GENTILES OR CHRISTIANS PRACTICING THE SABBATH ?

[BobRyan]

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.

In fact "Every Sabbath" Acts 18:4

 

[YouAreAwesome]

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.

Have you missed your own inconsistent reasoning?
1a. The sacrifices have been fulfilled in Jesus.
1b. Therefore the laws regarding sacrifices no longer need to be followed.
2a. The Sabbaths have been fulfilled in Jesus.
2b. Therefore the laws regarding the Sabbath still need to be followed.

You have not made a clear distinction.

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)

No but you were the one who explained that Jesus fulfilled the sacrifices. And we see how the laws given by God regarding sacrifices have ended. Therefore fulfilled=put an end to in this case with regard to the Mosaic Laws on sacrificing. Does this definition "formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution)" apply to the animal sacrificial system?

Provide your supporting evidence for the statement, "the first century people referred to the temple system as “heaven and earth”.

The temple was commonly referred to as "heaven and earth". For example Josephus explains how the very design was after the design of heaven and earth:

...for if any one do but consider the fabric of the tabernacle, and take a view of the garments of the high priest, and of those vessels which we make use of in our sacred ministration, he will find that our legislator was a divine man, and that we are unjustly reproached by others; for if any one do without prejudice, and with judgment, look upon these things, he will find they were everyone made in way of imitation and representation of the universe. When Moses distinguished the tabernacle into three parts, and allowed two of them to the priests, as a place accessible and common, he denoted the land and the seas, these being of general access to all; but he set apart the third division for God, because heaven is inaccessible to men. And when he ordered twelve loaves to be set on the table, he denoted the year, as distinguished into so many months. By branching out the candlestick into seventy parts, he secretly intimated the Decani, or seventy divisions of the planets; and as to the seven lamps upon the candlesticks, they referred to the course of the planets, of which that is the number. The veils, too, which were composed of four things, they declared the four elements; for the fine linen was proper to signify the earth, because the flax grows out of the earth; the purple signified the seas, because that color is dyed by the blood of a seas shell-fish; the blue is fit to signify the air; and the scarlet will naturally be an indication of fire. Now the vestment of the high priest being made of linen, signified the earth; the blue denoted the sky, being like lightning in its pomegranates, and in the noise of the bells resembling thunder. And for the ephod, it showed that God had made the universe of four elements; and as for the gold interwoven, I suppose it related to the splendor by which all things are enlightened. He also appointed the breastplate to be placed in the middle of the ephod, to resemble the earth, for that has the very middle place of the world. And the girdle which encompassed the high priest round, signified the ocean, for that goes round about and includes the universe. Each of the sardonyxes declares to us the sun and moon; those, I mean, that were in the nature of buttons on the high priest’s shoulders. And for the twelve stones, whether we understand by them the months, or whether we understand the like number of the signs of that circle which the Greeks call the Zodiac, we shall not be mistaken in their meaning. And for the mitre, which was of a blue color, it seems to me to mean heaven; for how otherwise could the name of God be inscribed upon it? That it was also illustrated with a crown, and that of gold also, is because of that splendor with which God is pleased. Let this explication suffice at present, since the course of my narration will often, and on many occasions, afford me the opportunity of enlarging upon the virtue of our legislator.

John Lightfoot (highly respected author of the four volume series, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica), observed how heaven and earth is used in the New Testament: the “passing away of heaven and earth” is the “destruction of Jerusalem and the whole Jewish state...as if the whole frame of this world were to be dissolved.”

Maimonides also observed in the 12th century that:

The Arabs likewise [as the Hebrew prophets] say of a person who has met with a serious accident, “His heavens, together with his earth, have been covered”; and when they speak of the approach of a nation’s prosperity, they say, “The light of the sun and moon has increased,” A new heaven and a new earth has been created,” or they use similar phrases.

John Owen (1616–1683) maintained that the “passing of heaven and earth” in 2 Peter 3:5–7 had reference, “not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state” in AD 70.

John Brown (1784–1858), commenting on Matthew 5:18, follows the same methodology. “Heaven and earth passing away,” understood literally, is the dissolution of the present system of the universe; and the period when that is to take place, is called the “end of the world.” But a person at all familiar with the phraseology of the Old Testament Scriptures knows that the dissolution of the Mosaic economy, and the establishment of the Christian, is often spoken of as the removing of the old earth and heavens, and the creation of a new earth and new heavens.”

