Saturday or Sunday Church?

[BobRyan]

I apologize I know I posted quote a bit in that reply but I wanted to show the context of the message. Notice that Paul makes a distinction between the law of the Spirit and the law which refers to the Mosaic law.

No he does not.

Under the Law - means being under the condemnation of the moral law of God that defines what sin is - even in the NT.

"sin IS transgression of THE LAW" 1 John 3:4
That same law quoted from in James 2, in Rom 13, and Matt 19 by Christ. The TEN.

It is that Law that has "honor your father and mother" as the "first commandment with a promise" Eph :2 and is still binding on all.

This means that it is "still a sin" (even in the NT) for Christians to take God's name in vain Ex 20:7

When we accept the Gospel we are freed from that condemnation - so then no longer under the condemnation of the law - yet it is still the case that even for Christians "sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4 and John commands Christians to "sin NOT" 1 John 2:1

In James 2, and Matt 19 and Rom 13 and Eph 6:2 we see that Law defined as including "The TEN" where if you break one you break them all,,, and where "honor your father and mother" is the first commandment with a promise' Eph 6:2

 

[Soyeong]

I apologize I know I posted quote a bit in that reply but I wanted to show the context of the message. Notice that Paul makes a distinction between the law of the Spirit and the law which refers to the Mosaic law.

I did address Galatians 5:18 in my post. Paul spoke about multiple categories of law other than the Law of God, such as as the law of sin and works of the law, so it is important to correctly identify which law he was referring to in Galatians 5:18. For example, in Romans 7:25, Paul contrasted the Law of God that he served with his mind with the law of sin that he served with his flesh, and in Romans 3:27, he contrasted a law of works with a law of faith. I made the case that it is referring to the law of sin and that it would make no sense to interpret it as referring to the Law of God, so what justification do you have for interpreting Galatians 5:18 as referring to the Law of God? If someone reads Galatians 5:18 and thinks that it is saying that the Spirit leads us in opposition to what the Father has commanded and frees us from needing to obey Him so that we no longer need to obey His commands against gratifying the desires of the flesh, then they should have a little bit of self-awareness and be much quicker to think that their interpretation is absurd, that they must have misunderstood it, that that their interpretation must be wrong than to think that it makes perfect sense, especially given the surrounding context of verses 13-23 and the broader context of other verses that speak about the role of the Spirit.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Do you agree or disagree that Leviticus describes the way to have a holy conduct? If so, then you it is contradictory for you think think that those laws are not moral laws while also thinking that laws in regard to how to have a holy conduct are moral laws.

Are you asking me if the Sabbath and the dietary laws are moral laws? No I wouldn’t consider them to be moral laws.

 

[Soyeong]

Are you asking me if the Sabbath and the dietary laws are moral laws? No I wouldn’t consider them to be moral laws.

The Bible never gives a list of which laws are moral or not and makes no attempt to distinguish between the two, so what standard are you using to determine whether any particular law is moral?

If some of God's laws are moral while others are not, then you should be able to give some examples from the Bible where direct disobedience to some of God's laws was considered to be moral, but there is no example of this, and I see no justification for thinking that disobedience to God can ever be moral.

Again, in Leviticus 19:2-3 and 11:44-45, keeping God's Sabbaths holy and refraining from eating unclean animals are ways to have a holy conduct, and it is contradictory for to say that that laws in regard to having a holy conduct are moral laws while denying that these are moral laws.

 

[Soyeong]

This is the nub of the issue.

Folks who find God's love in Jesus do not need the written Law to tell them how to behave.

In Matthew 24:12-14, Jesus said that because of lawlessness the love of many would grow cold, so he would disagree. When we expresses aspects of God's nature through our obedience to His law, then we are expressing our love for that aspects of God's nature, which is why there are many verses in both the OT and the NT that say that the way to love God is by obeying His commandments, while there are no verses that say that if we love God, then we won't need God's commandments to tell us how to behave. We can't find God's love in Jesus apart from following God's instructions for how to do that.

