WHY THE LORD'S DAY IS NOT SATURDAY

[EclipseEventSigns]

Not true in Genesis 2:1-3 - it is before the fall of mankind.

Not true in Exodus 20:8-11 - nothing there specifies animal sacrifice

Not true in Is 66:23 where in the New Earth - for all eternity after the cross "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to bow down".

This means that the ending of animal sacrifice and offering in Heb 10:4-12 - still leaves the Genesis 2:1-3 Sabbath - day of holy convocation and rest - as it was in Eden. It still leaves the Is 58:13 restriction of no secular work. It still leaves the Lev 23:3 call for worship and holy convocation. And it continues in for all eternity after the cross for all mankind - even in the New Earth as we see in Is 66:23

No doubt sacrifices were added in Exodus - but that was not the inception of the sanctified holy day of the Lord - made holy in Gen 2:1-3

Wow. Just wow. I'm done. If you plainly deny the clear reading of the text, there is nothing left to talk about.

 

[BobRyan]

If you are going to reference the sabbaths being kept in the Millennium (Day of the Lord),

I have a thread for that titled "Why Sabbath(Saturday is the Lord's Day"

then you must also include all the other sabbaths and feasts that will be kept.

The inception of the Lev 23 annual Sabbaths was in animal sacrifice and offering - there is no other liturgy for them. Without earthly priests and sacrifices and offerings they have no service left.

The inception of the Ex 20:11 Sabbath is stated in Gen 2:1-3 and has no animal sacrifice.

No wonder almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN" for Christians today

 

[expos4ever]

You do not seem to understand what that means. Being "under the law" means you are under the curse. The consequences of breaking the law.

First, you have entirely ignored a rather detailed argument I made.

Second, you yet again impose arbitrary and awkward restrictions, seemingly with no justification.

Here is what Paul says about the "curse":

10 For all who are of works of [m]the Law are under a curse; for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all the things written in the book of the Law, to do them.” 11 Now, that no one is justified [n]by [o]the Law before God is evident; for, “[p]the righteous one will live by faith.” 12 [q]However, the Law is not [r]of faith; on the contrary, “The person who performs [s]them will live by [t]them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a [u]tree”—

Who is under the curse? You say the curse is the consequences of breaking the Law. But Paul does not say this - he rather clearly says the curse is borne by those who are "of the works of the Law". I suggest an objective reader will conclude that this is simply a reference to any Jew who tries to follow the Law - there is no restriction to "consequences"; you appear to read that in.

What's more look at the introduction to this chapter (Gal. 3):

You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by works of [b]the Law, or by hearing [c]with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun [d]by the Spirit, are you now [e]being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you [f]suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works [g]miracles among you, do it by works of [h]the Law, or by hearing [i]with faith?

Would Paul write these words if he actually approved of efforts to follow the Law? It is beyond obvious that he would not. And yet this is exactly the position you are forced into. If Paul thinks the curse is solely associated with the consequences of breaking the Law, and otherwise approves of efforts to follow it, why is so critical of efforts to follow the law here in the introduction to Gal 3?

Again, it is clear that Paul's target is the effort follow the Law of Moses. And this is precisely the kind of thing that sets up the claim that the Law itself is a curse.

 

[BobRyan]

And how do you know that these "commandments of God" necessarily include the 10 commandments?

Paul thought so -- Eph 6:2 "the first commandment with a promise is "honor your father and mother"' - - only true in the Unit of TEN
Paul thought so - in Rom 7 reminding us that they contain the "Do not Covet" commandment.
Paul thought so - In Rom 13 all the Laws Paul lists are from the Law of Moses and most of them are from the TEN.

Jer 31:31-34 has that LAW of God written on heart and mind under the NEW Covenant.

In Heb 8:6-12 Paul says this state for the New Covenant is unchanged in the New Testament.

In Deut 5:22 we are told that the LAW that God spoke included the TEN "and He added NO MORE".

Scripture makes it clear.

Paul certainly did not think so:

The texts I just posted above - beg to differ.

So no wonder Paul says "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19

No wonder almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN" for Christians today

 

[BobRyan]

You do not seem to understand what that means. Being "under the law" means you are under the curse. The consequences of breaking the law. We are not. Yeshua has become a curse for us. The wages of sin is death...that is the curse of the law. It does not mean what you think it means.

Amen. Rom 3:19-20 makes that very clear.

 

[BobRyan]

You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by works of [b]the Law, or by hearing [c]with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun [d]by the Spirit, are you now [e]being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you [f]suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works [g]miracles among you, do it by works of [h]the Law, or by hearing [i]with faith?