There is more if you want...

Matthew 5:19 disproves you;

Nope. The kingdom of heaven referred to by Jesus is not some place out in Orion or far away, it is the kingdom of Heaven within us (Luke 17:21).

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.

You have blinded yourself from seeing it. It is unmissable if you would actually think rather than just trying to argue. Here it is again:

1. Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.
2. But it was not this way from the beginning.

1. Moses permitted X
2. But from the beginning was Y

Moses permitted something that was not from the beginning. Yet you are saying there is no change in the law. I'm sorry, but this is beyond ridiculous.

The law of YHWH is perfect, converting the soul

When did the Old Covenant law, or the Ten Commandments, ever “convert” a soul? Never! Conversion is the process by which one receives the Holy Spirit. Hebrews 7:19 "The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God." David had a higher revelation than just the Mosaic Law, He had a glimpse of the New Covenant and Jesus. The law was the perfect tutor to bring us into Christ (Galatians 3:24).

However, the perfect tutor is still a tutor. The perfect law is still just law. Old covenant law. We are in a DIFFERENT covenant now. Jesus is our advocate, not Moses.

 

[visionary]

Have you missed your own inconsistent reasoning?
1a. The sacrifices have been fulfilled in Jesus.
1b. Therefore the laws regarding sacrifices no longer need to be followed.
2a. The Sabbaths have been fulfilled in Jesus.
2b. Therefore the laws regarding the Sabbath still need to be followed.

You have not made a clear distinction.



No but you were the one who explained that Jesus fulfilled the sacrifices. And we see how the laws given by God regarding sacrifices have ended. Therefore fulfilled=put an end to in this case with regard to the Mosaic Laws on sacrificing. Does this definition "formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution)" apply to the animal sacrificial system?



The temple was commonly referred to as "heaven and earth". For example Josephus explains how the very design was after the design of heaven and earth:

...for if any one do but consider the fabric of the tabernacle, and take a view of the garments of the high priest, and of those vessels which we make use of in our sacred ministration, he will find that our legislator was a divine man, and that we are unjustly reproached by others; for if any one do without prejudice, and with judgment, look upon these things, he will find they were everyone made in way of imitation and representation of the universe. When Moses distinguished the tabernacle into three parts, and allowed two of them to the priests, as a place accessible and common, he denoted the land and the seas, these being of general access to all; but he set apart the third division for God, because heaven is inaccessible to men. And when he ordered twelve loaves to be set on the table, he denoted the year, as distinguished into so many months. By branching out the candlestick into seventy parts, he secretly intimated the Decani, or seventy divisions of the planets; and as to the seven lamps upon the candlesticks, they referred to the course of the planets, of which that is the number. The veils, too, which were composed of four things, they declared the four elements; for the fine linen was proper to signify the earth, because the flax grows out of the earth; the purple signified the seas, because that color is dyed by the blood of a seas shell-fish; the blue is fit to signify the air; and the scarlet will naturally be an indication of fire. Now the vestment of the high priest being made of linen, signified the earth; the blue denoted the sky, being like lightning in its pomegranates, and in the noise of the bells resembling thunder. And for the ephod, it showed that God had made the universe of four elements; and as for the gold interwoven, I suppose it related to the splendor by which all things are enlightened. He also appointed the breastplate to be placed in the middle of the ephod, to resemble the earth, for that has the very middle place of the world. And the girdle which encompassed the high priest round, signified the ocean, for that goes round about and includes the universe. Each of the sardonyxes declares to us the sun and moon; those, I mean, that were in the nature of buttons on the high priest’s shoulders. And for the twelve stones, whether we understand by them the months, or whether we understand the like number of the signs of that circle which the Greeks call the Zodiac, we shall not be mistaken in their meaning. And for the mitre, which was of a blue color, it seems to me to mean heaven; for how otherwise could the name of God be inscribed upon it? That it was also illustrated with a crown, and that of gold also, is because of that splendor with which God is pleased. Let this explication suffice at present, since the course of my narration will often, and on many occasions, afford me the opportunity of enlarging upon the virtue of our legislator.

John Lightfoot (highly respected author of the four volume series, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica), observed how heaven and earth is used in the New Testament: the “passing away of heaven and earth” is the “destruction of Jerusalem and the whole Jewish state...as if the whole frame of this world were to be dissolved.”