Suggesting that those who find Jesus and have God's Spirit in their hearts must be sinners because they don't keep the letter of the Law is utter nonsense and quite insulting.

I have not suggested that. In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to follow God's law, so those who find Jesus and have God's Spirit in our hearts are living in obedience to God's law, and someone who interprets Galatians 3 as saying that once the law leads us to Jesus we no longer need to follow it is interpreting as speaking against following the leading of the Spirit. Sin is the transgression of God's law, so those who are not following it are living in sin.

But then Satan is an arch legalist so this angle on matters is to be expected.

I have has rocks thrown at me in Jerusalem for carrying a bag on the Sabbath. This typifies the Legalistic Spirit we are dealing with.

It is not legalism to think that followers of God should follow what God has commanded, but rather legalism is a perversion of what God has commanded that is just as much of an error as lawlessness, and while Satan can promote both of those errors, he does not have the role of leading us to repent and obey what God has commanded. Obeying the letter of the law perverts both the intent of what God has commanded and why He commanded, which therefore leads to death just as assuredly as refusing to submit to it. For example:

Leviticus 19:12 You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.

Someone who was following the spirit of this law would understand that its intent is for us to not swear falsely, while someone who was following the letter of exactly how this law is written would understand that we are free to swear falsely just as long as we swear by something other than God's name, which incidentally was the issue that Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees for in Matthew 5:33-37.

Idolise the Law if you want but to condemn brothers and sisters who have found the way of faith in Jesus and walk in His love and integrity is totally out of order.

God's law commands against idolatry, so it is absurd to suggest that I am committing idolatry by saying that we should obey it. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the law, so the way to find the way of faith in Jesus is by walking in obedience to it, and there are many other verses that connect our faith and our love for God with our obedience to His law. In Hebrews 1:3, the Son is the exact expression of God's nature, which he expressed through living in sinless obedience to God's law, so someone can't put their faith in the nature of who he is by rejecting the nature of who he is.

 

[Soyeong]

Then why did Jesus call the Jewish worshipers zealous for the Law, the Synagogue of Satan ???

At no point did Jesus refer to Jewish worshiper zealous for the Law as being the Synagogue of Satan, but rather the only two references to the Synagogue of Satan are in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9, which both state that it is referring to those who say that they are Jews, but are not.

Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to God's law, so he was must more zealous for obedience to it than the Pharisees were, and he never criticized them for obeying what God commanded them to do, but he did criticize them for not obeying it (Mark 7:6-9) or for not obeying it correctly. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that tithing was something that they ought to be doing while not neglecting weightier matters of the law of justice, mercy, and faithfulness, so he was not opposing their obedience to it, but rather he was calling them to a fuller obedience to it in a manner that it is in accordance with aspects of God's nature that the law was intended to teach us how to express and in a manner that was free from hypocrisy.

For the record, I love the passover memorial as it is rich in the Gospel.

But to say it is sinful not to regularly participate in this annual occasion is to bring billions of believers into judgement.

Sin is the transgression of God's law and God's law commands to keep Passover, so I don't see how you can fault me for saying that it is a sin not to keep Passover.

 

[Soyeong]

We find our "sabbatismos" rest in Christ (Hebrews 4:9) and not in keeping the weekly Sabbath day under the Law.

In Hebrews 3-4 they did not under into God's rest because of their unbelief/disobedience, and in Ezekiel 20:13, it specifically mentions that they greatly profaned God's Sabbaths. In Hebrews 4:10 it says that whoever has entered into God's rest has also rested from his works as God rested from His, which is in accordance with when rested on the 7th day. Furthermore, in 4:11, it says that we should strive to enter into that rest so that no one may fall away by the same sort of disobedience, so you trying to use finding our rest in Christ to justify the same sort of disobedience is exactly the opposite of what was being said.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The Bible never gives a list of which laws are moral or not and makes no attempt to distinguish between the two, so what standard are you using to determine whether any particular law is moral?

