WHY THE LORD'S DAY IS NOT SATURDAY

[pasifika]

Well that is what we were discussing...

So, the law does not free you or me from sin or the death sentence, rather it confirms it, that we are sinners and deserve the death sentence.

On the other hand is knowing Christ and His great Love for us, this knowledge will transform you and me from a man awaits death to a free man with everlasting life. (The law cannot give you this way out)

 

[trophy33]

We, Christians from Gentiles, have never been given the law of Moses. So this layered theology of Paul and other Jewish apostles may confuse us with its complexity, but its not really about us.

As Christians, we accept moral laws that are universal (and that were present also in the law of Moses). But the law as a legal document in a covenant has never been given to us. So its external observances of various days do not apply to us. Physically keeping a day is not a moral law.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

So, the law does not free you or me from sin or the death sentence, rather it confirms it, that we are sinners and deserve the death sentence.

On the other hand is knowing Christ and His great Love for us, this knowledge will transform you and me from a man awaits death to a free man with everlasting life. (The law cannot give you this way out)

So what is your point? So you agree with me then...

 

[pasifika]

We, Christians from Gentiles, have never been given the law of Moses. So this layered theology of Paul and other Jewish apostles may confuse us with its complexity, but its not really about us.

As Christians, we accept moral laws that are universal (and that were present also in the law of Moses). But the law as a legal document in a covenant has never been given to us. So its external observances of various days do not apply to us. Physically keeping a day is not a moral law.

Agree...the law was given as a covenant to Israel simply to show them their sins. But all humans sins, not just Israel and the law that gave to Israel at Sinai through a covenant is the same law that reveals sin.

Romans 2:12 Anyone who sin apart from the law will be perish apart from the law (this for Gentiles)
All who sin under the law will judged by the law (Jews).

So whether the law was given (ie to israel) or not (to Gentiles) is the same law that condemn us due to Sin. (The law of Sin and Death)

As it says, Romans 5:13..Sin was in the world before the law was given..

 

[trophy33]

Agree...the law was given as a covenant to Israel simply to show them their sins. But all humans sins, not just Israel and the law that gave to Israel at Sinai through a covenant is the same law that reveals sin.

Romans 2:12 Anyone who sin apart from the law will be perish apart from the law (this for Gentiles)
All who sin under the law will judged by the law (Jews)

As it says, Romans 5:13..Sin was in the world before the law was given..

We all sinned against moral laws, both Jews and Gentiles.

The specific purpose of the Mosaic Law was to keep Israel waiting for Christ - through its various observances and symbolism. Since Christ came, those are obsolete.

Edit: English

 

[Leaf473]

We, Christians from Gentiles, have never been given the law of Moses. So this layered theology of Paul and other Jewish apostles may confuse us with its complexity, but its not really about us.

As Christians, we accept moral laws that are universal (and that were present also in the law of Moses). But the law as a legal document in a covenant has never been given to us. So its external observances of various days do not apply to us. Physically keeping a day is not a moral law.

I've thought much the same thing, especially about keeping a physical day not being a moral law.

There are taboos around things like murder and stealing around the world throughout history. I don't see the same things around not working on the Sabbath.

 

[expos4ever]

Are you calling the Ten Commandments the law of Moses and no longer in effect despite Jesus saying they are?

Jesus does indeed instruct his contemporaries to follow the law of Moses - this is no surprise. However, on the hypothesis that the law comes to an end of the cross, it makes perfect sense for Jesus to do so as the time is not yet come for the law's retirement.

Here is the problem, I suggest with how you and others interpret scripture. You tend to take isolated verses and to build doctrine around them. I agree, if all we had to go on was Jesus's instructions to his contemporaries, then the case for the law remaining in effect would be quite strong. But, that is not all we have to go on - we have a clear statements from Paul declaring the end of the law such as this one:

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

In addition, we have strong indications from Jesus himself that the law is coming to an end, not least his overturning of the food laws in Mark 7 as well as His declaration that He, and not the temple as prescribed by the law, is the place to go for forgiveness. To the person with ears to hear, this is clear evidence that the law is coming to an end.

...but the Bible is very clear we are blessed when we keep the commandments Revelation 22:14

Here is Rev 22:14:

14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life, and may enter the city by the gates.

There is no reference at all to keeping the Law of Moses here.

Jesus came to do the will of God John 6:38 and it is God’s will we obey Him,,...

Obvious circular reasoning - you simply assume that, this side of the cross, doing the will of God entails following the law.

How do you explain this verse? Can you do so without doing what others have done - editing Paul's words:

6 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.

