GENTILES OR CHRISTIANS PRACTICING THE SABBATH ?

[gadar perets]

But Jesus didn't say this. He said, "Moses said X, but I tell you Y". There was no Hillel or Shammai even referenced in Jesus' teaching. He didn't correct Hillel, He corrected Moses!

What did Moses say that Yeshua changed? Give me specifics.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I said sacrifices and offerings were fulfilled for believers because they received Yeshua as their true sacrifice for sin and atonement. Also, it is not that they are done away with for believers, but are now fulfilled through the effects of Yeshua's ongoing sacrifice.

Using the EXACT SAME reasoning, the law as a whole was fulfilled for believers because we accept Yeshua as our righteousness. Also, it is not done away with for believers, but is now fulfilled through the effects of Yeshua's ongoing righteousness. Or to the point of this thread, the Sabbath is fulfilled by Jesus meaning it is fulfilled through the effects of Jesus' ongoing rest.

Baptism is not abolished simply because Yeshua was baptized.

Actually it was. The baptism of John was for repentance and remission of sins. The baptism of Jesus is for dying to self, and being raised into Christ. It is a different baptism.

Neither is any law abolished simply because Yeshua kept all the laws that applied to him (fulfilled them).

Where have used the word "abolished"? No, you have started arguing against someone else, not me! I say the law is fulfilled in Jesus. In the same way He fulfilled the sacrifices and offerings, He fulfilled the WHOLE LAW.

Has heaven and earth passed away yet? If not, then neither has any jot and tittle of the law.

Matthew 5:18 "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."

Two options.

A. Heaven and earth exist = 100% of the Law is still in force
B. Heaven and earth disappear = the Law can disappear

You believe heaven and earth spoken of here are the literal physical heaven and earth, and 100% of the Mosaic Old Covenant Law is still in force until the end of this planet. This includes Temple sacrifices, the 3 annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem, etc. Not one Jot or Tittle has passed. Right?

I believe B. is correct. Here is why. The next time Jesus mentions heaven and earth is in Matthew 24:35 “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.” For context, Matthew 24 is about the destruction of the temple in the first century. Why did Jesus talk about heaven and earth passing away in the middle of discussing the destruction of the temple? Because the first century people referred to the temple system as “heaven and earth”. Did you already know this? You seem to be knowledgeable in Judaism.

So just to hammer it down, here is the context of Matthew 24:

Matthew 24:1-2 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

Soon after this He says, "Heaven and earth will pass away". Also, the Mount of Olives is opposite the temple, and Jesus sat on the Mount of Olives as He taught Matthew 24 literally facing the temple. Furthermore if you start reading from Matthew 21:33-46 and 22:7 Jesus is speaking directly of the imminent destruction of the temple in AD 70. Then the entire chapter 23 is Jesus rebuking the Pharisees, ending with 23:33-36 and the declaration that judgment was about to fall upon them within a generation (which historically and contextually would have meant 40 years). Then chapter 24 begins.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

What did Moses say that Yeshua changed? Give me specifics.

Matthew 19:8-9

1. Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.
2. But it was not this way from the beginning.
3. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

1. Moses permitted X
2. But from the beginning was Y
3. I tell you Y

 

[BobRyan]

Matthew 19:8-9

1. Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.
2. But it was not this way from the beginning.
3. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

That is a good example of civil law - vs moral law.

Civil law allowed for divorce - but morally it was STILL sin for as Christ said it was sin BEFORE that civil law came into effect and as He reminds us -- it is STILL sin even if the civil laws of the Romans or Jews still allow divorce.

 

[Joshua_5]

I agree that not everyone will take my view of this topic - I just wanted to get the Bible evidence on the table that is all. Everyone has free will and I am not trying to oppose that. The topic is about the Sabbath of the Ten Commandments and I think it is best to stick with that subject. There is enough posting here on the gentile-circumcision-but-just-for-infants topic to serve as reference if anyone cares to look into it. Let each person draw their own conclusions.

