The Sabbath debate goes on, but should it?

[Clare73]

That wasn't the question- you said Jesus when He spoke about Moses' writings, He wasn't referring to the Mosaic law, Jesus quoted from the greatest commandments from the Mosaic law, which means not all of the Mosaic law ended.

Nothing ended before the cross.

Your response is way off topic,

You presented the statement regarding the law.

but love does fulfill the law,

Glad you agree with the NT.

He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

love is defined by God,

Indeed, as caring about our neighbor's welfare as we care about our own.

not by us and the summary does not delete the details of love to God, which according to clear scripture love to God is keeping His commandments 1 John 5:3, John 14:15- the unedited version Deut 4:2, the ones He personally wrote and spoke. Exodus 20 Exodus 20:6, the same ones Jesus told us to keep over our rules Matthew 15:3-9

So you have to set Scripture against

 

[Clare73]

false.

Actually, it is true.

 

[Clare73]

That wasn't the question- you said Jesus when He spoke about Moses' writings, He wasn't referring to the Mosaic law,

See Jn 5:46.

 

[BobRyan]

And the rest of the story. . .

Loose handling of Scripture.
Jesus is referring to Moses' testimony to Jesus' coming (Dt 18:18-19). He is not referring to the Mosaic law.

Jesus calls the Mosaic Law "the Word of God" , the "Commandment of God" and condemns those who try and edit/downsize/delete/set-aside that Law in Mark 7:7-13 as we have all seen in that example many times.

Actually, it is true.

oh... I see.

Mark 7 is a case where He is specifically referring to the Law of Moses

 

[Clare73]

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

The new Covenant is also a marriage covenant, Yeshua being our bridegroom. Instituted at the Last Supper...and you gentiles are grafted in.

The New Covenant is specifically made with "The house of Israel and the house of Judah"

Unbelieving Israel has been cut off.

 

[Clare73]

I'm not into game playing so will leave you to it.

Q.E.D.

 

[Clare73]

Summed up (means summarized) it does not mean "abolished".

Straw man.

 

[Clare73]

Amen. Doing otherwise would be eisegesis - reading your bias INTO scripture

Indeed it does.

Give it some thought.

Glad you agree.

 

[Clare73]

Jesus calls the Mosaic Law "the Word of God"

Agreed.

 

[BobRyan]

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

The new Covenant is also a marriage covenant, Yeshua being our bridegroom. Instituted at the Last Supper...and you gentiles are grafted in.

while the Jews were cut off.

The New Covenant is specifically made with "The house of Israel and the house of Judah"

Jer 31:31-34
31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. 33 “For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord: “I will put My law within them and write it on their heart; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their wrongdoing, and their sin I will no longer remember.”

Unbelieving Jews were cut off - and the believing ones (such as the Apostles and all those of Acts 2, Acts 15, Acts 21 ...) remained as Rom 11 points out.

Unbelieving Israel has been cut off.

True - but "so what"?

The Jer 31 statement is true and is repeated verbatim in Heb 8 - still true to this very day.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Although that is probably quite true, Paul does not even hint at it in his letter to the Galatians. Instead, his focus is clearly on those who have surrendered themselves to obeying the Jewish law. That would include both the Gentiles (who probably constituted the large majority of the assembly) as well as any Jews there.

He is clearly NOT speaking about Judaism in the passage I quoted. He does in others but NOT that passage.

 

[BobRyan]

Yeshua HaDerekh said:
2 different things. Some were mixing paganism and Christianity.

Although that is probably quite true, Paul does not even hint at it in his letter to the Galatians. Instead, his focus is clearly on those who have surrendered themselves to obeying the Jewish law.

Are you calling 'all scripture given by inspiration from God ' 2 Tim 3:16 -- "Jewish law"??
Or are you talking about the traditions that the Jews invented outside of the Word of God?

Do you really think "do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 is nothing more than "Jewish law"???

That would include both the Gentiles (who probably constituted the large majority of the assembly) as well as any Jews there.

Gentiles were former pagans... not former Jews.

 

[tall73]

It says "one man observes one day above another while another man observes every day" ... there is no "observes no day" in Rom 14.

Romans 14:5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it.

The first part says one person judges/considers (κρίνει) one day above another day. Another considers all days.

The observation is seen in verse 6. The TR and majority text do include a statement about some not observing a day. But apart from that it is obvious from the clause before it.

5 Ὃς μὲν κρίνει ἡμέραν παρ᾽ ἡμέραν, ὃς δὲ κρίνει πᾶσαν ἡμέραν. Ἕκαστος ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ vot πληροφορείσθω. ὅ 'Ὃ φρονῶν τὴν ἡμέραν, κυρίῳ φρονεῖ: καὶ ὁ μὴ φρονῶν τὴν ἡμέραν, κυρίῳ οὐ φρονεῖ. Καὶ ὁ ἐσθίων κυρίῳ ἐσθίει, εὐχαριστεῖ γὰρ τῷ De: καὶ ὁ μὴ ἐσθίων κυρίῳ οὐκ ἐσθίει, καὶ εὐχαριστεῖ τῷ θεῷ. Robinson and Pierpoint Byzantine Text Type.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
It says "one man observes one day above another while another man observes every day" ... there is no "observes no day" in Rom 14.