Maimonides also observed in the 12th century that:

The Arabs likewise [as the Hebrew prophets] say of a person who has met with a serious accident, “His heavens, together with his earth, have been covered”; and when they speak of the approach of a nation’s prosperity, they say, “The light of the sun and moon has increased,” A new heaven and a new earth has been created,” or they use similar phrases.

John Owen (1616–1683) maintained that the “passing of heaven and earth” in 2 Peter 3:5–7 had reference, “not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state” in AD 70.

John Brown (1784–1858), commenting on Matthew 5:18, follows the same methodology. “Heaven and earth passing away,” understood literally, is the dissolution of the present system of the universe; and the period when that is to take place, is called the “end of the world.” But a person at all familiar with the phraseology of the Old Testament Scriptures knows that the dissolution of the Mosaic economy, and the establishment of the Christian, is often spoken of as the removing of the old earth and heavens, and the creation of a new earth and new heavens.”

There is more if you want...



Nope. The kingdom of heaven referred to by Jesus is not some place out in Orion or far away, it is the kingdom of Heaven within us (Luke 17:21).



You have blinded yourself from seeing it. It is unmissable if you would actually think rather than just trying to argue. Here it is again:

1. Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.
2. But it was not this way from the beginning.

1. Moses permitted X
2. But from the beginning was Y

Moses permitted something that was not from the beginning. Yet you are saying there is no change in the law. I'm sorry, but this is beyond ridiculous.



When did the Old Covenant law, or the Ten Commandments, ever “convert” a soul? Never! Conversion is the process by which one receives the Holy Spirit. Hebrews 7:19 "The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God." David had a higher revelation than just the Mosaic Law, He had a glimpse of the New Covenant and Jesus. The law was the perfect tutor to bring us into Christ (Galatians 3:24).

However, the perfect tutor is still a tutor. The perfect law is still just law. Old covenant law. We are in a DIFFERENT covenant now. Jesus is our advocate, not Moses.

God Himself made a clear distinction...
Those laws written in stone by God's own finger were placed in the ark.... Sabbath
Those laws written on parchment by Moses were placed along side the ark.... Sacrifice

 

[YouAreAwesome]

God Himself made a clear distinction...
Those laws written in stone by God's own finger were placed in the ark.... Sabbath
Those laws written on parchment by Moses were placed along side the ark.... Sacrifice

So your argument is which one of these:
1. The whole law is fulfilled except the Ten Commandments
2. The whole law is fulfilled but we still have to follow the Ten Commandments
3. The whole law is fulfilled but the Ten Commandments are special
4. The whole law is fulfilled except for those in the Ark
5. The whole law is fulfilled except for those written by God's own finger
6. The whole law is fulfilled but because God wrote some with His finger we still have to follow those
7. The whole law is fulfilled but we must still keep those that weren't fulfilled by Jesus
8. The whole law is fulfilled but we must still keep all of it
9. The sacrifices were fulfilled, the Sabbath was fulfilled, but we still keep the Sabbath because God wrote it with His finger
10. None of the above

 

[gadar perets]

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.

There is only one law. Where is the "other where it is not" allowed?

(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".

Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
​

A wife could not be put to death for adultery unless there were two or more witnesses. Obviously, if there were witnesses to the adultery, she would be put to death, not divorced. If there were no witnesses, she could still be divorced lawfully.

 

[gadar perets]

Have you missed your own inconsistent reasoning?
1a. The sacrifices have been fulfilled in Jesus.
1b. Therefore the laws regarding sacrifices no longer need to be followed.
2a. The Sabbaths have been fulfilled in Jesus.
2b. Therefore the laws regarding the Sabbath still need to be followed.

You have not made a clear distinction.

Your point 1b & 2a are not true.

No but you were the one who explained that Jesus fulfilled the sacrifices. And we see how the laws given by God regarding sacrifices have ended. Therefore fulfilled=put an end to in this case with regard to the Mosaic Laws on sacrificing. Does this definition "formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution)" apply to the animal sacrificial system?

No, since there will be animal sacrifices in the Millennium.

