Creation Sabbath Origin

[Icyspark]

The Romans passage talks about God's qualities being clearly seen. One of God's qualities is being Good. So you have to have a knowledge of good before you can see that. Since all humans can see it, it seems reasonable that it's something we inherit from our parents.

Hi Leaf473,

This is a serious problem. One should not make such profound conclusions based on eisegesis (i.e. reading INTO God's Word something that isn't there). Your conclusion is based on leaps in logic. You're jumping a huge biblical gap and forcing a square peg into around the mulberry bushel jump rope clandestine presuppositionary positations. Iow it's nonsensical and there is no warrant to impose on Romans 1 that everyone is born with an inherent knowledge that murder is evil and that we can read that into the text based on the idea that since "God's qualities being clearly seen" indicates that one of those qualities is "being Good" and that we inherit this knowledge from our parents ??? Just even typing that was giving me a headache (no disrespect ).

Adam and Eve didn't have this ability at first, because they gained the ability to see, grasp, Good after eating the fruit.

I don't believe you've come close to proving this point. It's merely conjecture.

What I'd say we inherited from Adam and Eve is a desire for the flesh (or a sinful/rebellious nature). How can you reject the clear biblical definitions I supplied and prefer reading into the Bible things which are not there?

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

 

[Leaf473]

Hi Leaf473,

This is a serious problem. One should make such profound conclusions based on eisegesis (i.e. reading INTO God's Word something that isn't there). Your conclusion is based on leaps in logic. You're jumping a huge biblical gap and forcing a square peg into around the mulberry bushel jump rope clandestine presuppositionary positations. Iow it's nonsensical and there is no warrant to impose on Romans 1 that everyone is born with an inherent knowledge that murder is evil and that we can read that into the text based on the idea that since "God's qualities being clearly seen" indicates that one of those qualities is "being Good" and that we inherit this knowledge from our parents ??? Just even typing that was giving me a headache (no disrespect ).





I don't believe you've come close to proving this point. It's merely conjecture.

What I'd say we inherited from Adam and Eve is a desire for the flesh (or a sinful/rebellious nature). How can you reject the clear biblical definitions I supplied and prefer reading into the Bible things which are not there?

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

Well, if you're going to say that I made huge leaps of logic, let's take it one step at a time and then maybe you can show me the leaps.

Do you agree that Romans 1 says this?
For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse.

 

[DamianWarS]

Exodus 20:8-11
“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days (1) the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he (2) rested on the (3) seventh day. Therefore the LORD (4) blessed the Sabbath day and made it (5) holy.” ​

Some people believe that the Sabbath finds its origin in the book of Exodus. They claim that one cannot establish it’s existence any earlier since the term “Sabbath” is not used prior to Exodus 16. But is this position justified? What is it that makes the Sabbath the Sabbath? For the sake of clarity I’ve numbered the various elements in the passage above that, when combined, make up the Sabbath.

(1) Creation of heavens and earth
(2) Rest
(3) Seventh day
(4) Blessed
(5) Holy​

There you see the five elements that make up what we know as the Sabbath. Now let’s compare this Exodus passage with the creation account found in Genesis and see those same five elements again:

Genesis 2:1-3
“So the (1) creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them was completed. On the (3) seventh day, having finished his task, God (2) rested from all his work. And God (4) blessed the seventh day and declared it (5) holy, because it was the day when he rested from his work of creation.”​

Not only do we find the same five elements in both passages of Scripture, but we also find very similar phraseology.

From Genesis:

“... And God (4) blessed the seventh day and declared it (5) holy,”​

From Exodus:

“... the LORD (4) blessed the Sabbath day and made it (5) holy.”​

Did you notice in the Exodus text that in the midst of its almost direct quote from Genesis the word Sabbath is substituted for the the word “seventh”?

The book of Genesis is a book of origins, not commands and the Sabbath has its origin right at the very beginning of the book. The title “Sabbath” is not there, but it is the Sabbath none-the-less.

