Ten Reasons I'm a Sabbatarian [moved thread]

[Cornelius8L]

Error message: Please enter a message with no more than 18000 characters.

Hi @Icyspark , sorry if I have repeated some points raised by others earlier, but I hope you don’t mind as a thread owner for me sharing my thoughts.

#1 – I know the seventh-day sabbath REST in Exodus 20 references the Seventh-day Creation Rest, but is there a commandment to remember the Six Days of Creation? “Remember the Sabbath” in Exodus 20:8-10 refers to that rest day. We do not need a day to remember His creation as no christ-believer would reject the fact that God creates everything. The “Memorial” part sounds like a tradition.

#2 – I agree. No one likes to work.

#3 – If Luke 4:16 says it is a custom, it is not a commandment, not forgetting that Jesus did not go to synagogue or temple during His 40 days fasting in the wilderness. 1 Peter 2:21 and 1 John 2:6 are referring carrying our cross as Jesus did, not going to the church.

#4 – Hebrews 9:16-17 is talking about the end of the first covenant. “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you (John 14:26).” Clearly, the Advocate comes after the resurrection of Jesus, and Apostles continue to instruct. “For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial passes away (1 Corinthians 13:9-10).” The transition happens after Jesus’ resurrection, not during death.

#5 – same as #2. Paul’s example is carrying the cross, not going to the church.

#6 – I don’t keep the Lord’s day (Sunday) as well but neither do I agree that this argument makes sense. An era without phones and the internet needs common understandings to set things in place. If everyone has been using a specific day for gatherings, and it was unnecessary to change, why change and make lives difficult for everyone?

#7 – So, does the law concerning walking distance during Sabbath still holds (Acts 1:12)? If not, this verse is talking about another definition of Sabbath. Else, why need to avoid Sabbath?

#8 – How do we call a Pentecost in the current day? Do we have a different name to call that day to address that specific day in the past? Same as #4

#9 – Not sure if your new earth refers to the afterlife? If it is current life, where is New Moon? Is it the same new moon mentioned in Colossians 2:16? If yes, we will have a problem with Apostle Paul for bringing the new moon and sabbath together in his letter.

#10 – Not sure if these languages support your point. They are many gentiles who accept Judaism in the past. Having some of the words translated is normal. “Radio” is called ラジオ(Rajio) in Japanese.

God Bless!

 

[Bob S]

Paul wrote very clearly in 2Cor 3:6-11 that the ten commandments WERE temporary. They WERE rules that guided the Israelites until Jesus came and, on the Cross, ended the covenant that contained those rules, Eph 2:15. 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace,

Paul's arguement in 2Cor 3: 6-11 is that the ministry of the Holy Spirit has replaced the ministry of the ten commandments as Israelite's guide. Gentiles have never been under the ten's guidance. The King James version tells us that the ten commandments have been done away, verse 11. Other versions just claim they were temporary.

NIV
6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

 

[HIM]

Why can't you answer an honest and simple question? Are we to believe that a staunch sabbatarian apologist like yourself does not consider the weekly sabbath to be a special, sacred day over the other six?

Also, where in Romans 14 does it specifically qualify v.5 to mean only the "annual holy feast days"?

Thirdly, how are "annual holy feast days" mandated under the Law of Moses any different than the weekly sabbath in the 4th commandment, since both of these kinds of sabbaths are identical in nature in that both are ceremonial-ritualistic laws, as both point to something greater and the 4th commandment was also a sign of the Mosaic Covenant, which also distinguishes it from "moral" laws?

Nowhere in Romans 14 does it speak of the Sabbath. And the 7th day Sabbath is speciel because in it God rested after finishing creation.

No, the question required only a simple yes or no answer, not a duck, run and hide behind equivocation.



So, ordinances don't have to be obeyed? They're weren't binding?

In your bible, how does Rom 14:5 read? It doesn't say anything about days?

It doesn't mention the Sabbath. Why insert what is not there. And if we are inserting words where they are not; why stop there?
Incidentally Romans 14 is about thoughts and opinions not anything established in the Word of God. Verse 2 makes this clear. Because nowhere in the Holy Writ is it mandated that we only eat vegetables. If anything one can make a strong case against against mandating Sunday in honor of Christ's resurrection. Or Easter even. But not the 7th day Sabbath. God set that day apart from all others and made it holy since the beginning of our time. Because in it He rested and was refreshed.

(Rom 14:1 [NET2])
Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions.
(Rom 14:1 [NET2])
Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions.