The temple was commonly referred to as "heaven and earth". For example Josephus explains how the very design was after the design of heaven and earth:

...for if any one do but consider the fabric of the tabernacle, and take a view of the garments of the high priest, and of those vessels which we make use of in our sacred ministration, he will find that our legislator was a divine man, and that we are unjustly reproached by others; for if any one do without prejudice, and with judgment, look upon these things, he will find they were everyone made in way of imitation and representation of the universe. When Moses distinguished the tabernacle into three parts, and allowed two of them to the priests, as a place accessible and common, he denoted the land and the seas, these being of general access to all; but he set apart the third division for God, because heaven is inaccessible to men. And when he ordered twelve loaves to be set on the table, he denoted the year, as distinguished into so many months. By branching out the candlestick into seventy parts, he secretly intimated the Decani, or seventy divisions of the planets; and as to the seven lamps upon the candlesticks, they referred to the course of the planets, of which that is the number. The veils, too, which were composed of four things, they declared the four elements; for the fine linen was proper to signify the earth, because the flax grows out of the earth; the purple signified the seas, because that color is dyed by the blood of a seas shell-fish; the blue is fit to signify the air; and the scarlet will naturally be an indication of fire. Now the vestment of the high priest being made of linen, signified the earth; the blue denoted the sky, being like lightning in its pomegranates, and in the noise of the bells resembling thunder. And for the ephod, it showed that God had made the universe of four elements; and as for the gold interwoven, I suppose it related to the splendor by which all things are enlightened. He also appointed the breastplate to be placed in the middle of the ephod, to resemble the earth, for that has the very middle place of the world. And the girdle which encompassed the high priest round, signified the ocean, for that goes round about and includes the universe. Each of the sardonyxes declares to us the sun and moon; those, I mean, that were in the nature of buttons on the high priest’s shoulders. And for the twelve stones, whether we understand by them the months, or whether we understand the like number of the signs of that circle which the Greeks call the Zodiac, we shall not be mistaken in their meaning. And for the mitre, which was of a blue color, it seems to me to mean heaven; for how otherwise could the name of God be inscribed upon it? That it was also illustrated with a crown, and that of gold also, is because of that splendor with which God is pleased. Let this explication suffice at present, since the course of my narration will often, and on many occasions, afford me the opportunity of enlarging upon the virtue of our legislator.

John Lightfoot (highly respected author of the four volume series, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica), observed how heaven and earth is used in the New Testament: the “passing away of heaven and earth” is the “destruction of Jerusalem and the whole Jewish state...as if the whole frame of this world were to be dissolved.”

Maimonides also observed in the 12th century that:

The Arabs likewise [as the Hebrew prophets] say of a person who has met with a serious accident, “His heavens, together with his earth, have been covered”; and when they speak of the approach of a nation’s prosperity, they say, “The light of the sun and moon has increased,” A new heaven and a new earth has been created,” or they use similar phrases.

John Owen (1616–1683) maintained that the “passing of heaven and earth” in 2 Peter 3:5–7 had reference, “not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state” in AD 70.

John Brown (1784–1858), commenting on Matthew 5:18, follows the same methodology. “Heaven and earth passing away,” understood literally, is the dissolution of the present system of the universe; and the period when that is to take place, is called the “end of the world.” But a person at all familiar with the phraseology of the Old Testament Scriptures knows that the dissolution of the Mosaic economy, and the establishment of the Christian, is often spoken of as the removing of the old earth and heavens, and the creation of a new earth and new heavens.”

There is more if you want...

The only one that remotely suggests the temple is referred to as "heaven and earth" is Josephus. The rest of your references say nothing about the temple. I would hardly call Josephus' words as being common among the people.

Nope. The kingdom of heaven referred to by Jesus is not some place out in Orion or far away, it is the kingdom of Heaven within us (Luke 17:21).

Therefore, those that have the Kingdom within should not break the least of the commandments.

You have blinded yourself from seeing it. It is unmissable if you would actually think rather than just trying to argue. Here it is again:

1. Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.
2. But it was not this way from the beginning.

1. Moses permitted X
2. But from the beginning was Y

Moses permitted something that was not from the beginning. Yet you are saying there is no change in the law. I'm sorry, but this is beyond ridiculous.

That was not Yeshua changing a law. That was his Father Yahweh adding a law. Yeshua was merely explaining the law that was added by Yahweh.

When did the Old Covenant law, or the Ten Commandments, ever “convert” a soul? Never! Conversion is the process by which one receives the Holy Spirit. Hebrews 7:19 "The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God." David had a higher revelation than just the Mosaic Law, He had a glimpse of the New Covenant and Jesus. The law was the perfect tutor to bring us into Christ (Galatians 3:24).

However, the perfect tutor is still a tutor. The perfect law is still just law. Old covenant law. We are in a DIFFERENT covenant now. Jesus is our advocate, not Moses.

