The Sabbath: Universal law or Mosaic shadow?

[Kilk1]

The context here is that which is already provided in Romans 6:1-23. I posted that Romans 7 is not saying we are dead to God’ law like you are teaching here. We are to be dead to the sins that held us *Romans 7:5-6. According Romans 7 the law being discussed in Romans 7:4-6 is not God’s 10 commandments but the example of the “marriage” law between the flesh and the Spirit (the old man of sin and the new man that has died with Christ (see the contexts of Romans 6:1-23) as shown in Romans 7:1-3. Being dead to the law in Romans 7:4 is not saying we disregard God's law (10 commandments) or any one of God's commandments for that matter as the purpose of Gods law in the new covenant is to simply give us the knowledge of what sin is *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4 and to lead us to Christ that we might be forgiven through faith *Galatians 3:22-25. That is why Paul says the law (10 commandments) as stated a little further after Paul explains the purpose of God’s law in Romans 7:7 (not marriage law) is to give us a knowledge of sin is holy, just and good in Romans 7:12.

The context of Romans 7:4 is to the example of the law of marriage and being married to the new husband (Christ) in the Spirit *Romans 7:1-6. While we are married to the flesh (the old sinful man) we cannot be married to Christ in the Spirit. Romans 7:5-6 adds a little more clarity [5], For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit to death.[6], But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. The wages of sin is death according to the scriptures but the gift of God is JESUS our new husband to those who have died to the flesh (see Romans 6) and been made free to walk in the Spirit *Romans 6:23; Romans 7:1-6; Romans 8:1-4; 13; Galatians 5:16. Have a prayerful read of Romans 6 dear friend. It will help your study as Romans 7 is just a different expression of the same subject matter. Showing that it is sin that we die to not God’s law that gives us the knowledge of what sin is *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7.

I never said that Romans 7 was not talking about Gods’ 10 commandments. I posted earlier that the context of Romans 7:1-6 is not talking about Gods’10 commandments but the example of the “marriage” law between the flesh and the Spirit (the old man of sin and the new man that has died with Christ (see the contexts of Romans 6:1-23) as shown in Romans 7:1-3.

more to come...

I wanted to reply to a part from this post: "I posted that Romans 7 is not saying we are dead to God’ law like you are teaching here." Doesn't Romans 7:4 say we've "become dead to the law," and doesn't Romans 7:7 say the law said, "You shall not covet"?

While I agree that Romans 6 is about dying to the old man of sin, Romans 7:4 specifically says we died to "the law."

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Hello, SabbathBlessings! I addressed the Israel issue in this post: The Sabbath: Universal law or Mosaic shadow?

I'd also add this: Did God show partiality when he gave circumcision specifically to Abraham and his descendants, not to Abraham's contemporaries? If not, then this shows that God can give something to a specific group without it contradicting verses on partiality.

The Sabbath is a commandment of God, circumcision is not one of the commandments of God. We will not be judged by circumcision. Paul tells us 1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

That seems pretty clear.

Would you agree that while on earth Joshua didn't enter the rest that remains for the people of God? If so, do you believe he kept the Sabbath? I answer "Yes" to both questions but would like to know how you answer.

I do think Joshua kept the Sabbath commandment and entered in the spiritual rest in Christ through his obedience.

Although the context is about handwashing, that doesn't mean the passage can't mention other things (such as honoring your parents, Mark 7:10), right? If so, then isn't one of the other things the passage mentions that Jesus purified all foods (Mark 7:19)?

If the context was about food, but its not about making unclean foods clean, its about eating with unwashed hands. Once God calls something an abomination that does not change.

We also have this warning:

Isaiah 66:17 “Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, To go to the gardens After an idol in the midst, Eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and the mouse, Shall be consumed together,” says the LORD

I don’t know about you, but I certainly would not want to eat something that the Lord deems an abomination when our bodies are meant to be a temple and dwelling place for the Holy Spirit.

Let me ask you a question- do you think Gentiles should keep the commandments of God and if not, which ones do you think it’s okay to break? I am asking this because of your post to Leaf which makes me think you believe the Sabbath was only meant for Gentiles even though Jesus said it was made for man Mark 2:27 and we see the Sabbath continue for the people of God in Heaven for “all flesh” Isaiah 66:23 just like God promised.

 

[Leaf473]

I suppose that would depend on if there are prophecies for the nation of Israel that haven't been fulfilled yet. This, of course, would be another discussion. The Sabbath command was given specifically to the physical nation of Israel, as opposed to Gentiles, correct?

When the Sabbath command is first stated as a command, it is directed to the fathers of the houses of Israel and Judah, when they came out of Egypt.

So yes, that's the physical nation of Israel.

(And yes again, I think there are prophecies related to physical Israel that haven't yet been fulfilled.)

 

[SabbathBlessings]

When the Sabbath command is first stated as a command, it is directed to the fathers of the houses of Israel and Judah, when they came out of Egypt.

So yes, that's the physical nation of Israel.

(And yes again, I think there are prophecies related to physical Israel that haven't yet been fulfilled.)

So was the commandment to not worship other gods, vain God’s name and bow to images- are you free to do those things as well? God’s commandments was a covenant of Ten, not one or nine. Exodus 34:28

 

[Leaf473]

So was the commandment to not worship other gods, vain God’s name and bow to images- are you free to do those things as well? God’s commandments was a covenant of Ten, not one or nine. Exodus 34:28

I believe that we don't worship other gods, vain God’s name and bow to images because we love God.

We love, because he first loved us. And yes, there is wisdom in the ten commandments!

If you believe that some of the laws from Genesis to Deuteronomy are universals and some are shadows, I invite you to post your list of universal laws. I think that would really help our discussion.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I believe that we don't worship other gods, vain God’s name and bow to images because we love God.