So does the 4th commandment point to Jesus. Jesus is the greater antitype to the 4th commandment which typifies Christ. The weekly sabbath is only the type, whereas Jesus is the Substance. Jesus is the quintessential rest for all his covenant people, for God made all his New Covenant people to be a NEW CREATION in Christ. No one will ever be saved by observing a weekly sabbath; but everyone who ceases working to find favor with God and instead rests in Christ for their salvation will inherit eternal life! The 4th commandment is no different in principle from annual sabbaths, especially since it is a sign of the Mosaic Covenant, just like the ritual of circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Nowhere does it state Jesus is the antitype of the 4th Commandment.

Finally, Hebrews 3 and 4 are not teaching the continuation of the 4th commandment; for that kind of interpretation does not even remotely fit the context of those chapters. In fact, those chapters talk about "today" and "another day" -- a very different kind of day from the weekly sabbath day. Therefore, the 4th commandment is nowhere repeated in the NT; whereas all the other 9 commandments of the Decalogue are.

P.S. that "another day" (Heb 4:8), for you info. is Christ! He is that Day.

No to all dat. Today and another day are speaking of the rest which is the Gospel which is in Christ Jesus. The Sabbath rest is physical mainly. But we are to keep the day holy. Which we can now do in and through Christ.

There are Two things are mentioned in verse 10. Verse 9 says a sabbath rest remains for us. Then goes on to say that he that enters into his rest. Which is the rest that is the Gospel that some of us have entered ALSO, in addition to cease from our own work LIKE God did from His. God stop working. God did not enter into the Spiritual rest which is the Gospel in and through Christ. He is the Spiritual Rest in and through Christ. For it is God that works in us both to will do His good pleasure. He stopped working as scripture says. So we stop our physical work as Scripture says and rest..
(Heb 4:9 [NET2])
Consequently a Sabbath rest remains for the people of God.

(Heb 4:10 [NET2])
For the one who enters God’s rest has also rested from his works, just as God did from his own works.

 

[HIM]

Hi Him,

I would be happy to go through Hebrews 4 with you verse by verse, and if you look at Hebrews 4:10 and Hebrews 4:6 in particular it absolutely says we must obey and cease from our works just as God did to enter into His rest.

Hebrews 4:10 For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.

We must cease from our works -where are we told this? The Sabbath commandment. Exodus 20:8-11 just as God did Genesis 2:1-3 on the seventh day Hebrews 4:4- to enter His rest. The verse right before this reminds us that the people of God keep the Sabbath Hebrews 4:9 and a warning to not follow the same example of disobedience Hebrews 4:11- Hebrews 4:6 which the Sabbath is what was disobeyed among other things Ezekiel 20:13 because those who disobey do not enter His rest. Hebrews 4:6

God’s blessings have always been conditional - Isaiah 58:13-14 John 14:15-18 just a few examples.

Salvation by works is trusting in our own works instead of trusting in God. By faithfully keeping the Sabbath, we are trusting in God and believing what He asks of us, because we trust God that what He asks is because it is for our own good, even if not convenient. Choosing a day that is not blessed by God or made holy or is a commandment of God is trusting in our works over God’s, which is not sanctifying. We are sanctified through His Word and through the Sabbath. John 17:17, Ezekiel 20:12

That’s why Hebrews 4 is begging people “today” if you hear His voice do not harden your heart, we should not put off obeying God to another day.

“Today, if you will hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts.”

You seem to be advocating that we can profane God’s holy Sabbath and still receive God’s blessing, but I don’t see scripture that supports this idea.

Those who are not in Christ do not receive God's rest.....this is the future to come but same principle:
Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

How to we counter this? The next verse tells us:

Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

PS- I am always open to being corrected and biblical Truth is what matters, but I don't see from my intensive study on Hebrews 4 that one receives God's spiritual rest by being disobedient.

I pray this helps.

God bless.

Hey Sabbathblessings! Okay start in chapter three though and keep everything in context to what was already said as you go through the chapters. And stay in Hebrews. No need to bounce all over the Bible. It explains itself.

Happy Sabbath!

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Hey Sabbathblessings! Okay start in chapter three though and keep everything in context to what was already said as you go through the chapters. And stay in Hebrews. No need to bounce all of the Bible. It explains itself.

Happy Sabbath!

Yes, the context is right in the scriptures I quoted, but all of the scripture is God’s Word. If there is something specific you want to point out in my post that you feel is incorrect, please do so and I am happy to discuss. Right now I am getting ready for church but can check back later this afternoon.

God bless and Happy Sabbath!

 

[Doran]

These are your words, not mine.

A third indication that the fourth commandment is ceremonial in nature is that Jesus compares the sabbath-keeping to the ceremonial bread that king David ate. LK 6:3-5 is a very important passage to wrap your mind around because there's a profound paradox in this passage. Jesus concedes that what David did was unlawful, according to the letter of the law; yet at the same time the Lord didn't condemn David's actions because there is a higher law involved here -- one that has existed from the very beginning before God gave the Israelites the sabbath (Ex 16:29) or any of the other ceremonial laws in the Law of Moses for that matter. In theological terms, this is known as Natural Law, and this is the law that God has written into all people's hearts (Rom 2:5-11). This is why Jesus actually justified David's actions even though he broke a ceremonial-ritualistic law. By David rightly obeying Natural Law over a ceremonial one, a greater good was served!