Psalm 19 is not referring to converting someone from an unbeliever to a believer through Messiah Yeshua. It is referring to converting him from someone who sinned to someone who repented of his sin and resumed obedience to whatever command he broke. The law showed him his sin so he could convert back to obedience.

 

[visionary]

So your argument is which one of these:
1. The whole law is fulfilled except the Ten Commandments
2. The whole law is fulfilled but we still have to follow the Ten Commandments
3. The whole law is fulfilled but the Ten Commandments are special
4. The whole law is fulfilled except for those in the Ark
5. The whole law is fulfilled except for those written by God's own finger
6. The whole law is fulfilled but because God wrote some with His finger we still have to follow those
7. The whole law is fulfilled but we must still keep those that weren't fulfilled by Jesus
8. The whole law is fulfilled but we must still keep all of it
9. The sacrifices were fulfilled, the Sabbath was fulfilled, but we still keep the Sabbath because God wrote it with His finger
10. None of the above

You do realize that after then 10, all other laws are regarding the handling the issues in more detail. As Yeshua put it... all the rest hang off these two.... The two are the 10. The love God are the first four of the ten and love your neighbor are the last six of the ten.

Matt 22:40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

 

[YouAreAwesome]

You do realize that after then 10, all other laws are regarding the handling the issues in more detail. As Yeshua put it... all the rest hang off these two.... The two are the 10. The love God are the first four of the ten and love your neighbor are the last six of the ten.

Matt 22:40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

But you just made that up. Where in the bible does it equate love God to the first 4? Or love man to the last 6? I can just as easily make up my own correlation. Love God equates to the first 3 (God is a trinity), and love man relates to the last 6 (Hebrew number 6 is used to mean "man"). The 4th commandment represents all parts of the law that will be fulfilled in Jesus and will no longer be in effect for the believer. Sounds believable right? Well I just made this up the other day.

By the way, the Ten Commandments DO NOT sum up morality and CAN NOT be used for moral guidance in every situation. E.g. Can I take drugs? Can I gamble? Etc

 

[gadar perets]

But you just made that up. Where in the bible does it equate love God to the first 4? Or love man to the last 6? I can just as easily make up my own correlation. Love God equates to the first 3 (God is a trinity), and love man relates to the last 6 (Hebrew number 6 is used to mean "man"). The 4th commandment represents all parts of the law that will be fulfilled in Jesus and will no longer be in effect for the believer. Sounds believable right? Well I just made this up the other day.

By the way, the Ten Commandments DO NOT sum up morality and CAN NOT be used for moral guidance in every situation. E.g. Can I take drugs? Can I gamble? Etc

It doesn't matter how it is divided. The FACT of the matter is, when we keep the Sabbath holy it demonstrates our love for Yahweh and for our neighbor. Anyone who will cause his neighbor to work for him on the holy Sabbath day shows a lack of love for his neighbor because he will not allow his neighbor to rest. He also demonstrates a lack of love for his Creator in that he refuses to obey Him.

1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep His commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous.​

 

[BobRyan]

But you just made that up. Where in the bible does it equate love God to the first 4? Or love man to the last 6? I can just as easily make up my own correlation.

Indeed as you point out - making stuff up is pretty easy.

But in this case - it is clear not only from the NT text in places like Matt 19 and Rev 23 that the command to love our neighbor deals with the last 6 commandments - but even your own pro-sunday scholars admit this division in the Ten Commandments between Deut 6:4 "Love God with all your heart" and Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself".

 

[YouAreAwesome]

It doesn't matter how it is divided.

Ok, well lets nail that in as well, the commandments ARE NOT DIVIDED into: the first 4 = "Love God" and the last 6="Love man".

Anyone who will cause his neighbor to work for him on the holy Sabbath day shows a lack of love for his neighbor because he will not allow his neighbor to rest.

What if the neighbour hasn't worked all week and needs the money?

He also demonstrates a lack of love for his Creator in that he refuses to obey Him.

Just like refusing to obey His sacrificial commands.

1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep His commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous.

1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment: We must believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as he commanded us.

 

[gadar perets]

Ok, well lets nail that in as well, the commandments ARE NOT DIVIDED into: the first 4 = "Love God" and the last 6="Love man".