 

[expos4ever]

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

All that this does is it establish that there is some overlap between the law of Moses, which we know from other biblical texts, such as Eph 2:15, has been retired, and this commandment from Paul. Again, an analogy: imagine a body of laws, call them X. Now suppose these laws are set to expire at midnight today, to be replaced by another form of moral guidance, call it Y, whatever that might be (it might be some laws and / or a kind of inner voice). It would not be surprising at all if Y overlapped with X in some areas, but that certainly does not mean that X is still in effect.

Or think of it this way: your implied argument could be used to reason thusly about me, a Canadian:

- Expos4ever agrees it is wrong to murder
- American law says it is wrong to murder
- Therefore, Expos4ever is affirming he is subject to American law

I trust the problem is obvious - the fact that Paul tells us to follow a principle that is in the Law of Moses does not mean he is affirming the continued applicability of the Law of Moses. We know this is not so:

6 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

 

[Leaf473]

Jesus does indeed instruct his contemporaries to follow the law of Moses - this is no surprise. However, on the hypothesis that the law comes to an end of the cross, it makes perfect sense for Jesus to do so as the time is not yet come for the law's retirement.

Another example of not doing everything Jesus told people to do back then is this passage, where Jesus says to make an animal sacrifice.

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 8:4 - New American Standard Bible

And Jesus *said to him, “See that you tell no one; but go, show yourself to the priest and present the offering that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.”

www.biblegateway.com

 

[expos4ever]

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.

Surely you must acknowledge that just because Paul agrees the Law is good, does not mean it is still in force. And this is what your argument amounts to.

Again, look at what Paul writes immediately before he penned the words you have posted:

6 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

Please explain to us how this text can be reconciled with the position that we are still to follow the Law. For my part, I have just pointed out the really rather self-evident truth that just because Paul says the law is good does not mean it it is still in force. Now, please do likewise and reconcile 7:6 with your view that we are to follow some elements of the Law of Moses.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Here is the problem, I suggest with how you and others interpret scripture. You tend to take isolated verses and to build doctrine around them. I agree, if all we had to go on was Jesus's instructions to his contemporaries, then the case for the law remaining in effect would be quite strong. In addition, we have strong indications from Jesus himself that the law is coming to an end, not least his overturning of the food laws in Mark 7

And you take an isolated verse and interpret it completely out of context. Mark 7:19 is a good example...

 

[eleos1954]

I disagree - I believe Jesus intentionally broke the Sabbath as a way of signalling that the Law of Moses was coming to an end. Consider this from Matthew

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat. 2 Now when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath!

Now I am aware that Jesus "defends" His actions and at least appears to claim innocence. Those, like you, who believe the Sabbath is still in force understandably argue, not least based on Jesus's explanation, that He is not breaking the Sabbath. Fair enough. But look at this from Exodus 16:

Now on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, [o]two omers for each one. When all the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses, 23 then he said to them, “This is what the Lord [p]meant: Tomorrow is a Sabbath observance, a holy Sabbath to the Lord. Bake what you will bake and boil w ....hat you will boil, and all that is left over [q]put aside to be kept until morning.” 24 So they put it aside until morning, as Moses had ordered, and it did not stink nor was there a maggot in it. 25 Then Moses said, “Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the Lord; today you will not find it in the field. 26 Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will be [r]none.”

It certainly seems that "being hungry" is no excuse for violating the Sabbath. Or, putting in another way, if, as required by Exodus, there was to be no gathering of manna on the Sabbath, it seems hard to imagine how it would be defensible for Jesus to pick grains on the Sabbath.

In any event, I think there are a myriad of other Biblical reasons to believe the Sabbath is now no longer in force even if this argument of mine is not convincing.

Jesus was sinless .... period! He did not break any laws whatsoever.

In the verse you referenced ... the Lord was supplying manna, that's all they had to eat .... the Lord instructed them to keep the left overs because manna from the Lord would not be provided to them on the Sabbath.

The Jewish leaders had made up their own rules ..... and they were attempting to use their rules against Jesus and disciples ie eating grain on the Sabbath (thus accusing them of breaking the 4th commandment). Their rules claimed that he was reaping (harvesting) with such an action.

When the disciples plucked heads of grain to eat with their hands, they were simply eating. His action was completely valid according to the Torah: “When you come into your neighbor’s standing grain, then you may pluck the ears with your hand; but you shall not use a sickle (reaping) on your neighbor’s standing grain” (Deut. 23:25). The disciples did not harvest (reap) grain. They picked heads of grain for food.

Luke

3Jesus replied, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, took the consecrated bread and gave it to his companions, and ate what is lawful only for the priests to eat.”

Eating on the Sabbath is not breaking the 4th commandment ..... harvesting would be ..... there is a difference. They were eating because they were hungry .... not harvesting (reaping) and did not break the Sabbath.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Jesus was sinless .... period! He did not break any laws whatsoever.