I guess the point being raised is that as circumcision was a higher law than the Sabbath, if one insists that the Sabbath is binding on Christians, one should likewise insist that circumcision is binding on Christians. Such a view, 'though incorrect, is more consistent that insisting on Sabbath keeping, but leaving circumcision up to the conscience of the individual believer.

 

[Joshua_5]

Your whole argument is founded upon the assumption of what you think they should have said. The fact is, Paul disproved the false accusations that he was teaching the Jews to not circumcise their children. By joining those who took the vow, he showed the Jewish believers that they should continue circumcising their children.

Moreso, he is showing it doesn't make a difference. If you want to circumcise your children for tradition's sake or because you believe it is good, good. If not, that's okay too. If you want to rest on the Sabbath for tradition's sake or because you believe it is good, good. If not, that's okay too. Neither observation of circumcision nor Sabbath keeping can improve our standing with God, because that is only achieved through Christ's work for us on the cross.

 

[Joshua_5]

The difference is that it was expedient that Timothy be circumcised so as not to hinder the preaching of the good news among the Jews at Derbe and Lystra . This type of circumcision was acceptable because it was not done to justify or save Timothy, but to further the Gospel.

If it was expedient that Timothy be circumcised so as not to hinder the preaching of the good news among the Jews at Derbe and Lystra, how much moreso for Paul to state emphatically that circumcision and observing the Sabbath should continue to be practiced as a means of pleasing God. I mean, Paul condemns sexual immorality, murder, idolatry, sorcery etc. He even goes so far as to state that women be silent in the churches, and it is better for men not to be married. Surely if he mentions things like these, he wouldn't have forgotten to mention simple things, such as continuing circumcision and Sabbath-keeping?

 

[danny ski]

I hope you realize that the commandments from the Torah are the bottom line, right? They're the starting point, a minimum requirement. You should keep that in mind when deciding which ones to obey and which ones to disregard.

 

[BobRyan]

I guess the point being raised is that as circumcision was a higher law than the Sabbath, if one insists that the Sabbath is binding on Christians, one should likewise insist that circumcision is binding on Christians. Such a view, 'though incorrect, is more consistent that insisting on Sabbath keeping, but leaving circumcision up to the conscience of the individual believer.

There is no command in OT or NT for gentiles to be circumcised
There is no example of circumcision in Genesis 2 - but we do have Marriage and the Sabbath in Genesis 2.
There is no claim in actual scripture that circumcision is a 'higher law' than the Bible Sabbath. Circumcision only applies to males in Israel - so not even all of Israel were subject to it... but the Sabbath is "for all mankind" in both OT Isaiah 66:23, Isaiah 56:1-8. and in NT Mark 2:27.

We have gentile Sabbath keeping in the actual Bible in both OT and NT for all mankind and for all eternity in Isaiah 66:23

We have not ONE example of such a thing for circumcision.

How then do you even get to your premise let alone your conclusion?

 

[BobRyan]

If it was expedient that Timothy be circumcised so as not to hinder the preaching of the good news among the Jews at Derbe and Lystra, how much moreso for Paul to state emphatically that circumcision and observing the Sabbath should continue to be practiced as a means of pleasing God.

It is pretty obvious that Jews were circumcised in OT and NT.

It is not at all obvious that gentile infants were ever circumcised - OT or NT.

It is then "no surprise" that someone might have expected Timothy to be circumcised ...

As for having repeat everything in the OT - well "Do not take God's name in vain" is not repeated in the NT by Paul or any NT writer - but Sabbath is both quoted AND we see it being observed "Sabbath after Sabbath" and indeed "every Sabbath" in the NT. Even so - that is not an argument for 'taking God's name in vain' - and we both agree to it.

 

[BobRyan]

4. Paul's statement in Galatians about Titus does not leave a lot of room for what you are suggesting. AT the very least he would need to limit that statement by "but Titus is encouraged to circumcise his children" or something of the sort. You cannot have the negative form as the only form in print - with the positive instruction you have suggested merely left to inference and imagination without one example of it in either OT or NT.