I can agree with this, believe it or not. It seems to me that when we obey any of the 10, we show our love for Yahweh AND our neighbor. One may ask, 'How do we show love for our neighbor by keeping the first 4?' To not keep them may cause our neighbor to stumble. If we commit idolatry, worship graven images, take Yahweh's name in vain or break the Sabbath, it may embolden others to do the same and sin. Indeed, that is exactly what happened to much of Christianity concerning the first four.

What if the neighbour hasn't worked all week and needs the money?

It depends on why he needs money. Is it for cigarettes or food or what? If he needs money to feed his family, then give it to him as an offering, not that he needs to work for it. Either that or feed him until Sabbath ends, then help him concerning work if need be.

Just like refusing to obey His sacrificial commands.

It can be shown Scripturally that believers do not need to sacrifice animals today. It cannot be shown that we don't have to keep the Sabbath day holy.

1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment: We must believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as he commanded us.

Amen. And how do we show our love for one another? By not stealing from them, or committing adultery with their spouses, or by not bearing false witness against them, or by not having them work for us on Sabbath, or by not murdering them, or by not teaching them to commit idolatry, etc.

 

[Joshua_5]

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.

Except that the work of circumcision was still performed on the Sabbath if this coincided with the 8th day of a boy's life. So the command to "observe the Sabbath" did not apply to special work such as healing (and circumcision is in this category). In other words, the "observation of the Sabbath" did not apply to special work, such as healing and circumcision.

Circumcision only applies to males in Israel - so not even all of Israel were subject to it...

All Israel were subject to circumcision. Although females can't be circumcised, a woman was still obligated to ensure all the males in her household were circumcised. Although it would be unusual for a woman to be the head of her household, this responsibility would sometimes have fallen to them (e.g. widows). Where a man failed to meet his obligation, the women still had a duty to obey (e.g. the example of Moses and Zipporah).

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?

There was no command nor law to keep the Sabbath in Genesis 2 - only the creation of it. Likewise, there was no command to marry - only an example of it.

Paul did not sin by not marrying, just as we do not sin by marrying and endeavouring to fill the Earth. The same applies to the Sabbath - the passage in Genesis 2 provides us an example given by God, but there is no law for us (or all of mankind) to keep this example.

The only laws to "observe the Sabbath" were given later to Israel through Moses, the same as circumcision was given through Abraham and later commanded by Moses. For those who insist we are bound to continue to "observe the Sabbath", to be consistent, these same must also insist on circumcision. As the requirement to circumcise was done away with in the New Testament, this fact puts such people at odds with the New Testament teaching.

I'm not saying it is wrong to circumcise or to rest on the Sabbath (as Paul didn't), but these things are wrong if one does them in order to try fulfill the law, which is already fulfilled through Christ Jesus.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

when we obey any of the 10, we show our love for Yahweh AND our neighbor

Just like obeying the laws relating to sacrifices, which you don't keep.

To not keep them may cause our neighbor to stumble.

Just like obeying the laws relating to sacrifices, which you don't keep.

then help him concerning work if need be.

What if the only way you can help is by giving him work on the Sabbath?

It can be shown Scripturally that believers do not need to sacrifice animals today. It cannot be shown that we don't have to keep the Sabbath day holy.

Except that you haven't shown this because it's not in the bible.

And how do we show our love for one another? By not stealing from them, or committing adultery with their spouses, or by not bearing false witness against them, or by not having them work for us on Sabbath, or by not murdering them, or by not teaching them to commit idolatry, etc.

If this is how you show love then that is sad. We don't show love by "not doing things" but by "doing things". e.g. Tell your wife you love her e.g. buy her a gift e.g. spend some time with your wife e.g. give your wife a hug etc.

 

[danny ski]

Except that the work of circumcision was still performed on the Sabbath if this coincided with the 8th day of a boy's life. So the command to "observe the Sabbath" did not apply to special work such as healing (and circumcision is in this category). In other words, the "observation of the Sabbath" did not apply to special work, such as healing and circumcision.

All Israel were subject to circumcision. Although females can't be circumcised, a woman was still obligated to ensure all the males in her household were circumcised. Although it would be unusual for a woman to be the head of her household, this responsibility would sometimes have fallen to them (e.g. widows). Where a man failed to meet his obligation, the women still had a duty to obey (e.g. the example of Moses and Zipporah).

There was no command nor law to keep the Sabbath in Genesis 2 - only the creation of it. Likewise, there was no command to marry - only an example of it.