The only parallels to Jesus healing on the Sabbath and David eating the showbread is that they were not sins. The Pharisees were adding mad-made laws to God’s commandments where the commandments was no longer recognizable, they were adding their rules to God’s rules and not much has changed. We are only safe when we follow God’s laws and Jesus warns us of this very thing when we obey mans traditions over the commandments of God. Matthew 15:3-9

Oh boy...but I never said that the sabbath involved eating of any bread. Good grief, man! Jesus was drawing at least one parallel between the showbread incident of David and the sabbath. Since he drew such a parallel then it's logical to conclude that the two must share at least one characteristic in principle between them in order to make such an analogy. That's all I said. I never said eating some ceremonial bread is required on the sabbath. Neither did Jesus.

Also, why weren't the parallels, as you understand them, sins? According to Jesus, David clearly did what was unlawful by eating the showbread which was reserved only for the priests; yet, at the same time did he not sin in that act. So, explain, please, Jesus' rationale.

 

[Doran]

Hi @Doran , my understanding of SB’s perspective from our previous discussion is that TEN commandments supersede everything, overwriting any verse (that comes after) that contradicts the TEN in Exodus 20 because they are God-finger written and kept safe in the ark in heaven. So naturally, they will interpret Hebrews 4, Colossians 2, and Romans 14 differently. Since the thread is about Sabbatarians observing a special day of the week, they won’t leave Romans 14:5 unexplained.

So you may need to prove that the TEN commandments have changed. Otherwise, there is no end to this. I have posted the changes of the 5th Commandment for discussion here: Did all the laws end at the cross- Part 2 - I’m keen to hear how is 5th Commandment not changed.

(Just in case you are interested in our Sabbath discussion, here is the link to my first post: Creation Sabbath Origin)

God Bless

The Covenant of Law has changed! This discussion entails more than just the 10 commandments, as important as they are, since the ten commandments plus all the other 627 or so other commandments did not happen in a vacuum. All 600+ commandments are incorporated into the Covenant Law of Moses and is considered in scripture to be one organic body of law. The entire Law originated with God who sovereignly chose to enter into a covenant relationship with Israel as a corporate entity, i.e. a nation. And Israel in turn, as this corporate entity, entered into this covenant with God by agreeing to its terms and promising to obey it perfectly.

Lord willin' and the crik doesn't rise, I will lay this out in more detail shortly.

 

[Doran]

Nowhere in Romans 14 does it speak of the Sabbath. And the 7th day Sabbath is speciel because in it God rested after finishing creation.

It doesn't mention the Sabbath. Why insert what is not there. And if we are inserting words where they are not; why stop there?
Incidentally Romans 14 is about thoughts and opinions not anything established in the Word of God. Verse 2 makes this clear. Because nowhere in the Holy Writ is it mandated that we only eat vegetables. If anything one can make a strong case against against mandating Sunday in honor of Christ's resurrection. Or Easter even. But not the 7th day Sabbath. God set that day apart from all others and made it holy since the beginning of our time. Because in it He rested and was refreshed.

(Rom 14:1 [NET2])
Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions.
(Rom 14:1 [NET2])
Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions.


Nowhere does it state Jesus is the antitype of the 4th Commandment.

No to all dat. Today and another day are speaking of the rest which is the Gospel which is in Christ Jesus. The Sabbath rest is physical mainly. But we are to keep the day holy. Which we can now do in and through Christ.

There are Two things are mentioned in verse 10. Verse 9 says a sabbath rest remains for us. Then goes on to say that he that enters into his rest. Which is the rest that is the Gospel that some of us have entered ALSO, in addition to cease from our own work LIKE God did from His. God stop working. God did not enter into the Spiritual rest which is the Gospel in and through Christ. He is the Spiritual Rest in and through Christ. For it is God that works in us both to will do His good pleasure. He stopped working as scripture says. So we stop our physical work as Scripture says and rest..
(Heb 4:9 [NET2])
Consequently a Sabbath rest remains for the people of God.

(Heb 4:10 [NET2])
For the one who enters God’s rest has also rested from his works, just as God did from his own works.

Or...is God's rest the perfect and ultimate rest found in His Son? Don't forget, born again believers have ceased working to find favor with God or to earn a reward. Therefore, by God's sovereign grace, we enter his rest through Christ.