Gal 2
2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain. 3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

Paul points out that Titus is not compelled "though he was a Greek" he does not say "because he was not an infant". Paul does not indicate that the issue is whether or not someone is an infant. But rather - whether or not someone is Jew or gentile.

Your whole argument is founded upon the assumption of what you think they should have said. The fact is, Paul disproved the false accusations that he was teaching the Jews to not circumcise their children. By joining those who took the vow, he showed the Jewish believers that they should continue circumcising their children.

I merely point out that in your solution "the difference" is that adult gentiles should not be circumcised but gentile infants should be even though we have not one such example in OT or NT.

But in the actual text no such support is found. Paul does not say "because he was not an infant" - he does not give your one-and-only solution for why a gentile should not be circumcised.

The point remains.

Bob

 

[visionary]

Matthew 19:8-9

1. Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.
2. But it was not this way from the beginning.
3. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

1. Moses permitted X
2. But from the beginning was Y
3. I tell you Y

That example is Beginning is that which Yeshua focused back to, but didn't change since it was from the beginning.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

That example is Beginning is that which Yeshua focused back to, but didn't change since it was from the beginning.

Right. Moses changed it because of hardness of heart. But this is something to ponder. At least some of the Mosaic Law was NOT perfect.

 

[gadar perets]

Using the EXACT SAME reasoning, the law as a whole was fulfilled for believers because we accept Yeshua as our righteousness. Also, it is not done away with for believers, but is now fulfilled through the effects of Yeshua's ongoing righteousness. Or to the point of this thread, the Sabbath is fulfilled by Jesus meaning it is fulfilled through the effects of Jesus' ongoing rest.

The fact that Yeshua is our righteousness does not mean we do not have to walk in righteousness. All unrighteousness is sin. Therefore, we MUST walk in righteous while we are clothed with Yeshua's righteousness. To break Yahweh's commandments and yet claim to keep them through Yeshua is a farce.

Where have used the word "abolished"? No, you have started arguing against someone else, not me! I say the law is fulfilled in Jesus. In the same way He fulfilled the sacrifices and offerings, He fulfilled the WHOLE LAW.

You haven't used the word "abolished", but to say it means "put an end to" is the same thing as abolished. Here is the online definition:

a·bol·ish
əˈbäliSH/
verb
formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution)

How did he fulfill the Day of Trumpets (Yom Teruah)?

Matthew 5:18

"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."

Two options.

A. Heaven and earth exist = 100% of the Law is still in force
B. Heaven and earth disappear = the Law can disappear

You believe heaven and earth spoken of here are the literal physical heaven and earth, and 100% of the Mosaic Old Covenant Law is still in force until the end of this planet. This includes Temple sacrifices, the 3 annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem, etc. Not one Jot or Tittle has passed. Right?

I believe B. is correct. Here is why. The next time Jesus mentions heaven and earth is in Matthew 24:35 “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.” For context, Matthew 24 is about the destruction of the temple in the first century. Why did Jesus talk about heaven and earth passing away in the middle of discussing the destruction of the temple? Because the first century people referred to the temple system as “heaven and earth”. Did you already know this? You seem to be knowledgeable in Judaism.

Yeshua used "heaven and earth" (referring to the literal) in Matthew 11:25 before he used it in Matthew 24 (again referring to the literal). Provide your supporting evidence for the statement, "the first century people referred to the temple system as “heaven and earth”.

Matthew 5:19 disproves you;

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.​

Even the least commandments must be kept, not only now, but in the coming Kingdom of heaven.

 

[gadar perets]

Matthew 19:8-9

1. Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.
2. But it was not this way from the beginning.
3. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

1. Moses permitted X
2. But from the beginning was Y
3. I tell you Y

It is beyond me how you can see a change in the law here. Moses permitted divorce and so does Yeshua. Moses said they could divorce if some "uncleanness/nakedness" was found in the wife. Yeshua explains that uncleanness as sexual immorality.