We love, because he first loved us. And yes, there is wisdom in the ten commandments!

If you believe that some of the laws from Genesis to Deuteronomy are universals and some are shadows, I invite you to post your list of universal laws. I think that would really help our discussion.

Why would you not apply this same philosophy to the Sabbath? The Sabbath commandment is the only commandment that uses the word “holy” and “blessed” and God told us to Remember. God tells us in the Ten Commandments that He shows mercy for those who love Him and keeps the commandments Exodus 20:6 I don’t think that means 9 out of 10.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Hello, SabbathBlessings! I addressed the Israel issue in this post: The Sabbath: Universal law or Mosaic shadow?

Actually you didn't but allow me to show why you haven't from the scriptures if it might be helpful. It may take a few posts though which I will break down into smaller ones once more to cover everything you have said. A lot of your posts are repetition already addressed so I will not respond to everything if I have already responded. Alright lets get started.

Happy Sabbath!

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Actually you didn't but allow me to show why you haven't from the scriptures if it might be helpful. It may take a few posts though which I will break down into smaller ones once more to cover everything you have said. A lot of your posts are repetition already addressed so I will not respond to everything if I have already responded. Alright lets get started.

Happy Sabbath!

Happy Sabbath! It’s late my time and I am off to get some sleep.

God bless!

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I don't believe that the term "Israel" refers to "those who obey and follow God's word"

So you believe that the name "Israel" is a name given by God to those who do not believe and follow Gods' Word? I am sure you do not believe this as that would go against what the scriptures teach as already provided through the scriptures here linked.

Doesn't Colossians 2:16-17 teach that things listed are "a shadow" (singular) of things to come, suggesting it was the law as a whole that was a shadow?

Well you are asking questions already addressed with a detailed scripture response elsewhere in this thread already but I am happy to discuss this a little further adding to what has already been shared from the scriptures in Colossians 2:16 if it might be helpful. The answer to your question here is no. Why? The Greek word used in Colossians 2:16 is σάββατον (sábbaton | G4521) and is not a "definite article" in the Greek (referring to "the" Sabbath; singular) but is a noun that is "genitive neuter plural" (N-GNP see word morphology for sabbaths of Colossians 2:16 in the Greek here). This means it is not singular but plural use and the within scripture context and the subject matter is in application the the sabbaths (plural) in the Feast days. Now if you look at all the other scriptures from the old testament where Paul is quoting from in Colossians 2:16 for example Ezekiel 45:17; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 2 Chronicles 31:3; Nehemiah 10:33, and Hosea 2:11. You will see that every time we see the same scripture subject matter and context is also always to sabbaths (plural) in the Feast days. In the Hebrew use of שַׁבָּת; shabbath; H7676 in Ezekiel 45:17 and the other scriptures, the Hebrew morphology sabbaths is a noun that is common plural (N-cp see morphology sabbaths in the Hebrew of Ezekiel 45:17 here). Colossians 2:16 is talking about the Mosaic "shadow laws"and the sabbaths (plural) in the annual Feast days not God's 10 commandments that give us a knowledge of what sin is when broken (Romans 3:20: Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4) that Paul; James and Jesus says is the fruit of faith (see Romans 3:31; 1 Corinthians 7:19; Romans 13:8-10; Romans 6:1-23; James 2:17-26; Matthew 7:16-19).

more to come....

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Happy Sabbath! It’s late my time and I am off to get some sleep.

God bless!

Happy Sabbath sis! Yes I will respond to these posts and enjoy God's Sabbath rest. Have a great sleep.
God bless!

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Similarly, doesn't Hebrews 10:1 suggest that the law itself is what has "a shadow of the good things to come" and is "not the very image of the things"? What I'm getting at is that we may not be able to point to a specific practice and say what it represents, but that doesn't inherently make the practice still binding, does it?

Once again scripture context and subject matter is important in order to understand what laws are being talked about in Hebrews 10 as they were in Hebrews 7. We have already shown by establishing the scripture context and subject matter of Hebrews 7 that the change of law being referred to Hebrews 7:12 was the change of the laws of the Levitical Priesthood because only a Levite was allowed to become a Priest and Jesus was of the tribe of Judah (see Hebrews 7:9-14). So the context and subject matter of Hebrews 7 was to a change in the laws for the Priesthood not God's 10 commandments.

In like manner if we look at the contexts and subject matter of Hebrews 10 it is not talking about God's 10 commandments being a shadow of anything. Hebrews 10 is talking about the laws of remission of sins and the new covenant. Let's look at the contexts and subject matter. The context of Hebrews 10:1 is Hebrews 9:1-27 which is talking about the laws or remission of sins and the sin offerings and comparing them to the offering Jesus made with his own blood and the ratification of the old and the new covenants by blood atonement for sin not Gods' 10 commandments.

According to the scriptures, Hebrews 10:1-22 continues from Hebrews 9:1-27. So the context and subject matter even in Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-27; Hebrews 10:1-22 proves Hebrews 10:1 is not talking about God's 10 commandments. The context and subject matter of these scriptures is the Mosaic "shadow laws" for remission of sins in the earthly Sanctuary, the Levitical Priesthood, the laws of animal sacrifices and sin offerings to that to which they all pointed to which was Jesus as Gods' true sacrifice for sins through blood atonement and his role as our great High Priest who ever lives to make intercession for us in the Heavenly Sanctuary that the Lord pitched and not man *Hebrews 8:1-6.(see also Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-27; Hebrews 10:1-22).