 

[Doran]

Okay, saints, before jumping into Ex 31:16-17, I want to clarify something up front: I am not here to convince any sabbatarian that they should they should change their mind, as I take Rom 14:5 seriously. ("Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.") The Church, in this age, will always have weaker and stronger brothers and sisters in it to one degree or another. It's easier for some to embrace the letter of the law than the spirit of it. I understand this fully. However, I am here to try impress upon the minds of the sabbatarians that they should honor what Paul said in the above passage by not being like believing Jews who insisted that Gentiles had to be circumcised to be a true believer -- to really be in a covenant relationship with God -- or that the uncircumcised Gentiles were living in sin if they didn't become circumcised -- or that they were lower class citizens in the Kingdom of God due to their uncircumcision.

Secondly, I can fully understand why any sabbatarian would be reluctant to embrace the teaching of Exodus 31; for if the 4th commandment was a covenant sign to Israel, then how in the world can that particular commandment still be binding upon us in this New Covenant dispensation? Since the Old Covenant has passed away to make way for the infinitely superior, more glorious, Eternal New Covenant, then how can the 4th commandment in that Old Covenant still be valid today? Where in the NT does it say that the 4th commandment carried over as a sign of the New Covenant?

Having said that, I would like to dissect Ex 31:16-17, since SB categorically has denied that the 4th commandment is the sign of the Mosaic Covenant.

Ex 31:16-17
16 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. 17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.'"
NIV

Is it even a legitimate question to ask: A sign of what? I think so. First, the phrase "sign of" is used several times in scripture: Gen 9:12, 13, 17; 17:11; Mat 12:39; 16:4; 24:3 Lk 11:29; Rom 4:11. Besides, this "sign" must have occurred in some context, right? It didn't just drop from the sky, did it? And to my mind, it's crystal clear that this "sign" occurred in the context of God giving his Covenant of Law to Moses.

While I grant to SB that the standard formula "sign of" is not used in Exodus 31, nonetheless the word "covenant" is in the passage, albeit in an odd way at first blush -- but nonetheless the term "covenant" is in the passage. The "It" in v.17 can only be referring back to its nearest antecedent (covenant), and since "covenant" in turn can only be referring back to the Sabbath, then it follows logically that the sabbath is the sign. But the questions that are begging to be asked are: How in the world is the 4th commandment itself a covenant? Where in the Exodus account, or anywhere else for that matter in scripture, is the revelation that God made the 4th commandment, specifically, a covenant? This is an extremely important question to answer since God clearly has revealed in his Word all the other covenants he has made with mankind and his chosen people. To say that God simply made a "secret" covenant with Israel that is nowhere to be found in scripture would be unprecedented, and I'm always leery of first time precedents, most especially given the very important principle of law (and hermeneutics for that matter) stated in Num 35:30; Deut 17:6; 19:15; Mat 18:15-17; Jn 8:17-18; 2Cor 13:1; 1Tim 5:19; Heb 10:28; 1Jn 5:7; Rev 11:4, etc. The very fact that this principle of law is stated so often in scripture in various ways speaks pointedly to it great significance to us. Everyone of us should take this principle to heart.

So...what is going on in Exodus 31 whereby Moses, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, referred to the sabbath as a covenant? I would suggest that Moses employed a play on words. It seems that the ancient Hebrews had their own way of Reckoning Parts for the Whole. While this passage might be the first of its kind, this rhetorical device is nevertheless affirmed in later scriptures. For example, it's well known and accepted fact that the Jews reckoned time differently than most other ANE people. For example, Jesus was not buried in his tomb 72 literal hours: He was in his tomb for parts of three days; yet it is reckoned to be three complete days.

Likewise, we have James teaching this "parts for the whole" principle in Jas 2:10. He teaches that if we stumble in one point, we're guilty of all the law. Paul taught the same principle a little differently in Gal 3:10 but it's still the same principle. If one doesn't continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law, he comes under a curse. He might as well be guilty of the entire law.

Therefore, what Moses did with his rhetorical device is biblical, and most likely according to ancient Jewish custom. And we have even more evidence to support this contention since Moses himself referred to the Covenant of Law in part of its form and in its entire form -- and in both cases referred to both forms as covenant! For the former form, see Deut 9:9, 11, 15; and for the latter with respect to the Book of the Law see Deut 29:21; 30:10; 31:26; Josh 8:31, 34, etc.

Now it becomes more readily understandable how Moses in Exodus 31 could refer to the the sabbath as covenant and the covenant as a sign! Since the Ten Commandments were themselves considered to be the tablets of the covenant (clearly representing those 10 commandments for the whole law), then it's easy to see that he did same thing with the 4th commandment, making the sabbath commandment representative of the "tablets of the covenant", most likely. After all, the 4th commandment was etched in stone just as much as the other nine were! Therefore, Moses did teach that the sabbath commandment etched in tablets of stone is the sign of the [entire] Mosaic Covenant!