If some of God's laws are moral while others are not, then you should be able to give some examples from the Bible where direct disobedience to some of God's laws was considered to be moral, but there is no example of this, and I see no justification for thinking that disobedience to God can ever be moral.

Again, in Leviticus 19:2-3 and 11:44-45, keeping God's Sabbaths holy and refraining from eating unclean animals are ways to have a holy conduct, and it is contradictory for to say that that laws in regard to having a holy conduct are moral laws while denying that these are moral laws.

When I say moral laws I’m referring to the laws that pertain to the treatment of others. The laws that pertain to treating people with morality and fairness. I’m not sure but it appears you may have a different definition of the term “moral laws”.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No he does not.

Under the Law - means being under the condemnation of the moral law of God that defines what sin is - even in the NT.

"sin IS transgression of THE LAW" 1 John 3:4
That same law quoted from in James 2, in Rom 13, and Matt 19 by Christ. The TEN.

It is that Law that has "honor your father and mother" as the "first commandment with a promise" Eph :2 and is still binding on all.

This means that it is "still a sin" (even in the NT) for Christians to take God's name in vain Ex 20:7

When we accept the Gospel we are freed from that condemnation - so then no longer under the condemnation of the law - yet it is still the case that even for Christians "sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4 and John commands Christians to "sin NOT" 1 John 2:1

In James 2, and Matt 19 and Rom 13 and Eph 6:2 we see that Law defined as including "The TEN" where if you break one you break them all,,, and where "honor your father and mother" is the first commandment with a promise' Eph 6:2

So then the law of the Spirit compels you to keep the entire Mosaic law?

 

[Soyeong]

When I say moral laws I’m referring to the laws that pertain to the treatment of others. The laws that pertain to treating people with morality and fairness. I’m not sure but it appears you may have a different definition of the term “moral laws”.

If you think that morality pertains to how we treat others, then do you think that it is not immoral to commit idolatry because that does not pertain to others?

 

[Soyeong]

Well... Trying to take the concept of judgment from Revelation and say that therefore the judgments from the law must still be around is quite a stretch imo.

The person in question was presenting a common theology that we are to keep the ten commandments, plus some others from the law of Moses. But not all of them.

The question immediately comes up, how do you separate? They were saying that commandments and statutes remain, judgments and ordinances ended. I was hoping you might have some definitive information on how the law falls into those different categories. But my overall impression is that they aren't distinct groups. It's like our English expression Rules and Regulations.

I assume you believe that all of God's laws are eternal period, yes?

By what standard do you think that God will judge the world if not by His nature which has been revealed through His law?

Christians often want to follow mishpatim in regard to justice and righteousness, but don't want to follow the chukim even though the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey them, and chukim are often translated as statutes, so it is surprising that they would think that statues remain while judgements have ended in spite of Psalms 119:160 saying that mishpatim are eternal.

In any case, if you look at Biblehub to see how various translations translate those words, there is not a lot of consistency and multiple words with distinct meanings can be translated using the same English word without nuance, such as "command" or "ordinance". For example, the Greek word "dogma" can be translated as "ordinance", "decree", or "edict" and is used 5 times in the NT. Two times it used in regard to a decree by Caesar (Luke 2:1, Acts 17:7), one time to a decree by the Jerusalem Council (Acts 16:4), and the other two times are in Ephesians 2:15 and Colossians 2:14. So someone can read Ephesians 2:15 and Colossians 2:14 and think that all ordinances, decrees, and edicts have been ended and then compound their error by thinking that this is referring to ending what God has commanded in His law when all of God's laws are eternal.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

No not according to verse 3

“For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, “As I swore in My wrath, They shall not enter My rest,” although His works were finished from the foundation of the world.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭4:3‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Right here Paul said that by believing we enter into His rest.