Your disregarding context and subject matter which is not to God's 10 commandments but to the Mosaic "shadow laws" for remission of sins and the old Sanctuary that carried out these laws that was only all a copy and shadow of the new covenant and the Heavenly Sanctuary that the Lord pitched and not mat as outlined in the Mosaic book of the covenant (Exodus 24:7).

Let's have a detailed look at the scriptures...

HEBREWS 10:1-10
[1], For THE LAW 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.

Note: the within scripture subject matter contexts continues from the laws of the animal sacrifices and sin offering of Hebrews 9:1-27 and the better offering of the blood of Christ. The within scripture subject matter and context is to the laws of animal sacrifices that are offered year by year.

[2], For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because THAT THE WORSHIPERS ONCE PURGED SHOULD HAVE HAD NO MORE CONSCIENCE OF SINS.
[3], But IN THOSE SACRIFICES there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
[4], For IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT THE BLOOD OF BULLS AND OF GOATS SHOULD TAKE AWAY SINS.

Note: context and subject matter is the laws of remission of sins through blood sacrifice.

[5], Why when he comes into the world, he said, SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU WOULD NOT, BUT A BODY HAVE YOU PREPARED ME:
[6], IN BURNT OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES FOR SIN YOU HAVE HAD NO PLEASURE.
[7], THEN SAID I, SEE, I COME IN THE VOLUME OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME, TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.

Note: All these laws for remission of sins and animal sacrifices from the Mosaic book of the covenant (Exodus 24:7) were “shadow laws” pointing to Jesus and are fulfilled and continued in Christ as God’s true sacrifice for the sins of the world once and for all (see Hebrews 10:10).

[8], Above when he said, SACRIFICE AND OFFERING AND BURNT OFFERINGS AND OFFERING FOR SIN YOU WOULD NOT, NEITHER HAD PLEASURE THEREIN; WHICH ARE OFFERED BY THE LAW;

Note: The context and subject matter is not Gods’ 10 commandments but the Mosaic “shadow laws” for remission of sins in animal sacrifices and sin offerings from the Mosaic book of the old covenant (see Hebrews 10:7 and Exodus 24:7) and the introduction of Jesus to who all these laws pointed to.

[9], THEN SAID HE, SEE, I COME TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD. HE TAKES AWAY THE FIRST, THAT HE MAY ESTABLISH THE SECOND.
[10], By the which WILL WE ARE SANCTIFIED THROUGH THE OFFERING OF THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST ONCE FOR ALL.

.................

CONCLUSION: The context and subject matter of Hebrews 10:1 is to Mosiac “shadow laws” for remission of sins in the Sanctuary from the Mosiac book of the covenant (Hebrews 10:7; Exodus 24:7) not God’s 10 commandments which give us the knowledge of what sin is when broken. According to James if we break anyone of God’s 10 commandments we stand guilty before God of sin. According to Hebrews 10:26-31 once God gives us a knowledge of the truth of His Word if we choose to reject it there remains no more sacrifice for sin (forgiveness) but a fearful looking forward to of the judgement to come which will devour the adversaries. God's Word does not teach lawlessness (without law).

more to come...

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Then again, maybe this whole question is irrelevant to the Sabbath since I do believe the weekly Sabbath points forward to something: A Sabbath rest that not even Joshua was able to give (Hebrews 4:8-9). Or are you saying that Joshua did enter the rest of Hebrews 4:9?

According to Hebrews 3 and Hebrews 4 as already proven through the scriptures in post # 310 and post # 311 linked, Hebrews 3 has links to Ezekiel 20:10-12 and is directly quoting from Psalms 95 which is about worshiping the only true God and creator of heaven and earth. God's people did not know God's ways and broke His Sabbaths and God did not give them His rest. They could not enter into God's rest because of unbelief and sin and God poured out His judgements on them because they broke his Sabbaths and they died in the wilderness because of their unbelief and sins. According to the scriptures in Hebrews 4:1-5 God's rest/His rest/My rest being referred to in Hebrews 4 is the "seventh day Sabbath" of creation (Hebrews 4:3-4). Our rest is that of believing and following Gods' Word. We do not do this by not believing and following what God’s Word says and breaking Gods’ commandments. That is unbelief and sin and why many of God’s people were destroyed in the wilderness. Hebrews 3 and Hebrews 4 is a warning not to harden our hearts in unbelief and sin. No one enters into God's rest (defined in Hebrews as the "seventh day Sabbath") unless they believe and follow Gods' Word (the gospel rest). Of course God's 4th commandment of the 10 commandments (Exodus 20:8-11) are a part of God's Word (the gospel) that God's people who enter into Gods rest believe and follow in Gods' Word just like Jesus did and the Apostles and prophets in Gods' Word.

Everything provided here are not my words but have been taken directly from the scriptures which are God's Words not mine (exegesis) as shown directly from the scriptures provided in Hebrews 3 and Hebrews 4 as shown in post # 310 and post # 311 linked. The warnings here are very clear. Those who do not believe and follow God's Word in order to continue in a life of known unrepentant sin (breaking anyone of God's commandments - James 2:10-11) just like those in the wilderness do not enter into Gods' rest (seventh day Sabbath) and will be in danger of the judgement to come (Hebrews 10:26-31). It is impossible for the creation Sabbath of God’s 10 commandments to be a shadow law of anything as it point “backwards” Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy then points directly to creation in Exodus 20:8-11 to Genesis 2:1-3. There was no shadow laws before sin when the Sabbath was made for all mankind at creation in Genesis 2:1-3 because there was no sin, so the Gods’ creation Sabbath is outside of Gods’ plan ot salvation where all “shadow laws” are given in the Mosiac book of the covenant (Exodus 24:7). God’s Sabbath was made before sin and is outside of Gods’ plan of salvation for sin because there was no sin when the Sabbath was created therefore cannot be a “shadow law” of anything. Gods’ Sabbath of Genesis 2:1-3 is one of God’s 10 commandments that give us the knowledge of sin is when broken. According to James if we break any one of Gods’ 10 commandments we stand guilty before God of sin in James 2:10-11.

more to come...