Imagine discovering two objects the are exactly comprised of the same five elements. Each has (1) a spring, (2) a catch, (3) a hammer, (4) a hold-down bar, all mounted to (5) a platform. The only difference between these two exact objects is that one of them has the words "mouse trap" printed on it. To argue that the Genesis account is not the Sabbath simply because the title is not given is similar to arguing that a mouse trap is not a mouse trap simply because the words “mouse trap” are not emblazoned on it. A mouse trap is a mouse trap because of the elements that when combined function for the purpose of catching mice. The title is superfluous to its ability to function in its intended purpose.
View attachment 319040

I believe those who dispute the Genesis origin of the Sabbath do so because of the incredible weight it carries against their tenuous supposition that the Sabbath is some sort of a ceremonial ordinance that came to an end in the Christian era. If they can somehow negate the fact of a creation institution for the Sabbath then they feel they are in a much softer setting to apply the Sabbath strictly to the Jews. But since the Sabbath is clearly a creation institution there are obviously no Jews around. Jesus Himself tells us that “the Sabbath was made for human beings....” He doesn’t say that is was made for the Jew. Also notice that Jesus says it was "made". In other words, it was created by His own act of resting, blessing and making holy the seventh day of creation.

The Sabbath was also instituted prior to the fall of Adam and Eve, so there was no sin and no sinner. Thus it is not an institution that would need to come to an end at any point in the future.

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

Also by Icyspark: Ten Reasons I'm a Sabbatarian

The sabbath's origins are in creation. Sabbath is a word that means rest and it indeed appears on the 7th day (just check your Hebrew and see for yourself)

However what does start in Exodus is the requirement to keep it, namely the law of the Sabbath. According to Ex 31 sabbath law is the sign of the covenant. That covenant is made complete through Christ and the requirement of the law is complete with it, sabbath however carries on.

The creation account has deeper meaning than pointing to law. The law points to the 7th day, the 7th day points to Christ. The sabbath law is constant reminder that it is more than a day. Creation starts in chaos, day 1 is parallel with day 4, day 2 is parallel with day 5, day 3 is parallel with day 6. For example day 1 light and darkness are separated but there is no sources of light, no sun, moon or stars. That happens on day 4 and the two days are connected. Day 2 the waters are separated, and day 5 the oceans and air are filled with fish and birds. Day 3 the waters and land are separated, and day 6 land animals (including man) are created. So there is a pattern that emerges.

If day 1-6 are interconnected and parallel each other what does say 7 connect with? Day 7 is a day of completion and rest (sabbath) it is a direct parallel to the unfinished chaos and general unrest the state of things are before day 1.

What does this mean? The creation account is a salvation metaphor where we start our lives in chaos until light is finally spoken into us which starts a process that ends in rest and completion.

God doesn't rest because he is tired, he rests because he is finished his work. What is his work? It's the transformation in our lives brought on by the light, God separates the darkness from us, we go through the waters and emerge a new creation, we bear seeds and fruit, are filled with signs and wonders and life and charged to be fruitful and multiply. That's God's work in us. The creation account is the gospel.

That work in our lives will be finished, the completed state ushers in the sabbath. The sabbath is the goal and the creation account points to Christ. The sabbath law echos this but it is a law under a covenant we are no no longer bound by and we miss the point when law is all we see.

 

[Leaf473]

The sabbath's origins are in creation. Sabbath is a word that means rest and it indeed appears on the 7th day (just check your Hebrew and see for yourself)

However what does start in Exodus is the requirement to keep it, namely the law of the Sabbath. According to Ex 31 sabbath law is the sign of the covenant. That covenant is made complete through Christ and the requirement of the law is complete with it, sabbath however carries on.

The creation account has deeper meaning than pointing to law. The law points to the 7th day, the 7th day points to Christ. The sabbath law is constant reminder that it is more than a day. Creation starts in chaos, day 1 is parallel with day 4, day 2 is parallel with day 5, day 3 is parallel with day 6. For example day 1 light and darkness are separated but there is no sources of light, no sun, moon or stars. That happens on day 4 and the two days are connected. Day 2 the waters are separated, and day 5 the oceans and air are filled with fish and birds. Day 3 the waters and land are separated, and day 6 land animals (including man) are created. So there is a pattern that emerges.

If day 1-6 are interconnected and parallel each other what does say 7 connect with? Day 7 is a day of completion and rest (sabbath) it is a direct parallel to the unfinished chaos and general unrest the state of things are before day 1.