 

[gadar perets]

That is a good example of civil law - vs moral law.

Civil law allowed for divorce - but morally it was STILL sin for as Christ said it was sin BEFORE that civil law came into effect and as He reminds us -- it is STILL sin even if the civil laws of the Romans or Jews still allow divorce.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 shows the only lawful reason for divorce is uncleanness due to something related to nakedness. All other divorces were sin. There is no distinction between civil and moral law here. It is all moral.

 

[gadar perets]

Moreso, he is showing it doesn't make a difference. If you want to circumcise your children for tradition's sake or because you believe it is good, good. If not, that's okay too. If you want to rest on the Sabbath for tradition's sake or because you believe it is good, good. If not, that's okay too. Neither observation of circumcision nor Sabbath keeping can improve our standing with God, because that is only achieved through Christ's work for us on the cross.

Sabbath keeping is not done for tradition's sake or because it is good or to improve our standing with God. It is done because we love our Father who told us to keep it holy and not work on that day. It is a fruit of our salvation through Messiah. To fail to obey the Sabbath command is SIN. Yeshua taught us to go and SIN no more.

 

[gadar perets]

If it was expedient that Timothy be circumcised so as not to hinder the preaching of the good news among the Jews at Derbe and Lystra, how much moreso for Paul to state emphatically that circumcision and observing the Sabbath should continue to be practiced as a means of pleasing God. I mean, Paul condemns sexual immorality, murder, idolatry, sorcery etc. He even goes so far as to state that women be silent in the churches, and it is better for men not to be married. Surely if he mentions things like these, he wouldn't have forgotten to mention simple things, such as continuing circumcision and Sabbath-keeping?

Paul wrote to early assemblies who were keeping the Sabbath. That is the day they rested and worshiped (Jewish and Gentile converts alike). There was no need for Paul to mention it. Those other things were problematic.

 

[gadar perets]

Right. Moses changed it because of hardness of heart. But this is something to ponder. At least some of the Mosaic Law was NOT perfect.

Psalm 19:7 The law of YHWH is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of YHWH is sure, making wise the simple.
​

The divorce law of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is part of the Law of YHWH and is therefore perfect. It was YHWH's perfect way of regulating the hardness of man's heart towards their spouse.

 

[BobRyan]

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 shows the only lawful reason for divorce is uncleanness due to something related to nakedness. All other divorces were sin. There is no distinction between civil and moral law here. It is all moral.

On the contrary "Moses allowed" is civil because Christ argues that even though it is allowed under one law - the moral status of it remains unchanged it is sin. You can't have it "both ways with one law" you can only do that with two - one where it is allowed and the other where it is not.

=====================================

The Jewish Laws of Divorce – Get
According to the Old Testament, a Jewish marriage is ende
d when the husband
gives his wife a document, a 'get'. This get is written
by a scribe and presented
in the presence of a rabbinic court and qualified witne
sses. This tradition is
based on the biblical verse "A man takes a wife and posse
sses her. If she fails
to please him because he finds something obnoxious abou
t her, he writes her a
bill of divorcement, hands it to her, and sends her aw
ay from his house...
(Deuteronomy 24:1).

Deut 24
24 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled;

What about the case of Adultery? is the civil law for adultery "that the man divorces his wife"??

Lev 20:10
"'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

So then Deut 24 us not talking about the civil laws relating to adultery - because the civil law there is very clear in Lev 20:10 --- the death penalty.

But notice what Christ said -

Matt 19

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

The Deut 24 case of civil law was not adultery - because Lev 20:10 shows what the civil law for adultery is. But Jesus said even though the Deut 24 instance is not considered adultery under civil law - it is in fact adultery under moral law and it had been that way "from the beginning". Jesus said that the only reason that this less strict civil law existed was "because of the hardness of your heart".