Would Paul write these words if he actually approved of efforts to follow the Law?

Indeed he would - because Paul knew full well it is still "a sin" - to take God's name in vain -even for Christians.

​

Rom 7:​

7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? Far from it! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.” ...12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.​

​

13 Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? Far from it! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by bringing about my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.​

14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold into bondage to sin. ...16 However, if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, that the Law is good. 17 But now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I do the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin that dwells in me.​

​

21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully agree with the law of God in the inner person,​

Paul says that a lost person does not submit to the Law of God - neither indeed CAN they.

Rom 8​

5 For those who are in accord with the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are in accord with the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.​

9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.​

​

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God "
Where "The first commandment with a promise is "honor your father and mother' " Eph 6:2 - according to Paul

 

[BobRyan]

This is absolutely incorrect. The weekly sabbath DID include animal sacrifices.

Not true in Genesis 2:1-3 - it is before the fall of mankind.

Not true in Exodus 20:8-11 - nothing there specifies animal sacrifice

Not true in Is 66:23 where in the New Earth - for all eternity after the cross "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to bow down".

This means that the ending of animal sacrifice and offering in Heb 10:4-12 - still leaves the Genesis 2:1-3 Sabbath - day of holy convocation and rest - as it was in Eden. It still leaves the Is 58:13 restriction of no secular work. It still leaves the Lev 23:3 call for worship and holy convocation. And it continues in for all eternity after the cross for all mankind - even in the New Earth as we see in Is 66:23

" On the Sabbath day, two male lambs a year old without blemish, and two tenths of an ephah of fine flour for a grain offering, mixed with oil, and its drink offering: this is the burnt offering of every Sabbath, besides the regular burnt offering and its drink offering." Numbers 28:9-10

No doubt sacrifices were added in Exodus - but that was not the inception of the sanctified holy day of the Lord - made holy in Gen 2:1-3

Wow. Just wow.

Indeed the Bible evidence on this is irrefutable.

No wonder almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN" for Christians today.

Both the Bible-Sabbath keeping ones and the ones that keep week-day-1 affirm that irrefutable fact of the TEN.

I'm done.

You have free will of course.

 

[BobRyan]

This is absolutely incorrect. The weekly sabbath DID include animal sacrifices.

You skimmed past these details in the post you were responding to ...

The Gen 2:1-3 Sabbath pointed to by Ex 20:11 had no animal sacrifices or offerings - it was before sin. And Ex 20:8-11 - the Sabbath commandment - also has no animal sacrifices or offerings listed for it.

Were we "not supposed to notice"?

 

[Leaf473]

If you are going to reference the sabbaths being kept in the Millennium (Day of the Lord), then you must also include all the other sabbaths and feasts that will be kept.

"It shall be the prince’s duty to furnish the burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the new moons, and the Sabbaths, all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel: he shall provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings, to make atonement on behalf of the house of Israel." Ez 45:17 (btw, notice that again the feasts and the sabbaths are separated out and it is plural "sabbaths" with no distinction being made of feast sabbaths and weekly sabbath.)

This was part of the vision of the Millennial temple that God showed to Ezekiel: "In visions of God he brought me to the land of Israel, and set me down on a very high mountain, on which was a structure like a city to the south." Ez 40:2

You seem to say that Is 66:23 is talking about the New Earth. Actually, no. It is talking about the Day of the Lord the 1000 year reign of Christ. The "new earth" is given as a simile to compare the permanence of the people of God.

In addition, the "from sabbath to sabbath" in Is 66:23 is NOT referring to the weekly sabbath. It is the sabbath as part of the New Moon sabbath (beginning of each month). Isaiah often writes poetically and here he is doubling the same concept for emphasis.

This same doubling for emphasis occurs here:
Amos 8:5 "saying, “When will the new moon be over,
that we may sell grain?
And the Sabbath,
that we may offer wheat for sale,"

Good observations. If we take these things all literally, the feast of booths will be celebrated at some point in the future, as well.

Bible Gateway passage: Zechariah 14:16-21 - New American Standard Bible

Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that came against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of armies, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths. And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to...

www.biblegateway.com

 

[expos4ever]

Scripture never says "Moses kept the Sabbath faithfully"
Scripture never says "Moses honored his mother and father faithfully"

That sort of dodge has no end to it.

What?! This is a very puzzling objection. Let's recap. Somebody else claimed that Jesus never broke the Sabbath. I simply pointed out a fact - Scripture never says that He kept the Sabbath perfectly, so the claim is speculative.

The person who made the initial claim - that Jesus never broke the Sabbath - bears the obligation to support such a claim. And I am simply challenging him (or her) to support this claim from Scripture.