Moreover, since it was the sign of the Covenant of Law, then that specific commandment must have been ceremonial-ritualistic in nature; for no moral commandment in scripture is ever said to be a sign. Further, I have precedence in my favor to support my interpretation in terms of the sign of circumcision for the Abrahamic Covenant. Therefore, my interpretation is also in line with the important principle of law stated earlier.

Not only that but the 4th commandment differs significantly from the other 9 in that it was a weekly ritual, whereas the other 9 are not. Also, the sabbath commandment was a national visible, outward, ritualistic expression of the Jews' covenant relationship with YHWH. This sabbath sign served two important functions: It served as a weekly reminder to the Jews themselves (recall how the 4th commandment reads?); and it served as a witness and testimony of the Jews' faith in their covenant Lord to the Gentiles who were in the land. Imagine for a moment being in a place that was in "lock-down" mode for 24 hours. No buying, no selling, no working, no entertainment, no sports -- no secular activity for 24 hours. The whole LAND, as it were, was at "rest" for 24 hours. The 4th commandment was undoubtedly a great conservation starter between Jews and Gentiles.

 

[Doran]

Okay, saints, before jumping into Ex 31:16-17, I want to clarify something up front: I am not here to convince any sabbatarian that they should they should change their mind, as I take Rom 14:5 seriously. ("Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.") The Church, in this age, will always have weaker and stronger brothers and sisters in it to one degree or another. It's easier for some to embrace the letter of the law than the spirit of it. I understand this fully. However, I am here to try impress upon the minds of the sabbatarians that they should honor what Paul said in the above passage by not being like believing Jews who insisted that Gentiles had to be circumcised to be a true believer -- to really be in a covenant relationship with God -- or that the uncircumcised Gentiles were living in sin if they didn't become circumcised -- or that they were lower class citizens in the Kingdom of God due to their uncircumcision.

Secondly, I can fully understand why any sabbatarian would be reluctant to embrace the teaching of Exodus 31; for if the 4th commandment was a covenant sign to Israel, then how in the world can that particular commandment still be binding upon us in this New Covenant dispensation? Since the Old Covenant has passed away to make way for the infinitely superior, more glorious, Eternal New Covenant, then how can the 4th commandment in that Old Covenant still be valid today? Where in the NT does it say that the 4th commandment carried over as a sign of the New Covenant?

Having said that, I would like to dissect Ex 31:16-17, since SB categorically has denied that the 4th commandment is the sign of the Mosaic Covenant.

Ex 31:16-17
16 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. 17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.'"
NIV

Is it even a legitimate question to ask: A sign of what? I think so. First, the phrase "sign of" is used several times in scripture: Gen 9:12, 13, 17; 17:11; Mat 12:39; 16:4; 24:3 Lk 11:29; Rom 4:11. Besides, this "sign" must have occurred in some context, right? It didn't just drop from the sky, did it? And to my mind, it's crystal clear that this "sign" occurred in the context of God giving his Covenant of Law to Moses.

While I grant to SB that the standard formula "sign of" is not used in Exodus 31, nonetheless the word "covenant" is in the passage, albeit in an odd way at first blush -- but nonetheless the term "covenant" is in the passage. The "It" in v.17 can only be referring back to its nearest antecedent (covenant), and since "covenant" in turn can only be referring back to the Sabbath, then it follows logically that the sabbath is the sign. But the questions that are begging to be asked are: How in the world is the 4th commandment itself a covenant? Where in the Exodus account, or anywhere else for that matter in scripture, is the revelation that God made the 4th commandment, specifically, a covenant? This is an extremely important question to answer since God clearly has revealed in his Word all the other covenants he has made with mankind and his chosen people. To say that God simply made a "secret" covenant with Israel that is nowhere to be found in scripture would be unprecedented, and I'm always leery of first time precedents, most especially given the very important principle of law (and hermeneutics for that matter) stated in Num 35:30; Deut 17:6; 19:15; Mat 18:15-17; Jn 8:17-18; 2Cor 13:1; 1Tim 5:19; Heb 10:28; 1Jn 5:7; Rev 11:4, etc. The very fact that this principle of law is stated so often in scripture in various ways speaks pointedly to it great significance to us. Everyone of us should take this principle to heart.

So...what is going on in Exodus 31 whereby Moses, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, referred to the sabbath as a covenant? I would suggest that Moses employed a play on words. It seems that the ancient Hebrews had their own way of Reckoning Parts for the Whole. While this passage might be the first of its kind, this rhetorical device is nevertheless affirmed in later scriptures. For example, it's well known and accepted fact that the Jews reckoned time differently than most other ANE people. For example, Jesus was not buried in his tomb 72 literal hours: He was in his tomb for parts of three days; yet it is reckoned to be three complete days.