 

[Bob S]

Why would you not apply this same philosophy to the Sabbath? The Sabbath commandment is the only commandment that uses the word “holy” and “blessed” and God told us to Remember. God tells us in the Ten Commandments that He shows mercy for those who love Him and keeps the commandments Exodus 20:6 I don’t think that means 9 out of 10.

I beg your pardon SB, you keep using the word "us". It was not us it was Israel. Please do not take liberty to change what the Holy Writ so plainly states.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

If God's rest is the weekly Sabbath, does saying "They shall not enter My rest" (Hebrews 4:5-6, NKJV) mean that they should not keep the Sabbath as punishment? If so, where do we ever read of not keeping the Sabbath as being a punishment?

According to the scriptures as already provided in post # 310 and post # 311 linked Hebrews 3 and Hebrews 4 are warnings for us today that we will never enter into God’s true Sabbath rest (the seventh day Sabbath created from the foundation of the world; Hebrews 4:3-4) if we harden our hearts in unbelief and sin. Those who did so were destroyed in the wilderness. God’s creation Sabbath is one of God’s 10 commandments *Exodus 20:8-11. Breaking anyone of Gods’ 10 commandments is sin according to Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4; James 2:10-11 and the wages of sin is death according to Romans 6:23. According to Hebrews 10:26-31 if we continue in known unrepentant sin once God gives us a knowledge of the truth of Gods’ Word there remains no more sacrifice for sin but a fearful looking forward to of the judgement to some which will devour the adversaries. In the old covenant under the civil laws of Israel if anyone was caught publically and openly breaking anyone of God’s 10 commandments they were put to death teaching us that the wages of sin is death. You will also see this all through the old testament scriptures, that anytime Gods’ people knowingly and openly practiced sin they received Gods’ judgements. Today in the new covenant Jesus says vengeance is mine and the wages of sin is still death *Romans 6:23; John 3:36; Hebrews 10:26-31; Hebrews 3 and Hebrews 4 if we continue in unbelief and sin (breaking Gods’ commandments).

Actually, I agree. It isn't as accurate to say that these passages endorse eating unclean meats. Perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that all meats are now clean, and thus acceptable to eat (in addition to the verses before, see Mark 7:19).

None of those passages say that all unclean meat are now clean either.

more to come...

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I beg your pardon SB, you keep using the word "us". It was not us it was Israel. Please do not take liberty to change what the Holy Writ so plainly states.

Israel is "us" Bob. Well all those who believe and follow what Gods' Word says. If we are not a part of God's Israel we have no part in Gods 'new covenant promise. The name Israel is only a name given by God to all those who believe and follow God's Word so it is not covenant dependent.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

First, the Mosaic covenant doesn't define who Israel is since, as you said, Israel predates the covenant. There was a definition of "Israel" before the Mosaic covenant was given. It included Jacob and his descendants.

Exactly, here we are in agreement as this is what the scripture teach.

If it meant "all those who believe and follow what Gods’ Word says in both the old and the new covenants," then Jacob wouldn't have been "Israel" since he wasn't part of the old or new covenant. Rather, "Israel" was a name given to Jacob himself, making his descendants the "children of Israel," also known as Israelites. Their nation was also called Israel.

No not at all. The literal meaning of the Hebrew name that God gives to all those who believe and follow His Word "Israel" is יִשְׂרָאֵל (Yisrâʼêl | H3478) and means he will rule with God or a soldier of God. As has been shown through scriptures already the name of “Israel is only a name given by God to all those who believe and follow what Gods Word says which was given to Jacob who was outside both the old covenant and the new covenants. Therefore, the name “Israel” that God gave to Jacob is outside of the covenants and is simply a name for Gods’ people who believe and follow what God’s Word says regardless of the old and new covenants which only point out who God’s people are in any given point in time. So that said even in the old and the new covenants Gods’ people have always been everyone who professes to believe and follow what Gods’ Word says. If they were not they were never truly a part of Gods’ people as this is who God’s people are defined as in the scriptures. According to the scriptures those who openly disobeyed Gods’ Word in sin and unbelief were cut off from Gods’ Israel in the old covenant and received Gods’ judgements. This can be shown all through the old covenant scriptures. Even if old covenant “Israel” collectively sinned against God in unbelief and sin they were cut off from God’s presence and God departed from them and they received God’s judgements until they chose to once again believe and follow Gods' Word and returned to God in repentance for their sins and unbelief and returned to God through believing and following His Word through blood sacrifice and sin atonement. So once again the name “Israel” is only a name that God gives to all those who believe and follow what God’s Word says in both the old and the new covenants. As posted earlier and already shown from the scriptures, old covenant Israel are simply the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in fulfillment of Gods’ promise to them that he will make their seed a great nation because they believed and followed His Word.

Perhaps the most obvious way to show that Israel doesn't always refer to "all those who believe and follow what Gods’ Word says" is to remind ourselves that Israel hasn't always believed and followed what God's word says!

"Who gave Jacob for plunder, and Israel to the robbers? Was it not the LORD, He against whom we have sinned? For they would not walk in His ways, Nor were they obedient to His law" (Isaiah 42:24, NKJV, emphasis mine).

"And He said to me: 'Son of man, I am sending you to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against Me; they and their fathers have transgressed against Me to this very day'" (Ezekiel 2:3, NKJV, emphasis mine).