Paul is not going to contradict himself in the same passage or other passages but lets examine verse 3.

3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said:

“So I swore in My wrath,
‘They shall not enter My rest,’ ”

although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; 5 and again in this place: (the Sabbath Genesis 2:1-3) “They shall not enter My rest.”

6 Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience, They disobeyed the Sabbath Ezekiel 20:13 so were not sanctified by God Ezekiel 20:12

I am not sure you how you came to the conclusion that we do not have to obey to enter into Christs rests. In Hebrews 4 the word disbelief and disobedience are interchangeable. Both do not enter into Christ's rest that was available from the foundation of the world- the rest in Christ was available right at creation Genesis 2:1-3 and the rest in Christ is available for those who obey. The reason the Israelites did not enter into the rest in Christ- they defiled God's holy Sabbath day Ezekiel 20:13. It's a bit prideful in my opinion to think we can fall in the same path of disobedience but have a different outcome, especially when Paul says there remains a Sabbath keeping for the people of God in the same passage. Hebrews 4:9

We are blessed when we obey, God does not provide His blessing by disobedience as it says clearly in Hebrews and Isaiah 58 and most of the promises are contingent on our obedience to God.

I truly don't know how much clearer our Lord and Savior could be regarding His holy Sabbath day.

Isaiah 58:13
“If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath,
From doing your pleasure on My holy day,
And call the Sabbath a delight,
The holy day of the Lord honorable,
And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways,
Nor finding your own pleasure,
Nor speaking your own words,
14 Then you shall delight yourself in the Lord;
And I will cause you to ride on the high hills of the earth,
And feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father.
The mouth of the Lord has spoken.”

 

[BNR32FAN]

If you think that morality pertains to how we treat others, then do you think that it is not immoral to commit idolatry because that does not pertain to others?

Idolatry does pertain to others, it pertains to God.

 

[Danthemailman]

In Hebrews 3-4 they did not under into God's rest because of their unbelief/disobedience, and in Ezekiel 20:13, it specifically mentions that they greatly profaned God's Sabbaths. In Hebrews 4:10 it says that whoever has entered into God's rest has also rested from his works as God rested from His, which is in accordance with when rested on the 7th day. Furthermore, in 4:11, it says that we should strive to enter into that rest so that no one may fall away by the same sort of disobedience, so you trying to use finding our rest in Christ to justify the same sort of disobedience is exactly the opposite of what was being said.

The house of Israel rebelled against God in the wilderness and their disobedience of not walking in God's statues, despising His judgments and greatly defiling His sabbaths were a manifestation of their unbelief.

In Hebrews 3:8-10, we read - Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, In the day of trial in the wilderness, Where your fathers tested Me, tried Me, And saw My works forty years. Therefore I was angry with that generation, And said, 'They always go astray in their heart, And they have not known My ways.' Verses 18-19 - And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

Our rest for the body of Christ is not found in keeping the weekly sabbath day under the Mosiac law, but is found in Jesus Christ. Although for centuries the house of Israel had found their physical rest in a day, the new covenant takes the focus off the shadows of the Old Testament signs and rituals and reveals their spiritual substance -- the fulfillment/reality—in the person of Jesus Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17)

 

[Soyeong]

Idolatry does pertain to others, it pertains to God.

All of God's laws pertain to our relationship with Him and/or our neighbor, so they are therefore all moral laws. Morality is based on God's nature and all of God's laws teach us how to act in accordance with His nature, such as by having a holy conduct as He is holy in Leviticus 19:2-3 and Leviticus 11:44-5, so again they are therefore all moral laws. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do, and we ought to obey God, so again all of God's laws are moral laws. You have still not given a single example where direct disobedience to one of God's laws was considered to be moral or any reason to think that it can ever be moral to disobey God.