What does this mean? The creation account is a salvation metaphor where we start our lives in chaos until light is finally spoken into us which starts a process that ends in rest and completion.

God doesn't rest because he is tired, he rests because he is finished his work. What is his work? It's the transformation in our lives brought on by the light, God separates the darkness from us, we go through the waters and emerge a new creation, we bear seeds and fruit, are filled with signs and wonders and life and charged to be fruitful and multiply. That's God's work in us. The creation account is the gospel.

That work in our lives will be finished, the completed state ushers in the sabbath. The sabbath is the goal and the creation account points to Christ. The sabbath law echos this but it is a law under a covenant we are no no longer bound by and we miss the point when law is all we see.

This came to my mind from 2 Corinthians 4
...seeing it is God who said, “Light will shine out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

 

[Icyspark]

The sabbath's origins are in creation. Sabbath is a word that means rest and it indeed appears on the 7th day (just check your Hebrew and see for yourself)

However what does start in Exodus is the requirement to keep it, namely the law of the Sabbath. According to Ex 31 sabbath law is the sign of the covenant. That covenant is made complete through Christ and the requirement of the law is complete with it, sabbath however carries on.

The creation account has deeper meaning than pointing to law. The law points to the 7th day, the 7th day points to Christ. The sabbath law is constant reminder that it is more than a day. Creation starts in chaos, day 1 is parallel with day 4, day 2 is parallel with day 5, day 3 is parallel with day 6. For example day 1 light and darkness are separated but there is no sources of light, no sun, moon or stars. That happens on day 4 and the two days are connected. Day 2 the waters are separated, and day 5 the oceans and air are filled with fish and birds. Day 3 the waters and land are separated, and day 6 land animals (including man) are created. So there is a pattern that emerges.

If day 1-6 are interconnected and parallel each other what does say 7 connect with? Day 7 is a day of completion and rest (sabbath) it is a direct parallel to the unfinished chaos and general unrest the state of things are before day 1.

What does this mean? The creation account is a salvation metaphor where we start our lives in chaos until light is finally spoken into us which starts a process that ends in rest and completion.

God doesn't rest because he is tired, he rests because he is finished his work. What is his work? It's the transformation in our lives brought on by the light, God separates the darkness from us, we go through the waters and emerge a new creation, we bear seeds and fruit, are filled with signs and wonders and life and charged to be fruitful and multiply. That's God's work in us. The creation account is the gospel.

That work in our lives will be finished, the completed state ushers in the sabbath. The sabbath is the goal and the creation account points to Christ. The sabbath law echos this but it is a law under a covenant we are no no longer bound by and we miss the point when law is all we see.

Hi DamianWarS,

It sounds to me like you are conflating the law with the covenant. Would that be correct?

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

 

[Icyspark]

Well, if you're going to say that I made huge leaps of logic, let's take it one step at a time and then maybe you can show me the leaps.

Do you agree that Romans 1 says this?
For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse.

Hi Leaf473,

Assuming you are not misquoting the text then yes, I agree with what it says.

Let's see if you can likewise read the following text and agree with Paul's stated conclusion:

Romans 7:7
What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”​

On what stated basis did Paul expressly acknowledge as the way to identify sin?

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

 

[Leaf473]

Hi Leaf473,

Assuming you are not misquoting the text then yes, I agree with what it says.

Let's see if you can likewise read the following text and agree with Paul's stated conclusion:

Romans 7:7
What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”​

On what stated basis did Paul expressly acknowledge as the way to identify sin?

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

Well, as a logistics question, did you want to show me where my big leaps in logic were? Taking one step at a time?

Or did you want to leave that behind and talk about Romans 7?

 

[DamianWarS]

Hi DamianWarS,

It sounds to me like you are conflating the law with the covenant. Would that be correct?

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

it sounds to me like you setting up a trap. it would be better to just say what you want to say rather than attempt a gotcha moment.

But sure, I'll bite. It's called "covenant law" isn't it? the law is defined within the covenant so it is innately structured and bound by that context. The law is based on constructs that extend beyond the covenant but the law itself is explicitly defined with in the covenant. This is more inheritance than conflation.