You, in your usual fashion, are engaging in some creative spinning to trick the reader into thinking I have faltered in my thinking.

You are making a strawman argument, implying that I have posted an initial claim of the form "Scripture never says that Jesus kept the Sabbath perfectly; therefore this is evidence that He did not."

That kind of claim would indeed be subject to your critique. But I never made any kind of statement like it and, frankly, you know this. I merely stated a fact: Scripture never says Jesus never broke the Sabbath - I never used this to support a conclusion that, on this basis alone, Jesus did indeed break the Sabbath.

Please try to at least debate fairly.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Please try to at least debate fairly.

There's no point. People ignore and deny the plain reading of Scripture texts. When that happens, you are wasting your time. Something I heard about pearls and swine.

 

[expos4ever]

You stated commandment “thou shalt not covet” is not the law of God, but you never proved this through scripture.

I never said any such thing - you guys really need to be more careful in attributing things to others.

Paul defines what sin is and said he would not know sin and coveting if God‘s law did not say thou shalt not covet Romans 7:7 found in the Ten Commandments Exodus 20:17.

Details matter. Here is what Paul says in Romans 7:7

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? [a]Far from it! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except [b]through the Law; for I would not have known about [c]coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not [d]covet.”

Past tense - all we can infer from this is that, in the past at least, the law told him what sin was. But you cannot simply assume that he still needs the Law. In fact, we know he does not!

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [a]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Again, note the tense - now we have been released from the Law.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I never said any such thing - you guys really need to be more careful in attributing things to others.

Here’s your post
Post in thread 'WHY THE LORD'S DAY IS NOT SATURDAY'
WHY THE LORD'S DAY IS NOT SATURDAY

Details matter. Here is what Paul says in Romans 7:7

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? [a]Far from it! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except [b]through the Law; for I would not have known about [c]coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not [d]covet.”

Past tense - all we can infer from this is that, in the past at least, the law told him what sin was. But you cannot simply assume that he still needs the Law. In fact, we know he does not!

It was past tense because Paul is quoting God from the Ten Commandments, not past tense in the sense we can now covet freely and break this law and sin.

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [a]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Again, note the tense - now we have been released from the Law.

Released from the penalty of the law (the wages of sin is death) if one is keeping the law. Plenty of warnings of those who choose not to keep God’s law that we are free to ignore, but we can’t say we are not warned. One of the last scriptures before the Second Coming…..Blessed are those who do (keep) His commandments Revelation 22:14 compare this to Revelation 22:15, Matthew 7:23. Keeping God’s law is an outward expression that we have been changed by Jesus, it is a fruit of ones faith Romans 3:31 and what a saved person looks like Revelation 14:12

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
Scripture never says "Moses kept the Sabbath faithfully"
Scripture never says "Moses honored his mother and father faithfully"

That sort of dodge has no end to it.

What?! This is a very puzzling objection. Let's recap. Somebody else claimed that Jesus never broke the Sabbath. I simply pointed out a fact - Scripture never says that He kept the Sabbath perfectly, so the claim is speculative.

And I point out that the kind of argument you are making is weak because it could be made against almost everyone in the Bible by adding "faithfully" at the end of each commandment to say "no text is adding faithfully" when someone is found obedient and righteous.

Heb 3 says Moses WAS Faithful - but even it does not go through each of the commandments and add "faithfully" to each one.

The person who made the initial claim - that Jesus never broke the Sabbath - bears the obligation to support such a claim. And I am simply challenging him (or her) to support this claim from Scripture.

But you are doing it with a tactic that does not work at all in all of scripture. Your argument is weak in that respect.

You, in your usual fashion, are engaging in some creative spinning

Err umm... 'no' -- I am making an easy and obvious point.

 

[expos4ever]

Here’s your post
Post in thread 'WHY THE LORD'S DAY IS NOT SATURDAY'
WHY THE LORD'S DAY IS NOT SATURDAY

I have never, repeat never denied that the commandment to not covet is part of the Law of Moses.

And I have never, repeat never, posted anything that would a reasonable person to conclude that I believe coveting is ok with God.

It is hard enough keeping up with everything without having to continually correct misrepresentations.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I have never, repeat never denied that the commandment to not covet is part of the Law of Moses.

And I have never, repeat never, posted anything that would a reasonable person to conclude that I believe coveting is ok with God.

It is hard enough keeping up with everything without having to continually correct misrepresentations.

Well, you seem to be making contradictory statements, you repeatedly state we are released from the law, but yet now say we should keep the commandment of thou shalt not covet from the Ten Commandments Exodus 20:17, which is the law of God. So are you now saying you agree we are not released from God’s law and should be keeping the commandments of God?