Romans 14:5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike

"alike" is not in the text at all - as most complete Bible translations inform the reader by noting it as an inserted word "in italics".

In the case of observing one of the Bible-approved annual holy days above another. Well then one is observed - but another is not.
Rom 14 says that in that case one is doing it "for the Lord" whether in observance or not in observance of a given annual holy day.

By contrast "ALL MANKIND" comes before God to worship "from Sabbath to Sabbath" -- for all eternity after the cross Is 66:23

. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it.

Just as noted above

The first part says one person judges/considers (κρίνει) one day above another day.

Indeed -- as noted above

Another considers all days.

Considers all the Bible approved holy days are to be observed.
But not -- 'considers that no day is to be observed' -- that insert is simply not in the text.
Can't imagine how much eisegesis it would take to get it into the text.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Romans 14:5 holds a similarly striking claim. Consider Paul’s words here alongside a typical old-covenant statement about the Sabbath.

You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. (Exodus 31:14)

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. (Romans 14:5)

If an old-covenant Israelite esteemed “all days alike,” he might be stoned to death (Numbers 15:32–36). Yet Paul evidently felt no need to impose the Sabbath command on his Gentile converts. Some in Rome, it seems, wanted to keep the Sabbath (and so esteem “one day as better than another”) — perhaps Jewish Christians eager to maintain the traditions of their fathers. Paul had no issue with those Christians, so long as they refrained from pressuring others to imitate them or suggested that salvation hinged on obedience to the Sabbath

For the sake of Christian freedom and mutual love, Paul says simply and remarkably, “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Romans 14:5).
Therefore no, Christians do not need to keep the Sabbath.

You have completely misinterpreted the meaning of that passage. It is regarding FASTING. FOOD. EATING OR NOT EATING. That is what happens when you cherry pick verses OUT OF CONTEXT to try and prove your point.

Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Romans 14:5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it.

The first part says one person judges/considers (κρίνει) one day above another day. Another considers all days.

The observation is seen in verse 6. The TR and majority text do include a statement about some not observing a day. But apart from that it is obvious from the clause before it.

5 Ὃς μὲν κρίνει ἡμέραν παρ᾽ ἡμέραν, ὃς δὲ κρίνει πᾶσαν ἡμέραν. Ἕκαστος ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ vot πληροφορείσθω. ὅ 'Ὃ φρονῶν τὴν ἡμέραν, κυρίῳ φρονεῖ: καὶ ὁ μὴ φρονῶν τὴν ἡμέραν, κυρίῳ οὐ φρονεῖ. Καὶ ὁ ἐσθίων κυρίῳ ἐσθίει, εὐχαριστεῖ γὰρ τῷ De: καὶ ὁ μὴ ἐσθίων κυρίῳ οὐκ ἐσθίει, καὶ εὐχαριστεῖ τῷ θεῷ. Robinson and Pierpoint Byzantine Text Type.

You have completely misinterpreted the meaning of that passage. It is regarding FASTING. FOOD. EATING OR NOT EATING. That is what happens when you cherry pick verses OUT OF CONTEXT to try and prove your point.

Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

 

[tall73]

You have completely misinterpreted the meaning of that passage. It is regarding FASTING. FOOD. EATING OR NOT EATING. That is what happens when you cherry pick verses OUT OF CONTEXT to try and prove your point.

My post did not put forward any interpretation. I posted one verse because Bob gave a paraphrase of that verse and indicated that the text said something different than the other poster alleged--but in doing so Bob changed the text.

What I do agree with Bob on is that you have to agree what the text says or doesn't say before getting into interpretation. So I have not touched on interpretation of this verse yet, or the passage as a whole.

I do note that at least so far you and Bob seem to have different interpretations, one pointing to holy days, and one to fasting. I may just watch you two hammer that out to see if this is actually agreement with each other or not before interpreting.

But in the meantime Bob said the following:

BobRyan said:
It says "one man observes one day above another while another man observes every day" ... there is no "observes no day" in Rom 14.

It does not say one man "observes" one day above another. The word is κρίνει which is why translations indicate esteem or judge or consider etc. When Bob said one man observes one day and one man observes all days, the text does not indicate that.

Bob also said there is no "observes no day". But there is in the majority text, in the next verse, which I was also pointing out, because disputes about the text also have to look at the various readings. I tend to favor the majority text in general, but I realize others prefer the UBS/NA text, and can make their argument on the manuscripts. But it is significant either way because even if you think the clause is a Byzantine gloss it still shows that verse 5's judging one day above another does not rule out at all the notion of one man observing or one man not observing.

Bob also indicates that the word "alike" is not in the text. I agree. That is why in literally rendering the text I indicated:

The first part says one person judges/considers (κρίνει) one day above another day. Another considers all days.

But the reason the various translations render it "alike" is because the word is not observe but "consider."

Understanding the text before interpreting the text is necessary when the text is disputed.

 

[Clare73]

The Jer 31 statement is true and is repeated verbatim in Heb 8 - still true to this very day.

Not according to Heb 8:13.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The first part says one person judges/considers (κρίνει) one day above another day. Another considers all days.

But the reason the various translations render it "alike" is because the word is not observe but "consider."

Understanding the text before interpreting the text is necessary when the text is disputed.

Krinei is "judges".

 

[tall73]

Krinei is "judges".

And the first sentence you quoted of me indicates that.