Ex 31:18
When the Lord finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the covenant law, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God.

Scripture is explicit. The tablets are "of the covenant law"

 

[Icyspark]

it sounds to me like you setting up a trap. it would be better to just say what you want to say rather than attempt a gotcha moment.

But sure, I'll bite. It's called "covenant law" isn't it? the law is defined within the covenant so it is innately structured and bound by that context. The law is based on constructs that extend beyond the covenant but the law itself is explicitly defined with in the covenant. This is more inheritance than conflation.

Ex 31:18
When the Lord finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the covenant law, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God.

Scripture is explicit. The tablets are "of the covenant law"

Hi DamianWarS,

I asked a simple clarification question which shouldn't be considered leading to a "gotcha moment". . . unless you don't understand what the word "conflating" means? Conflate simply means "to bring together : BLEND" That appears to me that is what you are doing with the law and the covenant--blending them together and seeing them as the same thing. That is not the case. The law is one thing. The covenant is another thing. The word covenant simply means an agreement between two or more people or groups. The Old Covenant was an agreement between God and the people that God's law should be kept.

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

 

[DamianWarS]

This came to my mind from 2 Corinthians 4
...seeing it is God who said, “Light will shine out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 4 reveals that creation account is far deeper than it's surface meaning and this meaning is better for us to focus on. Paul doesn't use the creation account to argue if it's literal or not, or how we should keep the sabbath, he instead uses it to show the meaning of the light. if day 1 carries such meaning should we not approach the entire text with this in mind? Are not those in Christ called a "new creation"? That language itself is a giant hint that the creation account itself is a metaphor for the new creation and we should be reading it under that lens. Did it happen literally or not?

IMO the literalness of the account is the most uninteresting part and I really don't care what the answer is (or what you think the answer is), why we spend so much time arguing it is beyond me and the same goes with the sabbath. The 7th day does not point to law it points to the completion of the new creation in us through Christ. Sabbath law's first imperative is "remember" so we are forced to go back to the beginning. why? because it proclaims the coming of Christ and his work in us, and that's the point.

The law points to Christ and is a system designed to constantly remind us of him, in every nuanced way of dietary laws or not mixing grains it all points to him. In the old week after week it is repeated waiting for the Messiah, waiting for his coming. But the Messiah has come so what are we doing playing this broken record over and over again? we know it's meaning, let's now act upon the first commandment in creation to man "Be fruitful and multiply" which is paralleled to the great commission. We are to take the new creation and spread it as far and wide as we can possibly can and proclaim the glory of God.

 

[DamianWarS]

Hi DamianWarS,

I asked a simple clarification question which shouldn't be considered leading to a "gotcha moment". . . unless you don't understand what the word "conflating" means? Conflate simply means "to bring together : BLEND" That appears to me that is what you are doing with the law and the covenant--blending them together and seeing them as the same thing. That is not the case. The law is one thing. The covenant is another thing. The word covenant simply means an agreement between two or more people or groups. The Old Covenant was an agreement between God and the people that God's law should be kept.

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

Ex 31:18 tells us the tablets "are the two tablets of covenant law". this positions the law as a part of the covenant not independent from it. I get you to see the law and the covenant as independent things so in that vacuum your perspective is I'm conflating two independent things as one. But I'm approaching law as it is explicitly defined, as a part of the covenant, not a thing separate from it, I can't blend together what is already together. you may call that conflating but to me I am no more conflating law with covenant than conflating different shades of blue with blue.

 

[Leaf473]

1 Corinthians 4 reveals that creation account is far deeper than it's surface meaning and this meaning is better for us to focus on. Paul doesn't use the creation account to argue if it's literal or not, or how we should keep the sabbath, he instead uses it to show the meaning of the light. if day 1 carries such meaning should we not approach the entire text with this in mind? Are not those in Christ called a "new creation"? That language itself is a giant hint that the creation account itself is a metaphor for the new creation and we should be reading it under that lens. Did it happen literally or not?

IMO the literalness of the account is the most uninteresting part and I really don't care what the answer is (or what you think the answer is), why we spend so much time arguing it is beyond me and the same goes with the sabbath. The 7th day does not point to law it points to the completion of the new creation in us through Christ. Sabbath law's first imperative is "remember" so we are forced to go back to the beginning. why? because it proclaims the coming of Christ and his work in us, and that's the point.