 

[expos4ever]

Well, you seem to be making contradictory statements, you repeatedly state we are released from the law, but yet now say we should keep the commandment of thou shalt not covet from the Ten Commandments Exodus 20:17, which is the law of God. So are you now saying you agree we are not released from God’s law and should be keeping the commandments of God?

Well, you seem to be making contradictory statements, you repeatedly state we are released from the law, but yet now say we should keep the commandment of thou shalt not covet from the Ten Commandments Exodus 20:17, which is the law of God.

I am NOT saying this - you are reworking what I say through your own framework of thinking. Yes, I have said that we are released from the Law - that part you have right. And, yes, I am saying that God tells us to not covet. But, and I am not sure what is so hard to understand about this, I am saying the reason that we know that it is wrong not to covet is because the Holy Spirit reveals this to us.

No doubt, you will see this as a concession on my part that the commandment to not covet still applies after all.

But my position is perfectly self-consistent as I will show by an analogy. Suppose there is a set of Laws, call this set X, that is on the books until December 31st 2023. And then at midnight on Dec 31st, Law X is retired and replaced by a new set of laws Y. Even if both sets of laws include the same law against coveting, I am correct in saying I am not under the Law X version of the law against coveting - I am now under the law Y version.

In other words, while the "content" of Law Y may some overlap with the content of Law X, it is simply not correct to claim that I am in any sense still under Law X.

We now look to the indwelling Spirit (analogous to Law Y) and not to the Law of Moses (analogous to Law X).

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I am NOT saying this - you are reworking what I say through your own framework of thinking. Yes, I have said that we are released from the Law - that part you have right. And, yes, I am saying that God tells us to not covet. But, and I am not sure what is so hard to understand about this, I am saying the reason that we know that it is wrong not to covet is because the Holy Spirit reveals this to us.

So your claim is the reason it’s wrong to covet is because the Holy Spirit tells us to, not because it’s a commandment of God, is that correct? Wouldn’t that make the Holy Spirit and God in conflict instead of being in harmony? Those who walk in the Spirit are not in conflict with the law of God. Romans 8:7 The Spirit is given to help us keep the commandments John 14:15-18 so I do not see the Spirit and God’s law in conflict. The Spirit convicts us of sin John 16:8 sin is the transgression of the law 1 John 3:4 Romans 7:7 they work in harmony.

No doubt, you will see this as a concession on my part that the commandment to not covet still applies after all.

Well thats a relief, you might want to update your posts to reflect this.

But my position is perfectly self-consistent as I will show by an analogy. Suppose there is a set of Laws, call this set X, that is on the books until December 31st 2023. And then at midnight on Dec 31st, Law X is retired and replaced by a new set of laws Y. Even if both sets of laws include the same law against coveting, I am correct in saying I am not under the Law X version of the law against coveting - I am now under the law Y version.

In other words, while the "content" of Law Y may some overlap with the content of Law X, it is simply not correct to claim that I am in any sense still under Law X.

We now look to the indwelling Spirit (analogous to Law Y) and not to the Law of Moses (analogous to Law X).

God said He writes His laws in the hearts and minds of His people Hebrews 8:10 which of course includes the law that is in the Most Holy of God’s Temple that resides in heaven Revelation 11:19 and what the earthy temple was modeled after personally written by God‘s own finger and part of the unit of Ten that says thou shalt not covet and points out sin. Romans 7:7. God’s law is continuous and eternal and God defines what is righteousness Psalms 119:172 and should obey His commandments because this is love to God and our fellow man. 1 John 5:2-3

 

[pasifika]

Ok, no, we are not agreed. All sabbaths, both the 7th day AND the feast day sabbaths were of the same importance. They all NEEDED to be observed. They were all part of God's covenant law given to the Israelites at Mt. Sinai and expected to be followed to the letter. This is exactly why it is such a big deal what Paul was saying in Colossians. Living in Christ frees you from all those sabbath keeping laws - the 7th day and the feast days. All of them. No longer needed or required. All fulfilled. Done. Finished. Complete. End of story.
However....you are free to keep them as a love offering to God. That actually was God's original intent to begin with.

Yes, they can keep it or (try to keep it) But they don't have to force other Christians to follow them.

 

[pasifika]

I just took a look at Lev 23 which you state are a list of Sabbaths. Did you not notice that the weekly sabbath on the 7th day is first on the list? Lev 23:3. So, yes, you just proved the point that ALL sabbaths are identical in import and purpose.

Amen..