us something different next Sunday. They wanted Paul to preach to them the same thing that he taught the Jews, the next sabbath. Even the Gentiles knew that if they were going to serve the same God that Paul and the Jews (Israelites) served that they would have to serve him on the day that God had set up. [/FONT][/FONT](v.42) And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Not the next Sunday but the next sabbath.
[/FONT][/FONT]
Your comments on Acts 13:14 were: "Paul went into the church (synagogue) on the sabbath day the seventh day not the first day (Sunday)." Can you explain how you determined that "church" is synonymous with "synagogue?"
I'll grant you the points being made in the text: Paul went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day - Saturday - and taught. And, that the Gentiles wanted to hear more of the gospel of Christ on the following Sabbath. However, it obviously isn't in the text "that they [the Gentiles] would have to serve him on the day that God had set up." Obviously, that idea comes from somewhere else. I would like to know the scriptural basis for this conclusion.
Originally Posted by - DRA -
Third, Acts 20:7 clearly declares the disciples came together (i.e. assembled) on the Sabbath day, right? Wrong! They assembled on the first day of the week - which would be Sunday, right?
... This verse[/COLOR] [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT](Acts: 20:7) [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]says nothing about a change of the Lords holy sabbath day. And the term "break bread" simply means to eat, so every time Paul ate he broke bread, search it out for your self, the bible tells you to; [/FONT][/FONT](1Thess. 5:21) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
I understand what you are saying, but .... Acts 20:7 says, "Now
on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread." Am I mistaken, but I understand there's a difference between the first day of the week and the seventh day of the week? Let's consider what Exodus 20:10 says, "But the
seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates." Therefore, as I understand it, the disciples in Acts 20 came together on the day after the seventh day of the week (the Sabbath) - which would be the first day of the week, right?
Therefore, we have an approved example of Christians assembling on the first day of the week to worship God. As for observing the Sabbath, it certainly isn't taught/implied/inferred in any way by this passage or its context.
As for "breaking bread," it can indeed be used to describe a common everyday meal, but it can also be used to describe the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 10:16; 11:23-24). Given that breaking bread is associated with the coming together of the church in Acts 20:7, then according to the latter half of 1 Corinthians chapter 11 they were supposed to be observing the Lord's Supper. Note Paul's instructions in verse 34. They were to eat their common meals at home. Therefore, in harmonizing this teaching with Acts 20:7, I conclude the disciples came together to observe the Lord's Supper. Given some thought, Paul wrote the instructions to the Corinthians, and Paul is at the assembly in Acts 20. Therefore, I believe Paul was practicing what he taught (versus playing the hypocrite).
Let's give some thought to Acts 20:7. Any impression given the disciples assembled on the seventh day? Of course not. To suggest otherwise it to add to God's word or to suffer from strong delusion. Therefore, any consideration of their keeping the Sabbath must originate elsewhere, right? So ... where?