"But to Israel he [Isaiah] says: 'All day long I have stretched out My hands To a disobedient and contrary people'" (Romans 10:21, NKJV, emphasis mine). This makes it clear that one sense of "Israel" is a nation, which often was even "a rebellious nation." This is why I said one sense of Israel is "the physical descendants of Abraham (i.e., those he physically is the ancestor of, regardless of whether they were obedient)." They may at times be obedient or disobedient, but what made them "Israel" was their ancestry to Abraham (or more specifically, to Jacob). The verses quoted above show that simply is not the case.

Not really but allow me to explain why from the scriptures. We have already touched on this in the previous response to your post, but we can look at this a little further. According to the scriptures in the old and the new covenant Gods’ salvation was always conditional to believing and following what God’s Word says. If anyone in the old or new covenants sinned against God then God made provision for sin through repentance and faith as shown in the Mosaic “shadow laws” for remission of sins of the earthly Sanctuary, the Levitical Preisthood, through animal sacrifices and sin offerings. This is outlined as God’s Word given through Moses in the old covenant given to Israel from the Mosiac book of the covenant (Exodus 24:7) in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

So even when God’s people were unfaithful, and sinned against God, they could return to God through repentance and faith in God’s promises of forgiveness though believing and following God's Word through repentance and blood sacrifice just like we can in the new covenant. All those in the old and new covenant who remained in unbelief and know unrepentant sin were cast out of God’s Israel and received the judgements of God. When we sin in both the old and new covenants God has made provision for our sins through His Word so we can return to God. Once again Gods’ people are all those who believe and follow His World says. This does not mean that God’s people follow his World all the time but they follow Gods’ Word when they depart God to return to God. Only those who continue in the faith (the Word) believe and follow God’s Word to the end are Gods true “Israel” according to the scriptures and receive eternal life (James 1:12). Those who continue in unbelief and sin only receive the judgements of God and do not receive eternal life because they reject the free gift of Gods’ dear son who is the living Word of God (John 3:36; Hebrews 10:26-31; Romans 6:23).

more to come....

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Since you said, "That is exactly what I am saying and this is demonstrated in the scriptures already provided," hopefully you agree that this is one definition of Israel, and that Israel isn't "only a name given by God to all those who believe and follow what God’s Word says" (emphasis mine), as you've claimed.

As posted and shown through the scriptures earlier, God’s “Israel” regardless of covenants is not separated from the name God gave to Jacob outside of the covenants. The name “Israel is only a name given by God to all those who believe and follow Gods’ Word as shown from the scriptures already and is only a name given by God to all those who believe and follow what God’s Word says. If we do not believe and follow what God’s Word says not matter what we say we are not a part of Gods’ chosen people. This is the same in the new covenant. Those who continue in unbelief and sin without repentance and faith in God’s Word will be cut off and have the lot with the wicked according to the scriptures (John 3:36; Hebrews 10:26-31; Romans 8:13; Revelation 21:10-12; Revelation 22:14-15 etc)

Since There is another sense of Israel given (though it isn't the only sense). Since most people from national Israel weren't coming to Christianity, but instead Gentiles were, this could lead some to fear that Christianity was looking more pagan than Jewish. Paul assured his readers in Romans 9:6, "But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel" (NKJV, emphasis mine). This makes clear that there's another sense of "Israel," a spiritual "Israelite" or "Jew." Who are included in this sense? I'd agree with your definition: "all those who believe and follow what God’s Word says." That isn't the "only" sense, but it is a sense. Romans 2:28-29 is another such passage.

As shown through the scriptures already the name “Israel” is only a name given by God to all those who believe and follow what God’s Word says and is not dependent on the covenants because it was given to God’s people outside of the old and new covenant. All the covenants do is to show who God’s Israel are at any given point in time. God’s Israel in the new covenant are the same as Gods’ Israel in the old covenant. That is they are all those who believe and follow what God’s Word says to remain a part of God’s Israel. This was also shown through the scriptures earlier in Romans 9:6-9; Galatians 3:28-29 and Romans 2:28-29 that was posted to you earlier and the more detailed scripture response given here linked.

So which Israel was the Israel that God gave the Sabbath to as a sign distinguishing them?

The is exactly what I am coming from. If you understand who God’s Israel is in both the old and new covenants and that the name “Israel” is only a name given by God that is not dependent on the covenants to all those who believe and follow what God’s Word says, then God gives His Word to all those who believe and follow it. The Sabbath therefore is given to all those who believe and follow Gods’ Word which is God’s Israel irrespective of covenants according to the scriptures. God gave his Sabbath to all those who believe and follow His Word (Israel).

more to come...

 

[LoveGodsWord]

According to Nehemiah, it's the Israel that was promised the physical land of the Cannanites, Hittites, Amorites, etc. (Nehemiah 9:7-8), the Israel that was led out of Egyptian slavery (Nehemiah 9:9-10), the Israel that crossed the sea (Nehemiah 9:11) and was led by pillars of cloud and fire (Nehemiah 9:12), that came to Mount Sinai for the laws and sabbaths to be "given" and "made known" (Nehemiah 9:13-14), the Israel that was told to possess the land (Nehemiah 9:15), and yes, the Israel that rebelled (Nehemiah 9:16-18). Is this the Israel that references "all those who believe and follow what God’s Word says"? No, it's the Israel that, in my words, "refers to the physical descendants of Abraham (i.e., those he physically is the ancestor of, regardless of whether they were obedient)," a definition that's part of "exactly" what you said you agree with. So with this in mind, do you agree that Nehemiah 9:14 teaches that the Sabbath was given as a "sign" specifically for the nation of Israel (i.e., those Abraham physically is the ancestor of, regardless of whether they were obedient)? If so, then do you at least agree that the Gentile nations outside Israel weren't commanded to keep the Sabbath? The Sabbath couldn't be a covenant sign between God and Israel (the nation) if it were already for everyone else anyway, right?