The law points to Christ and is a system designed to constantly remind us of him, in every nuanced way of dietary laws or not mixing grains it all points to him. In the old week after week it is repeated waiting for the Messiah, waiting for his coming. But the Messiah has come so what are we doing playing this broken record over and over again? we know it's meaning, let's now act upon the first commandment in creation to man "Be fruitful and multiply" which is paralleled to the great commission. We are to take the new creation and spread it as far and wide as we can possibly can and proclaim the glory of God.

Makes total sense to me.

 

[Leaf473]

Hi Leaf473,

Assuming you are not misquoting the text then yes, I agree with what it says.

Let's see if you can likewise read the following text and agree with Paul's stated conclusion:

Romans 7:7
What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”​

On what stated basis did Paul expressly acknowledge as the way to identify sin?

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

Well, as a logistics question, did you want to show me where my big leaps in logic were? Taking one step at a time?

Or did you want to leave that behind and talk about Romans 7?

Since I haven't heard from you, I'll go ahead and talk about Romans 7.

When Paul says he wouldn't have known sin without the law, I don't think he's speaking in an absolute sense.

Here's why:
Let's assume he's talking about himself personally. At what time did the law come? Let's say at 12 years old when he was bar mitzvah-ed.

At 11 and a half he had no idea what coveting was? I don't think so. I think he had some idea of what coveting was, and when the law came, it clarified it and brought about new levels of coveting.

 

[BobRyan]

Since I haven't heard from you, I'll go ahead and talk about Romans 7.

When Paul says he wouldn't have known sin without the law, I don't think he's speaking in an absolute sense.

well you have free will and of course can speculate on anything you wish.

But getting back to the topic of this thread --

Exodus 20:8-11
“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days (1) the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he (2) rested on the (3) seventh day. Therefore the LORD (4) blessed the Sabbath day and made it (5) holy.” ​

Some people believe that the Sabbath finds its origin in the book of Exodus. They claim that one cannot establish it’s existence any earlier since the term “Sabbath” is not used prior to Exodus 16. But is this position justified? What is it that makes the Sabbath the Sabbath? For the sake of clarity I’ve numbered the various elements in the passage above that, when combined, make up the Sabbath.

(1) Creation of heavens and earth
(2) Rest
(3) Seventh day
(4) Blessed
(5) Holy​

There you see the five elements that make up what we know as the Sabbath. Now let’s compare this Exodus passage with the creation account found in Genesis and see those same five elements again:

Genesis 2:1-3
“So the (1) creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them was completed. On the (3) seventh day, having finished his task, God (2) rested from all his work. And God (4) blessed the seventh day and declared it (5) holy, because it was the day when he rested from his work of creation.”​

Not only do we find the same five elements in both passages of Scripture, but we also find very similar phraseology.

From Genesis:

“... And God (4) blessed the seventh day and declared it (5) holy,”​

From Exodus:

“... the LORD (4) blessed the Sabbath day and made it (5) holy.”​

Did you notice in the Exodus text that in the midst of its almost direct quote from Genesis the word Sabbath is substituted for the the word “seventh”?

The book of Genesis is a book of origins, not commands and the Sabbath has its origin right at the very beginning of the book. The title “Sabbath” is not there, but it is the Sabbath none-the-less.

Imagine discovering two objects the are exactly comprised of the same five elements. Each has (1) a spring, (2) a catch, (3) a hammer, (4) a hold-down bar, all mounted to (5) a platform. The only difference between these two exact objects is that one of them has the words "mouse trap" printed on it. To argue that the Genesis account is not the Sabbath simply because the title is not given is similar to arguing that a mouse trap is not a mouse trap simply because the words “mouse trap” are not emblazoned on it. A mouse trap is a mouse trap because of the elements that when combined function for the purpose of catching mice. The title is superfluous to its ability to function in its intended purpose.
View attachment 319040

I believe those who dispute the Genesis origin of the Sabbath do so because of the incredible weight it carries against their tenuous supposition that the Sabbath is some sort of a ceremonial ordinance that came to an end in the Christian era. If they can somehow negate the fact of a creation institution for the Sabbath then they feel they are in a much softer setting to apply the Sabbath strictly to the Jews. But since the Sabbath is clearly a creation institution there are obviously no Jews around. Jesus Himself tells us that “the Sabbath was made for human beings....” He doesn’t say that is was made for the Jew. Also notice that Jesus says it was "made". In other words, it was created by His own act of resting, blessing and making holy the seventh day of creation.