Paul did not sin by not marrying, just as we do not sin by marrying and endeavouring to fill the Earth. The same applies to the Sabbath - the passage in Genesis 2 provides us an example given by God, but there is no law for us (or all of mankind) to keep this example.

The only laws to "observe the Sabbath" were given later to Israel through Moses, the same as circumcision was given through Abraham and later commanded by Moses. For those who insist we are bound to continue to "observe the Sabbath", to be consistent, these same must also insist on circumcision. As the requirement to circumcise was done away with in the New Testament, this fact puts such people at odds with the New Testament teaching.

I'm not saying it is wrong to circumcise or to rest on the Sabbath (as Paul didn't), but these things are wrong if one does them in order to try fulfill the law, which is already fulfilled through Christ Jesus.

Circumcision is not "work". Saving life on Sabbath is not work, either. Healing somebody who was born blind on Sabbath, when that non life threatening condition could have been fixed on any other day, falls under the definition of work. Further more, according to the Torah, circumcision in, both, the Abrahamic Covenant and in the Mosaic Covenant is an EVERLASTING commandment for ALL GENERATIONS. It cannot be done away with under any circumstances.

 

[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?

Except that the work of circumcision was still performed on the Sabbath

And people sleep on the Sabbath
And people eat on the Sabbath.
And they get dressed on the Sabbath.
And they brush their teeth on the Sabbath
And the priests killed animals on the Sabbath - before the cross.

I suppose we could try to build an "odd doctrine by inference" that way about brushing teeth and getting dressed being more important than that Sabbath - but one thing we do know "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship" Is 66:23 which includes "for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth" in that case.

All Israel were subject to circumcision. Although females can't be circumcised

indeed so... 'not all Israel'

, a woman was still obligated to ensure all the males in her household were circumcised. Although it would be unusual for a woman to be the head of her household

Indeed - no bible command at all in that regard.

There was no command nor law to keep the Sabbath in Genesis 2 - only the creation of it.

That is wrong on several counts.

1. The Genesis 2 text does not just say God rested - it specifically says the day was sanctified - made a holy day - it was binding on mankind then.
2. In Ex 20:11 legal code - God Himself points to Genesis 2 and says that it is THEN that the Sabbath is binding
3. Even the pro-Sunday scholars admit this is true.
4. God says that "SIN" is crouching at Cain's door and he must overcome in Genesis 4. But murder and hate are never stated as being a "sin" in the first 3 chapters of Genesis. The inference you are using does not work
5. Noah takes 2 of the unclean and 7 pairs of the clean animals in Genesis 7 - but no statement is given in Genesis 1-6 about what is clean and what is unclean.
6. Moses' readers have the other books of Moses to tell them more details about what is meant.
7. Abraham "kept my statutes, commandments and Laws" Genesis 26:5 not explicitly written out in Genesis - but included later in the other books of Moses.
8. Christ Himself addresses the "MAKING" of BOTH the Sabbath and mankind in Genesis saying the Sabbath was "MADE" for mankind" (the very thing you deny) Mark 2:27
9. Is 66:23 shows that the OT scope for the Bible Sabbath was "ALL mankind" just as we see for gentiles in Isaiah 56:1-8

Bible details matter.

Likewise, there was no command to marry - only an example of it. Which does not mean that marriage was "undefined" or unknown. And the Laws about adultery not "unknown" even though not mentioned.

Even the pro-Sunday scholars admit that all TEN of the TEN Commandments are binding on all Christians.

Eph 6:2 shows that the TEN Commandments are still binding on all the saints - TEN as a unit.

Paul did not sin by not marrying but not marrying is not a violation of any of the TEN Commandments - the moral law of God - neither is it violation of marriage - but adultery is violation of marriage for both Jew and gentile

 

[BobRyan]

Here are great examples of the fact that even pro-Sunday scholarship admits to the TEN commandments - all TEN applicable to all mankind from Eden to this very day. Included in the "moral law of God".

hence --

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

- D.L. Moody notices that some are opposed to the Sabbath Commandment - but notice how this sermon on the TEN Commandments also fits the summary of 7 points listed here on page 1??