What we are in agreement in with your claims here is that the Sabbath was given to old covenant Israel as they left the land of Egypt. What we are not in agreement with is to your claims that the Sabbath was only given to Israel in the old covenant. This is because you seem to be ignoring that Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for mankind in Mark 2:27. According to the scriptures, as was shown earlier, from the very words of Jesus the Sabbath was made for man (mankind ἄνθρωπος; ánthrōpos G444 human beings) *Mark 2:27. The scriptures do not say anywhere that the Sabbath was made for Jews or physical Israel in Mark 2:27. Now with the above in mind with all the scriptures shared with you showing that the name “Israel” is not covenant dependent and only a name given by God to all those who believe and follow God’s Word, according to the scriptures, the Sabbath was indeed made for Israel because “Israel” is simply a name given by God given to all those who believe and follow Gods’ Word and is independent of the old and new covenants. Gods’ “Israel” is simply all those who believe and follow God’s Word. So if we believe and follow Gods ‘Word the Sabbath as one of Gods’ 10 commandments is given to all those who believe and follow what Gods’ Word says. The name of “Israel” as already shown through the scriptures is independent of the old and new covenant and is simply a name given by God to all those who believe and follow Gods’ Word.

So what you're saying here is that although the Sabbath was given to Israel, it wasn't given only to Israel because of Mark 2:27. Are you suggesting it was given twice, then?

No, what I am saying here is the “Israel” is only a name given by God to all those who believe and follow God’s Word irrespective of the covenants. All the covenants do is to point out who God’s people are at any given point in time. As shown through the scriptures already the name “Israel” is only a name given by God to all those who believe and follow what God’s Word says and is not dependent on the covenants because it was given to God’s people outside of the old and new covenant. Mark 2:27 only supports the rest of the scriptures already provided to you that God made the Sabbath for all mankind before unbelief and sin and Gods’ plan of salvation was given to mankind because of sin as shown in Genesis 2:1-3.

more to come...

 

[LoveGodsWord]

A lot of the Mark 2:27 arguments claiming we must keep the weekly Sabbath would also prove other Old Testament practices to be binding today. If Mark 2:27 proves a separate "giving" (even though we've already established that the time something's "given" is not the same as when it's "made") simply because it says the Sabbath was made for "man" (humans), then are you going to also say that physical circumcision is also not given "only" to Israel since physical circumcision would happen to "man" (humans) according to John 7:22? Again, the logic would prove circumcision. Let's replace "Sabbath" in the quote above with "physical circumcision" and replace "Mark 2:27" with "John 7:22" and see what happens: "If Jesus was stating that physical circumcision was made for the Jews, he would have used the Greek word Ἰουδαῖος (Ioudaîos; G2453) or for Israel he would have said Ἰσραήλ (Israḗl | G2474). Fact is though he specifically used the Greek word for human beings or mankind (ἄνθρωπος; ánthrōpos G444). So this right from the start has you reading into the scripture of John 7:22 what the scriptures are not saying or teaching." Isn't it clear, then, that the logic above is flawed. Just because Jesus used the word for human beings in Mark 2:27 and in John 7:22 when He could have used Ἰουδαῖος (Ioudaîos; G2453) or Ἰσραήλ (Israḗl | G2474) in either verse, doesn't prove the application is broader than just Israel in either verse!

Actually we established no such thing. I think you simply ignored my response from the scriptures to you showing that the context and subject matter of Mark 2:27 is different to the context and subject matter of the scriptures you provided in John 7:22-23, Hebrews 5:1-3, or Hebrews 7:28. As posted earlier from the scriptures, both context and subject matter determine application of word meanings not the other way round which is how you are trying you use the Greek word ἄνθρωπος; ánthrōpos G444 human beings translated as “man”. As shown earlier through the scriptures Jesus said in Mark 2:27 that the Sabbath was made for all mankind (human beings). So, the subject matter, context and application and word meanings here in Mark 2:27 is to [1]. the Sabbath, [2]. made (creation) and [3]. for mankind. As shown through the scriptures many times now the Sabbath was made for mankind at the “seventh day” of the creation week where God set aside “the seventh day” and blessed the “seventh day” and made the “seventh day” of the creation week a “holy day” of rest for all mankind. Further proof of the scripture application to context and subject matter is shown in Genesis 2:1-3 when the Sabbath was made for mankind. When the Sabbath was made for all mankind there was no Moses, no Jew and no Israel only Adam and Eve. The above is the context, subject matter and application of the Greek word use of ἄνθρωπος; ánthrōpos G444 human beings translated as “man.” From here we examined the context and subject matter of John 7:22-23 showing that it is different to the context and subject matter of Mark 2:27 as shown above.

As shown earlier from the scriptures, John 7:22-23 says…

John 7:22-23 [22], Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers; and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man (ἄνθρωπος; ánthrōpos G444 human beings). [23], If a man (ἄνθρωπος; ánthrōpos G444 human beings) on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man (ἄνθρωπος; ánthrōpos G444 human beings) every whit whole on the sabbath day?