In the verse you referenced ... the Lord was supplying manna, that's all they had to eat .... the Lord instructed them to keep the left overs because manna from the Lord would not be provided to them on the Sabbath.

The Jewish leaders had made up their own rules ..... and they were attempting to use their rules against Jesus and disciples ie eating grain on the Sabbath (thus accusing them of breaking the 4th commandment). Their rules claimed that he was reaping (harvesting) with such an action.

When the disciples plucked heads of grain to eat with their hands, they were simply eating. His action was completely valid according to the Torah: “When you come into your neighbor’s standing grain, then you may pluck the ears with your hand; but you shall not use a sickle (reaping) on your neighbor’s standing grain” (Deut. 23:25). The disciples did not harvest (reap) grain. They picked heads of grain for food.

Luke

3Jesus replied, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, took the consecrated bread and gave it to his companions, and ate what is lawful only for the priests to eat.”

Eating on the Sabbath is not breaking the 4th commandment ..... harvesting would be ..... there is a difference. They were eating because they were hungry .... not harvesting (reaping) and did not break the Sabbath.

I tried saying the same thing days ago...

 

[eleos1954]

Scripture never states that Jesus kept the Sabbath faithfully - you are making an inference.

In any event, your reasoning is flawed as it fails to account for the fact that, as God, Jesus has the authority to set aside the Law of Moses. Since I believe you cannot possibly dispute this, you are forced to accept the proposition that if Jesus, as God, retires the Law of Moses, then He (Jesus) can work all He wants on the Sabbath and not be sinning!

You guys surely must know this, and yet you continue to trot out this obviously oversimplified analysis that misrepresents me (and others) as embracing the view that Jesus sinned. We are not forced into that view for precisely the reasons I have posted here and otherwise posted more times than I can are to remember.

Perhaps I bear some of the responsibility however for my repeated use of the phrase "Jesus broke the Law". What I am really saying is this: Jesus engaged in behaviours, and made statements, that appeared to break the Law but were really symbolic actions heralding the imminent end of the Law.

Keeping the Sabbath holy is the 4th commandment ..... it's about doing work .... eating food is not work ..... harvesting would be work.

He did not lay aside any of the 10 commandments (including the 4th) .... the law that was nailed to the cross were those associated
with the the sacrificial system (not the 10) ..... no longer needed because Jesus is the final sacrifice for all .... for all time and also became our high priest..

Hebrews 7
Amplified

26It was fitting for us to have such a High Priest [perfectly adapted to our needs], holy, blameless, unstained [by sin], separated from sinners and exalted higher than the heavens; 27who has no day by day need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices, first of all for his own [personal] sins and then for those of the people, because He [met all the requirements and] did this once for all when He offered up Himself [as a willing sacrifice]. 28For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak [frail, sinful, dying men], but the word of the oath [of God], which came after [the institution of] the Law (ceremonial law), permanently appoints [as priest] a Son who has been made perfect forever.

This was visually depicted when Jesus was crucified and the temple curtain was rent (from top to bottom).... exposing the most holy place .... formerly only high priests could enter the most holy place ..... high priests and earthly temple system no longer needed.

Matthew 27:51 says, "Behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent." This curtain separated the second room called the Holy of Holies from the first room, the Holy Place.

 

[trophy33]

Keeping the Sabbath holy is the 4th commandment ..... it's about doing work .... eating food is not work ..... harvesting would be work.

He did not lay aside any of the 10 commandments (including the 4th) .... the law that was nailed to the cross were those associated
with the the sacrificial system (not the 10) ..... no longer needed because Jesus is the final sacrifice for all .... for all time and also became our high priest..

Keeping the Sabbath has never been given to nations. So it does not matter if its in the 10 commandments or not, the 10 commandments have been given to Israel, only.

 

[eleos1954]

Keeping the Sabbath has never been given to nations. So it does not matter if its in the 10 commandments or not, the 10 commandments have been given to Israel, only.

Not so (Israel only) ..... satan and the fallen angels were cast down because they sinned against God ..... sin began in heaven not on earth.

What is sin? Transgression of the law ..... what law"

 

[trophy33]

What is sin? Transgression of the law ..... what law"

Moral law. And a physical keeping of a day is not a moral law.

 

[eleos1954]

Moral law. And a physical keeping of a day is not a moral law.

The 10 commandments ARE the moral law .... the 4th is moral law.

Matthew 5:18​

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

What law? What commandments?

 

[trophy33]

The 10 commandments ARE the moral law .... the 4th is moral law.

Matthew 5:18​

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

What law? What commandments?

You are running in circles.

 

[eleos1954]

You are running in circles.

No I'm not ..... there is some law in place (not changeable) ..... what law?