Likewise, we have James teaching this "parts for the whole" principle in Jas 2:10. He teaches that if we stumble in one point, we're guilty of all the law. Paul taught the same principle a little differently in Gal 3:10 but it's still the same principle. If one doesn't continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law, he comes under a curse. He might as well be guilty of the entire law.

Therefore, what Moses did with his rhetorical device is biblical, and most likely according to ancient Jewish custom. And we have even more evidence to support this contention since Moses himself referred to the Covenant of Law in part of its form and in its entire form -- and in both cases referred to both forms as covenant! For the former form, see Deut 9:9, 11, 15; and for the latter with respect to the Book of the Law see Deut 29:21; 30:10; 31:26; Josh 8:31, 34, etc.

Now it becomes more readily understandable how Moses in Exodus 31 could refer to the the sabbath as covenant and the covenant as a sign! Since the Ten Commandments were themselves considered to be the tablets of the covenant (clearly representing those 10 commandments for the whole law), then it's easy to see that he did same thing with the 4th commandment, making the sabbath commandment representative of the "tablets of the covenant", most likely. After all, the 4th commandment was etched in stone just as much as the other nine were! Therefore, Moses did teach that the sabbath commandment etched in tablets of stone is the sign of the [entire] Mosaic Covenant!

Moreover, since it was the sign of the Covenant of Law, then that specific commandment must have been ceremonial-ritualistic in nature; for no moral commandment in scripture is ever said to be a sign. Further, I have precedence in my favor to support my interpretation in terms of the sign of circumcision for the Abrahamic Covenant. Therefore, my interpretation is also in line with the important principle of law stated earlier.

Not only that but the 4th commandment differs significantly from the other 9 in that it was a weekly ritual, whereas the other 9 are not. Also, the sabbath commandment was a national visible, outward, ritualistic expression of the Jews' covenant relationship with YHWH. This sabbath sign served two important functions: It served as a weekly reminder to the Jews themselves (recall how the 4th commandment reads?); and it served as a witness and testimony of the Jews' faith in their covenant Lord to the Gentiles who were in the land. Imagine for a moment being in a place that was in "lock-down" mode for 24 hours. No buying, no selling, no working, no entertainment, no sports -- no secular activity for 24 hours. The whole LAND, as it were, was at "rest" for 24 hours. The 4th commandment was undoubtedly a great conservation starter between Jews and Gentiles.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Oh boy...but I never said that the sabbath involved eating of any bread. Good grief, man! Jesus was drawing at least one parallel between the showbread incident of David and the sabbath. Since he drew such a parallel then it's logical to conclude that the two must share at least one characteristic in principle between them in order to make such an analogy. That's all I said. I never said eating some ceremonial bread is required on the sabbath. Neither did Jesus.

Also, why weren't the parallels, as you understand them, sins? According to Jesus, David clearly did what was unlawful by eating the showbread which was reserved only for the priests; yet, at the same time did he not sin in that act. So, explain, please, Jesus' rationale.

Jesus was accused of not being lawful by breaking the Sabbath and claiming to be equal to God- Jesus was crucified over these false allegations. Jesus never broke the Sabbath and Jesus is God, so what Jesus was being accused of was not what what was happening, which is what Jesus was trying to explain about David. As stated previously, the Pharisees were adding man-made laws to God’s law. Jesus never broke the commandments and never sinned 1 Peter 2:21-22 and is our example to follow 1 John 2:6 who also kept the commandments John 15:10 including the Sabbath Luke 4:16 the holy day of the Lord thy God. Exodus 20:10, Isaiah 58:13 and we are made in the image of God to follow, obey and honor Him.

 

[Terri Dactyl]

Not only that but the 4th commandment differs significantly from the other 9 in that it was a weekly ritual, whereas the other 9 are not.

So God made a mistake because He placed a ceremonial law into the 10 Commandments? Why would He do that? (He wouldn't)

Whether you claim to or not, you keep 9 of the 10 as a Christian. Your problem rests upon the Sabbath Commandment.

Jesus never changed the day, and no one anywhere in the Bible has ever changed the 10 commandments.

Jesus gave us two commands

Matthew 22:37-39 KJV
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

But these also appear in the OT.

Deuteronomy 6:5 "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."

Lev 19:18 "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord"

These were not added by Christ, but reiterated by Him. They define what sin is. Even Paul says so Romans 7:7 "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet."

If there is a judgement, there must be a standard to judge with. You have to have broken a law to be judged.

Here it is.