As shown above the context and subject matter of John 7:22-23 is to

• Moses giving Israel the law of circumcision
• A man (human being) being circumcised on the Sabbath from the law of Moses
• Jesus healing a man (human being) on the Sabbath

Now notice something further I will add here that I did not highlight earlier. The scripture context and subject matter of John 7:22-23 is that “Moses gave you circumcision”. Notice the context and subject matter of Mark 2:27. Was it Moses giving you the Sabbath? No! The context of Mark 2:27 is “the Sabbath was made for man (ἄνθρωπος; ánthrōpos G444 human beings). So, the subject matter, context and application and word meanings here in Mark 2:27 are applied to [1]. the Sabbath, [2]. made (creation) [3]. for mankind. There was no Jew when the Sabbath was made for mankind. The is where your argument falls apart according to the scriptures.

As shown in John 7:22-23 the context and subject matter and the use of the Greek word for man ἄνθρωπος; ánthrōpos G444 human beings in John 7:22-23 is being applied to a man (human being) getting circumcised from the law given to them from Moses on the Sabbath and Jesus healing a man (human being) on the Sabbath. Two different context and subjects. 1. of a man getting circumcised on the Sabbath given to them by Moses and 2. Jesus healing a man on the Sabbath.

This of course is different context and subject matter to Mark 2:27 where Jesus says that the Sabbath was made for human beings. Jesus does not say that the Sabbath was made only for Jews here. The same can be shown also for Hebrews 5:1-3, and Hebrews 7:28. I think you totally disregarded what was shared with you earlier showing that your scripture examples and use of ἄνθρωπος; ánthrōpos G444 human beings to man is different context and subject matter when compared to Mark 2:27. So you really have no argument here at all in my view.

The only thing that's reading into the Scriptures is to presume that Jesus can't use the word "man" when speaking specifically of the Israelites.

Once again scripture context and subject matter determine word meaning not the other way around. As posted earlier and shown through the scriptures, from the very words of Jesus the Sabbath was made for man (mankind ἄνθρωπος; ánthrōpos G444 human beings) *Mark 2:27. The scriptures do not say anywhere that the Sabbath was made for Jews or physical Israel in Mark 2:27. The evidence of this is further that your disregarding here is provided in Genesis 1:26-31 and Genesis 2:1-3 where God created the Sabbath for mankind ἄνθρωπος; ánthrōpos G444 human beings. When God made the Sabbath for man there was no Abraham, no Isaac, no Jacob, no Moses, no Jew, no Israel, no law, no circumcision because no sin and no plan of salvation given. There was only Adam and Eve representing the first of all mankind made in the image of God created on the 6th day of the creation week (Genesis 1:26-31) that God made the Sabbath for on the “seventh day” of the creation week that he blessed and set aside as a holy day of rest for all mankind *Genesis 2:1-3.

And again, the logic proves physical circumcision. I could say the evidence of physical circumicision being binding is further provided in Genesis 17:10-14. Now, there was Abraham when circumcision was instituted, but it still could be said that there was no Jacob, no Moses, no Jew, no Israel. But does this prove that physical circumcision is for everyone? No! Why, because it was a "sign" of a "covenant" between God on the one hand and Abraham and his descendants on the other (Genesis 17:10-11). Circumcising the foreskin separated Abraham's lineage from that of other nations, so it was a "sign" (Genesis 17:11, NKJV), being only for the ones the sign was commanded for--Abraham and his descendants, not everyone else. (The only exception, of course, would be if people wanted to proselytize, which would essentially "make" them part of Abraham's people anyway.) In the same way, the Sabbath was a covenant sign between God and the physical nation of Israel that was brought out of Egypt (as shown in Exodus 31:17, Nehemiah 9:14, Ezekiel 20:12, and even the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy 5:15). So again, the Sabbath couldn't be a covenant sign between God and Israel (i.e., the Israel that was brought out of Egypt) if it were already for everyone else anyway, right?

Again, the same logic would make physical circumcision binding on us. In fact, I could make a better case in John 7:22 because it actually does use the word "given" instead of "made." So If I replace "Mark 2:27" with "John 7:22," replace "the Sabbath" with "circumcision," and replace "made" with "given," here's what your quote would say: "According to the scriptures it is Jesus that said circumcision was given for all mankind (John 7:22). So, the subject matter and application and word meanings here in John 7:22 is to [1]. circumcision, [2]. given and [3]. for mankind."

Again, what proves too much proves nothing, so the logic here is false. Also, the "mankind" part is false since Jesus said "man" (anthropos), which doesn't have to mean "mankind," and we know that anthropos can be limited to Israelites (see also Hebrews 5:1-3 and Hebrews 7:28). Replacing "man" with "all mankind" just because it sometimes means "all mankind" changes the word of God and, if logically consistent, would make circumcision for all mankind from Adam till now (John 7:22) just as much as it would do so for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27).


You say it would be presumption for God to set aside the Sabbath but not give it to man till later. But isn't it also presumption to assume He must give something the same time He makes it? We've discussed this already.

What's in bold is presumption: "And on the seventh day God ended not only His work which He had done but also the work of the man Adam and his wife Eve in tending the garden, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done, and commanded the man and woman to do likewise. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He, the man Adam, and his wife Eve rested from not only all His work which God had created and made but also all their work which they tended to in the garden" (Genesis 2:2-3, NKJV + presumption).

What isn't presumption is to say that God rested in Genesis 2:2-3 and that He "gave" the Sabbath in the time of Moses (Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14), since that's literally what the Scriptures say. It's also necessarily implied that if the Sabbath was given to Israel at the time of Moses, then they didn't already have it at the time it was given to them. So even if you could prove it was given to Adam (again, a presumption not stated in Scripture), it must've fallen out of use by the time of Moses, being forgotten--and so much so that it had to be re-given at the time of Moses. (Again, this is presumption.)