 

[BNR32FAN]

“So I swore in My wrath,
‘They shall not enter My rest,’ ”

Who is “they” and why will they not enter His rest?

“For who provoked Him when they had heard? Indeed, did not all those who came out of Egypt led by Moses? And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭3:16-19‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

When you see a chapter that begins with the word “Therefore” you need to go to the previous chapter to see what it’s there for.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Who is “they” and why will they not enter His rest?

“For who provoked Him when they had heard? Indeed, did not all those who came out of Egypt led by Moses? And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭3:16-19‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

When you see a chapter that begins with the word “Therefore” you need to go to the previous chapter to see what it’s there for.

“They” are the Israelites who is given the Ten Commandments, just like those who are in Christ and part of His covenant promise. Hebrews 8:10 Paul very clearly says there is a Sabbath keeping for the people of God. Hebrews 4:9 notice Paul does not say there is the Sabbath keeping for the Jews, nor does God say the Sabbath day is the holy day of the Jews but instead says the holy day of the Lord thy God. Notice Jesus says the Sabbath was made for man. Mark 2:27 Man was created on the sixth day Genesis 1:26 before Jew and before the first first Sabbath. Genesis 2:1-3. Notice those who are saved will not be Jews only worshipping the Lord on the Sabbath on the New Heaven and New Earth but for “all flesh” thus saith the Lord Isaiah 66:23. Your argument appears to be not with me.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I am not sure you how you came to the conclusion that we do not have to obey to enter into Christs rests.

It’s simple, when I see the word “Therefore” I go back and see why it’s there for. Yes their disobedience was that they didn’t believe, hence the quote from David “Today if you hear His voice do not harden your hearts”. Do you see how all this ties together now?

 

[BNR32FAN]

“They” are the Israelites who is given the Ten Commandments, just like those who are in Christ and part of His covenant promise. Hebrews 8:10 Paul very clearly says there is a Sabbath keeping for the people of God. Hebrews 4:9 notice Paul does not say there is the Sabbath keeping for the Jews, nor does God say the Sabbath day is the holy day of the Jews but instead says the holy day of the Lord thy God. Notice Jesus says the Sabbath was made for man. Mark 2:27 Man was created on the sixth day Genesis 1:26 before Jew and before the first first Sabbath. Genesis 2:1-3. Notice those who are saved will not be Jews only worshipping the Lord on the Sabbath on the New Heaven and New Earth but for “all flesh” thus saith the Lord Isaiah 66:23. Your argument appears to be not be with me.

The verse I quoted specifically stated exactly why they didn’t enter into His rest.

“So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭3:19‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

That’s the very last statement on chapter 3 right before he continued in chapter 4. That’s the context of the topic.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

It’s simple, when I see the word “Therefore” I go back and see why it’s there for. Yes their disobedience was that they didn’t believe, hence the quote from David “Today if you hear His voice do not harden your hearts”. Do you see how all this ties together now?

Yes, those who disobey do not enter into the rest in Christ as the text clearly states. Hebrews 4:6 and there is a Sabbath-keeping for the people of God as the text clearly says. Hebrews 4:9 and to enter into the rest of Christ one must cease from their work (where are we told this? Exodus 20:10) as God did from His (Genesis 2:1-3- both points to the Sabbath). Hebrews 4:10

Why would Paul say those who believe enter His rest, but that means you don’t have to believe the context of the rest, which is the Sabbath- there remains therefore a rest for the people of God. Hebrews 4:9. I am sorry if you do not see the problem with this logic. Looks like we don’t agree and thats okay and I really wish you well.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The verse I quoted specifically stated exactly why they didn’t enter into His rest.

“So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭3:19‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

That’s the very last statement on chapter 3 right before he continued in chapter 4. That’s the context of the topic.

I don’t read my bible that way and choose to focus only on the text I want the scripture to say and ignoring the rest of the context in the same passage, but we do have free will.

I wish you well.

God bless.