The Sabbath was also instituted prior to the fall of Adam and Eve, so there was no sin and no sinner. Thus it is not an institution that would need to come to an end at any point in the future.

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

Also by Icyspark: Ten Reasons I'm a Sabbatarian

I always like to see that connection in scripture between the reality of the Sabbath in Gen 2:1-3 and the fact of it in legal code in Ex 20:11 as literally the 7th day of the week. A real 7 day creation week.

 

[BobRyan]

Ex 31:18 tells us the tablets "are the two tablets of covenant law". this positions the law as a part of the covenant not independent from it. I get you to see the law and the covenant as independent things so in that vacuum your perspective is I'm conflating two independent things as one. But I'm approaching law as it is explicitly defined, as a part of the covenant, not a thing separate from it, I can't blend together what is already together. you may call that conflating but to me I am no more conflating law with covenant than conflating different shades of blue with blue.

The nation covenant with Israel included "Do not take God's name in vain" - but that is also part of the "NEW Covenant" of Jer 31:31-34 and Heb 8. So it is "still a sin" even for Christians to take God's name in vain.

The fact that the moral law of God is in both covenants is not too surprising given the actual language - actual words - of the New Covenant in Jer 31:31-34.

 

[DamianWarS]

The nation covenant with Israel included "Do not take God's name in vain" - but that is also part of the "NEW Covenant" of Jer 31:31-34 and Heb 8. So it is "still a sin" even for Christians to take God's name in vain.

The fact that the moral law of God is in both covenants is not too surprising given the actual language - actual words - of the New Covenant in Jer 31:31-34.

overlap does not mean the letter is carried forward. that thinking views laws as 1 dimensional. the letter of the law points to these greater meanings but the letter itself is contained in the covenant it was created in. the 10 commandments themselves are called the "two tablets of covenant law" they are placed in the "ark of the covenant". the language here shows us they are "of the old covenant" not universal. if agreeable values are in the new that is because the old has a lot of things to agree with. but it's misfocused, and rather silly I might add, to say the letter transfers over to the new.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

overlap does not mean the letter is carried forward. that thinking views laws as 1 dimensional. the letter of the law points to these greater meanings but the letter itself is contained in the covenant it was created in. the 10 commandments themselves are called the "two tablets of covenant law" they are placed in the "ark of the covenant". the language here shows us they are "of the old covenant" not universal. if agreeable values are in the new that is because the old has a lot of things to agree with. but it's misfocused, and rather silly I might add, to say the letter transfers over to the new.

The earthy sanctuary is a replica of the heavenly sanctuary and the ark of the covenant is revealed in heaven Revelation 11:19 , are you implying heaven is not going to be universal for those saved and only people from the Old Covenant? God’s law has been from the very beginning of time because if there is no law, there is no transgression Romans 4:15 and sin is the transgression of the law 1 John 3:4 and Paul points directly to the Ten Commandments as to define sin. Romans 7:7 and the devil sinned from the very beginning 1 John 3:8 which means God’s law is in heaven and I would consider that universal.

When Jesus taught on the Ten Commandments, there is no teaching that one can murder their brother as long as there are no angry thoughts. Matthew 5:19-30 or we can commit adultery as long as there is no lust in the heart. If one is keeping the Spirit of God’s commandments, which is greater than the letter, the letter would automatically be kept. Jesus came to magnify the law Isaiah 42:21 which means to make greater and not smaller.

 

[DamianWarS]

The earthy sanctuary is a replica of the heavenly sanctuary and the ark of the covenant is revealed in heaven Revelation 11:19 , are you saying heaven is not going to be universal for those saved and only people from the Old Covenant?