The first 4 Commandments honor God, the last six show us how to treat our neighbor.
You keep all of these as a Christian--they are not done away with--can you imagine it now being ok to take the name of the Lord in vain? Of course not. It's that darn Sabbath commandment, init?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

So God made a mistake because He placed a ceremonial law into the 10 Commandments? Why would He do that? (He wouldn't)

Whether you claim to or not, you keep 9 of the 10 as a Christian. Your problem rests upon the Sabbath Commandment.

Jesus never changed the day, and no one anywhere in the Bible has ever changed the 10 commandments.

Jesus gave us two commands

Matthew 22:37-39 KJV
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

But these also appear in the OT.

Deuteronomy 6:5 "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."

Lev 19:18 "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord"

These were not added by Christ, but reiterated by Him. They define what sin is. Even Paul says so Romans 7:7 "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet."

If there is a judgement, there must be a standard to judge with. You have to have broken a law to be judged.

Here it is.

The first 4 Commandments honor God, the last six show us how to treat our neighbor.
You keep all of these as a Christian--they are not done away with--can you imagine it now being ok to take the name of the Lord in vain? Of course not. It's that darn Sabbath commandment, init?

Hi Terri,

Great post and welcome to CF!

Happy Sabbath!

 

[Doran]

Jesus was accused of not being lawful by breaking the Sabbath and claiming to be equal to God- Jesus was crucified over these false allegations. Jesus never broke the Sabbath and Jesus is God, so what Jesus was being accused of was not what what was happening, which is what Jesus was trying to explain about David. As stated previously, the Pharisees were adding man-made laws to God’s law. Jesus never broke the commandments and never sinned 1 Peter 2:21-22 and is our example to follow 1 John 2:6 who also kept the commandments John 15:10 including the Sabbath Luke 4:16 the holy day of the Lord thy God. Exodus 20:10, Isaiah 58:13 and we are made in the image of God to follow, obey and honor Him.

You still haven't explained what the parallels between David's situation and Jesus' or why Jesus used the David-showbread incident. David differed from Jesus because he did violate the law by eating the showbread, but as you have said Jesus did not sin. Jesus makes this point very clear. So...why did he bring David into the picture? Or the better question is: Since David did violate the Law of Moses, HOW could Jesus bring him into his own sabbath situation since Jesus did not break the law?

P.S. Proceed carefully here because this Luke 6 passage is devastating to sabbatarianism, whether you realize it or not. So, you should give it some careful thought.

 

[Doran]

So God made a mistake because He placed a ceremonial law into the 10 Commandments? Why would He do that? (He wouldn't)

Whether you claim to or not, you keep 9 of the 10 as a Christian. Your problem rests upon the Sabbath Commandment.

Jesus never changed the day, and no one anywhere in the Bible has ever changed the 10 commandments.

Jesus gave us two commands

Matthew 22:37-39 KJV
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

But these also appear in the OT.

Deuteronomy 6:5 "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."

Lev 19:18 "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord"

These were not added by Christ, but reiterated by Him. They define what sin is. Even Paul says so Romans 7:7 "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet."

If there is a judgement, there must be a standard to judge with. You have to have broken a law to be judged.

Here it is.

The first 4 Commandments honor God, the last six show us how to treat our neighbor.
You keep all of these as a Christian--they are not done away with--can you imagine it now being ok to take the name of the Lord in vain? Of course not. It's that darn Sabbath commandment, init?

Hi Terry, why would you think that a ceremonial law in the Decalogue would be a "mistake"? There are literally hundreds of moral, civil and ceremonial laws written in the Book of the Covenant. Was that a mistake too? Or are there two Mosaic Covenants -- one called the Tablets of the Covenant and the other the Book of the Covenant?

Also, can you point to any moral law in the bible that was designated as a sign to any covenant?

 

[Doran]

By the way...to one or to all or to any moderator, <g> I apologize for posting the same post twice earlier -- 1229 and 1230. Can someone tell me how to delete a post, as it appears the Edit function doesn't allow that? Thanks.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

You still haven't explained what the parallels between David's situation and Jesus' or why Jesus used the David-showbread incident. David differed from Jesus because he did violate the law by eating the showbread, but as you have said Jesus did not sin. Jesus makes this point very clear. So...why did he bring David into the picture? Or the better question is: Since David did violate the Law of Moses, HOW could Jesus bring him into his own sabbath situation since Jesus did not break the law?

P.S. Proceed carefully here because this Luke 6 passage is devastating to sabbatarianism, whether you realize it or not. So, you should give it some careful thought.

There is no scripture that is devastating to being a Sabbath-keeper and keeping the commandments of God, what is devastating are those who choose to do their will over the will of God according to Jesus. Matthew 7:21-23. God wrote His will and and testimony for us with His own finger Exodus 31:18 searching scripture endlessly to try to disprove something God personally wrote is something that is in God’s hands.