Regardless of whether man ever had the Sabbath before Moses or not, it's clear they didn't have it when he was born, and that then when it was given, it was given for, and only for, Israel. Why "only"? This is because the Sabbath was a "sign" given specifically for Israel (the nation brought out of Egypt) according to Exodus 31:17, Nehemiah 9:14, Ezekiel 20:12, and the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy 5:15.

Again, that definition of Israel isn't "simply" or the "only" definition. Earlier in this post, I show 1) that this isn't the "only" definition, and 2) that the specific definition of "Israel" under consideration when they were given the Sabbath and the Mosaic covenant was the other sense, "the physical descendants of Abraham (i.e., those he physically is the ancestor of, regardless of whether they were obedient)."

The scripture contexts and subject matter already shared with you do not prove physical circumcision at all. You may want to think this one through a little further. As shown through the scriptures already, Mark 2:27 and John 7:22-23 are different contexts and subject matter to the use of the Greek word ἄνθρωπος; ánthrōpos G444 human beings translated as man. Mark 2:27 where Jesus says that the Sabbath was made for man only proves your argument wrong as there was no circumcision when God made the Sabbath on the “seventh day” of the creation week for all mankind. You may want to spend some time thinking your argument through a little more the Sabbath was made outside of the old and new covenants when there was no sin and no law. Is the Sabbath still a sign and an everlasting covenant for Gods’ people (Israel)? Absolutely, because it is aneverlasting covenant given to Gods’ Israel which is only a name given by God to all those who believe and follow what God’s Word says that the scriptures teach us will be continued to be kept in the new earth in Issiah 66:22-23. The Sabbath is a sign to Gods’ people (Israel) that they worship the only true God of creation and that their God is saving them from their sins (Ezekiel 20:12; Exodus 31:17). The rest of your post is only repetition already responded to with a detailed scripture response showing why your claims here are not biblical.

more to come...

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ The context here is that which is already provided in Romans 6:1-23. I posted that Romans 7 is not saying we are dead to God’ law like you are teaching here. We are to be dead to the sins that held us *Romans 7:5-6. According Romans 7 the law being discussed in Romans 7:4-6 is not God’s 10 commandments but the example of the “marriage” law between the flesh and the Spirit (the old man of sin and the new man that has died with Christ (see the contexts of Romans 6:1-23) as shown in Romans 7:1-3. Being dead to the law in Romans 7:4 is not saying we disregard God's law (10 commandments) or any one of God's commandments for that matter as the purpose of Gods law in the new covenant is to simply give us the knowledge of what sin is *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4 and to lead us to Christ that we might be forgiven through faith *Galatians 3:22-25. That is why Paul says the law (10 commandments) as stated a little further after Paul explains the purpose of God’s law in Romans 7:7 (not marriage law) is to give us a knowledge of sin is holy, just and good in Romans 7:12.

The context of Romans 7:4 is to the example of the law of marriage and being married to the new husband (Christ) in the Spirit *Romans 7:1-6. While we are married to the flesh (the old sinful man) we cannot be married to Christ in the Spirit. Romans 7:5-6 adds a little more clarity [5], For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit to death.[6], But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. The wages of sin is death according to the scriptures but the gift of God is JESUS our new husband to those who have died to the flesh (see Romans 6) and been made free to walk in the Spirit *Romans 6:23; Romans 7:1-6; Romans 8:1-4; 13; Galatians 5:16. Have a prayerful read of Romans 6 dear friend. It will help your study as Romans 7 is just a different expression of the same subject matter. Showing that it is sin that we die to not God’s law that gives us the knowledge of what sin is *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7.

I never said that Romans 7 was not talking about Gods’ 10 commandments. I posted earlier that the context of Romans 7:1-6 is not talking about Gods’10 commandments but the example of the “marriage” law between the flesh and the Spirit (the old man of sin and the new man that has died with Christ (see the contexts of Romans 6:1-23) as shown in Romans 7:1-3.

Your response here

I wanted to reply to a part from this post: "I posted that Romans 7 is not saying we are dead to God’ law like you are teaching here." Doesn't Romans 7:4 say we've "become dead to the law," and doesn't Romans 7:7 say the law said, "You shall not covet"? While I agree that Romans 6 is about dying to the old man of sin, Romans 7:4 specifically says we died to "the law."

Context is found in Romans 7:1-3 [1], Know you not, brothers, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? [2], For the woman which has an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he lives; but if the husband be dead, she is LOOSED FROM THE LAW OF HER HUSBAND. [3], So then if, while her husband lives, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but IF HER HUSBAND BE DEAD (old man of sin – see Romans 6:1-23), SHE IS FREE FROM THAT LAW; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. [4], Why, my brothers, YOU ALSO ARE BECOME DEAD TO THE LAW BY THE BODY OF CHRIST; THAT YOU SHOULD BE MARRIED TO ANOTHER, EVEN TO HIM WHO IS RAISED FROM THE DEAD, THAT WE SHOULD BRING FORTH FRUIT TO GOD.

See also Romans 6:1-23 they are both talking about the old man of sin and death and the new man alive in Christ. We do not die to the law here but to the old man or the carnal mind of sin and death our current husband to be married to Christ and raised in newness of life. To have an interpretation that Romans 7:4 is saying we are to be dead to or that God’s 10 commandments that Paul says is holy, just and good in Romans 7:12 that us the knowledge of what sin is in Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7 puts Paul in contradiction with Paul when he says we show our love to God by keeping Gods’ law in Romans 13:8-10 or that faith does not abolish God’s law it establishes God’s law in Romans 3:31 or that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcised is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God in 1 Corinthians 7:19.

..............

Thanks for your posts Kilk, I am enjoying our conversation and the chance to share Gods' Word with you and and pray that they will be a blessing to you.

Happy Sabbath!