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS text by D. L. Moody

BY THE
DWIGHT L. MOODY
The Ten Commandments:
Exodus 20:2-17
.
The Fourth Commandment


Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the LORD made heaven and Earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath Day, and hallowed it.​

THERE HAS BEEN an awful letting-down in this country regarding the Sabbath during the last twenty-five years, and many a man has been shorn of spiritual power, like Samson, because he is not straight on this question. Can you say that you observe the Sabbath properly? You may be a professed Christian: are you obeying this commandment? Or do you neglect the house of God on the Sabbath day, and spend your time drinking and carousing in places of vice and crime, showing contempt for God and His law? Are you ready to step into the scales? Where were you last Sabbath? How did you spend it?

I honestly believe that this commandment is just as binding today as it ever was. I have talked with men who have said that it has been abrogated, but they have never been able to point to any place in the Bible where God repealed it. When Christ was on earth, He did nothing to set it aside; He freed it from the traces under which the scribes and Pharisees had put it, and gave it its true place.
"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27)
It is just as practicable and as necessary for men today as it ever was- in fact, more than ever, because we live in such an intense age.

The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. The fourth commandment begins with the word remember, showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote this law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?

I believe that the Sabbath question today is a vital one for the whole country. It is the burning question of the present time. If you give up the Sabbath the church goes;

------------------------------------------

It just does not get any easier than this when BOTH sides can see that all TEN apply

 

[BobRyan]

more examples of the fact that even pro-Sunday scholarship admits to the TEN commandments - all TEN applicable to all mankind from Eden to this very day. Included in the "moral law of God".


Here we have section 19 of the Westminster - and of course you already have a few posts of mine quoting the "Baptist Confession of Faith"

Westminster Confession of Faith Section 19

"Westminster Confession of Faith"

Chapter XIX
Of the Law of God​

I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.
III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;l and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament

IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.
VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace

VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.

​

Section 21 of the Westminster and Section 22 of the Baptist both address point 7 "the change" the edit of the Sabbath commandment from the 7th day starting from creation and all through the OT and NT Gospel until the cross where it is "changed" in their mind -- to point to week-day-1

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

V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;

III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws,

 

[BobRyan]

more examples of the fact that even pro-Sunday scholarship admits to the TEN commandments - all TEN applicable to all mankind from Eden to this very day. Included in the "moral law of God".

the Baptist Confession of Faith as edited by C.H. Spurgeon

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

Baptist Confession of Faith Section 19

Section 19:

C.H. Spurgeon's edition of the "Baptist Confession of Faith"
-- CH Spurgeon

The Perpetuity of the Law of God

Very great mistakes have been made about the law. Not long ago there were those about us who affirmed that the law is utterly abrogated and abolished, and they openly taught that believers were not bound to make the moral law the rule of their lives. What would have been sin in other men they counted to be no sin in themselves. From such Antinomianism as that may God deliver us. We are not under the law as the method of salvation, but we delight to see the law in the hand of Christ, and desire to obey the Lord in all things. Others have been met with who have taught that Jesus mitigated and softened down the law, and they have in effect said that the perfect law of God was too hard for imperfect beings, and therefore God has given us a milder and easier rule. These tread dangerously upon the verge of terrible error, although we believe that they are little aware of it.​

Section 19 of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" .
Section 19​

. The Law of God

• God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience which was written in his heart, and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it.

• The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the TEN COMMANDMENTS, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.

• Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away. ​

• To the people of Israel He also gave sundry judicial laws which expired when they ceased to be a nation. These are not binding on anyone now by virtue of their being part of the laws of that nation, but their general equity continue to be applicable in modern times.

The moral law ever binds to obedience everyone, justified people as well as others, and not only out of regard for the matter contained in it, but also out of respect for the authority of God the Creator, Who gave the law. Nor does Christ in the Gospel dissolve this law in any way, but He considerably strengthens our obligation to obey it __________________​

===============================
More references to the "Moral law of God"

The moral law ever binds to obedience everyone, justified people as well as others,

Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws

 

[gadar perets]

What if the only way you can help is by giving him work on the Sabbath?

This example would never arise. It is easier to just give him an offering than to give him work.

Except that you haven't shown this because it's not in the bible.

What? That we have to keep the Sabbath? It was commanded to Israel of whom we are through Messiah Yeshua. It is up to you to prove we don't have to continue keeping what was already commanded.

If this is how you show love then that is sad. We don't show love by "not doing things" but by "doing things". e.g. Tell your wife you love her e.g. buy her a gift e.g. spend some time with your wife e.g. give your wife a hug etc.

Obviously I was only pointing out a few ways to show love through obeying the law. What is truly sad is that you don't show love by allowing your wife to rest on the 7th day as her Creator commanded.