You seem to be making something that is much bigger in your head than what is stated in the scriptures. I already addressed David and Jesus, sadly many people believe that Jesus sinned and broke the Sabbath despite Jesus clearly telling us He didn’t, John 15:10 1 Peter 2:21-22 Hopefully thats not the direction you’re going as well and believing the Pharisees over Jesus, who falsely accused and crucified Jesus. If Jesus sinned, there is really no hope for any of us, thankfully Jesus overcame temptation, just like we can through Him.

 

[Doran]

There is no scripture that is devastating to being a Sabbath-keeper and keeping the commandments of God, what is devastating are those who choose to do their will over the will of God according to Jesus. Matthew 7:21-23. God wrote His will and and testimony for us with His own finger Exodus 31:18 searching scripture endlessly to try to disprove something God personally wrote is something that is in God’s hands.

You seem to be making something that is much bigger in your head than what is stated in the scriptures. I already addressed David and Jesus, sadly many people believe that Jesus sinned and broke the Sabbath despite Jesus clearly telling us He didn’t, John 15:10 1 Peter 2:21-22 Hopefully thats not the direction you’re going as well and believing the Pharisees over Jesus, who falsely accused and crucified Jesus. If one believes Jesus sinned, there is really no hope for any of us.

No, SB, sadly you never seem to answer the tough questions. I realize there is "meat" to God's Word as well as "milk" and you seem to be content sucking on a baby's bottle nipple <g>. So, let me ask one more time: Since Jesus himself in Luke 6:1-5 said that David did what was unlawful by eating the showbread, how could he LOGICALLY use the David incident to justify his own lawful behavior with regards to the sabbath? How can an unlawful act justify a lawful one?

I also invite other sabbatarians to answer the above question since it appears SB has no real answers -- just superficial, equivocating ones. Icy, Him, Terri? Anyone else?

P.S. The only way any of you sabbatarians would be able to coherently answer the above question (and avoid canned, superficial answers) is by getting inside Jesus' head, which would require a good working knowledge of the Word of God. Just sayin'...

 

[SabbathBlessings]

No, SB, sadly you never seem to answer the tough questions. I realize there is "meat" to God's Word as well as "milk" and you seem to be content sucking on a baby's bottle nipple <g>. So, let me ask one more time: Since Jesus himself in Luke 6:1-5 said that David did what was unlawful by eating the showbread, how could he LOGICALLY use the David incident to justify his own lawful behavior with regards to the sabbath? How can an unlawful act justify a lawful one?

I also invite other sabbatarians to answer the above question since it appears SB has no real answers -- just superficial, equivocating ones. Icy, Him, Terri? Anyone else?

P.S. The only way any of you sabbatarians would be able to coherently answer the above question (and avoid canned, superficial answers) is by getting inside Jesus' head, which would require a good working knowledge of the Word of God. Just sayin'...

Please show me in scripture where eating showbread on the Sabbath is breaking the Sabbath commandment. If there is no law, there there is no transgression.

I’ll try this one more time- the Pharisee laws were not God’s laws. They were adding laws to God’s laws and Jesus was correctly them. You can choose not to believe this but the other alternative is that Jesus is a sinner and the Pharisees were correct Jesus broke the Sabbath and Jesus is not equal to God. I know many non-Sabbath keepers have a hard time understanding these scriptures and want to jump to make a case- see Jesus did not keep the Sabbath so we don’t either or similar argument- but the facts are Jesus did not sin 1 Peter 2:2-21 and either did David by eating the showbread on the Sabbath, David was hungry and Jesus was showing that He is practical even if it is a tradition that the priests could only eat the showbread. Jesus told us to obey the commandments of God over the traditions of man. Matthew 15:3-9 Jesus kept the commandments of God John 15:10 including the Sabbath commandment of God as our example to follow. 1 John 2:6, Luke 4:16

Maybe the other Sabbath-keepers will answer you, I’ll bow out, I planned on that anyway. Take care.

 

[Cornelius8L]

Nowhere in Romans 14 does it speak of the Sabbath. And the 7th day Sabbath is speciel because in it God rested after finishing creation.

It doesn't mention the Sabbath. Why insert what is not there. And if we are inserting words where they are not; why stop there?

Hi HIM, Romans 14:5-6 speaks of all days including the seventh day. Unless your seventh day is (i)not special or (ii)not a day or (iii)you reject the message of Apostle Paul (Galatians 1:12).

God stop working. God did not enter into the Spiritual rest which is the Gospel in and through Christ. He is the Spiritual Rest in and through Christ. For it is God that works in us both to will do His good pleasure. He stopped working as scripture says. So we stop our physical work as Scripture says and rest..

Jesus said God still working on the Sabbath Day (John 5:16-17).