When Jesus taught on the Ten Commandments, there is no teaching that you can murder your brother as long as you don’t have angry thoughts. Matthew 5:19-30 or we can commit adultery as long as there is no lust in the heart. If one is keeping the Spirit of God’s commandments, which is greater than the letter, the letter would automatically be kept. Jesus came to magnify the law Isaiah 42:21 which does not mean to make lesser.

Heaven is a spiritual place, I know this because our earthly bodies don't go there (they stay in the ground). So indeed the earthly is a copy but it takes on a earthly form not a heavenly form. The incarnation alone shows us this.

Indeed without the 10 commandments there still are universal constructs morals are based on, ie. Murder is still wrong. The law has a date when it started so we know it's not the law that defines these morals but rather the law echos these constructs, some are moral in nature some have other focuses prophetic in nature. But for example Christ is not first foreshadowed through the law, he is first foreshadowed through the first day when God said "let their be light" in fact it's earlier when the earth is full of darkness and unformed and needed something to speak light into it, that foreshadows the need for Christ, "let there be light" foreshadows his coming. With law there is a need for Christ, law does not uniquely establish the need for Christ nor does it uniquely establish murdering is wrong.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Heaven is a spiritual place, I know this because our earthly bodies don't go there (they stay in the ground). So indeed the earthly is a copy but it takes on a earthly form not a heavenly form. The incarnation alone shows us this.

Indeed without the 10 commandments there still are universal constructs morals are based on, ie. Murder is still wrong. The law has a date when it started so we know it's not the law that defines these morals but rather the law echos these constructs, some are moral in nature some have other focuses prophetic in nature. But for example Christ is not first foreshadowed through the law, he is first foreshadowed through the first day when God said "let their be light" in fact it's earlier when the earth is full of darkness and unformed and needed something to speak light into it, that foreshadows the need for Christ, "let there be light" foreshadows his coming. With law there is a need for Christ, law does not uniquely establish the need for Christ nor does it uniquely establish murdering is wrong.

It would be nice if you could quote scripture that backs up your some of your thoughts here. It’s not something I see in the scriptures, you indicate some scriptures, but the commentary is not matching what the scriptures reveal.

For example, I don’t see where heaven is just going to be a spiritual place.

This is what the scripture reveals:

Every person will be physically whole in every way. The deaf will hear, the blind will see, and the paralyzed will run (Isaiah 35:5, 6; Philippians 3:21).

They will not get tired (Isaiah 40:31)

Vast oceans as we know them today will be gone (Revelation 21:1). The whole world will be one huge garden of unsurpassed beauty, interspersed with lakes, rivers, and mountains (Revelation 22:1; Acts 3:20, 21).

Deserts will be replaced with gardens (Isaiah 35:1, 2).

Every animal will be tame. No creature—wolves, lions, bears, etc.—will prey upon others, and little children will lead them (Isaiah 11:6–9; Isaiah 65:25).

There will be no more curse (Revelation 22:3). The curse of sin, as detailed in Genesis 3:17–19, will be no more.

There will be no more violence of any kind (Isaiah 60:18). This includes no more crime, storms, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, injury, etc.

Nothing defiling will be found (Revelation 21:27).

They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat … and My elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands” (Isaiah 65:21, 22).

What else will be in heaven? Sabbath worship: All flesh will come to worship the Lord from one Sabbath to another Isaiah 66:22-23 Just like God’s perfect plan at Creation Genesis 2:1-3 to worship in the presence of God on His holy Sabbath day.

When Jesus came back from the grave, He was in the flesh, there is nothing to indicate we will be just spirits flying around heaven or the New Earth. Our bodies will be transformed at the Second Coming of Jesus, 1 Corinthians 15:52 but we will be doing real things in heaven according to the scriptures.

 

[DamianWarS]

It would be nice is you could quote scripture that backs up your some of your thoughts here. It’s not something I see in the scriptures, you quote some scriptures but the commentary is not matching what the scriptures reveal.

Sure, Genesis 1. All before law.

Gen 1:1 shows that God preexists creating the heavens and the earth (lit. skies and ground). So where was he? Is that place a physical place or a spiritual place?

v2 shows the need for Christ. v3 foreshadows Christ. You don't even need to go to the fall to establish the need for Christ.