Where was the Sabbath Abolished?

[Soyeong]

I'm sorry to be 30 pages late.
Most likely you got an answer. However, just in case...

There are "many verses and much" texts stating clearly that the Law ended - was abolished, along with its Sabbaths.

While there is room to interpret servants of God as speaking against obeying God's word, it makes a lot more sense to interpret them as being in favor of obeying God. Paul spoke about multiple categories of law other than the Law of God, such as the law of sin and works of the law, so it is always important to discern this law Paul is referring to out of all of the categories of law that he spoke about. For example, in Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul contrasted the Law of God with the law of sin and contrasted the Law of the Spirit with the law of sin and death. In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith and in Romans 3:31 and Galatians 3:10-12, he said that our faith upholds the Law of God in contrast with saying that works of the law are not of faith. So when we correctly discern which law Paul was speaking about and do not make the interpreting Paul speaking against obeying the Law of God for an incorrect reason as speaking against obeying it, then we will find that he never spoke against anyone obeying anything that God has commanded for the reasons for which He commanded it.

Romans 7:6
But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that which we were bound, in order for us to serve in newness of the Spirit, and not in oldness of the letter.

In Romans 7:22-23, Paul delighted in obeying the Law of God, but contrasted that with the law of sin that held him captive and it would be absurd to interpret Romans 7:5-6 as referring to the Law of God as if Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death or as if he delighted in being held captive to sin, but rather it is the law of sin that he described as holding him captive. A law that stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death is a law that is sinful, however, Romans 7:7 says that the Law of God is not sinful, but is how we know what sin is, so Paul is contrasting the Law of God with the law of sin throughout that passage. When our sin is revealed, then that lead us to repent and causes sin to decrease, but the law of sin is sinful and causes sin to increase. Paul said that the Law of God is good and that he wanted to do good, but spoke about the law of sin that was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do.

Romans 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law, to bring righteousness to everyone who believes.

While there is room to translate the Greek word "telos" can as saying "Christ is the end of the law", there is also room to translate it as saying "Christ is the goal of the law" and there are a number of verses where the context shows that it should be translated as "purpose" or "goal", though even "end" can mean "intention" or "aim". In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the law is to teach us how to experience knowing God and Jesus, which is eternal life (John 17:3), which is also why Jesus said that obeying it is the way to inherit eternal life (Luke 10:25-28, Matthew 19:17).

The context of Romans 9:30-10:10 has nothing to do with Christ ending the Law of God as if it makes sense for God's word made flesh to end God's word, but rather it is speaking about the Israelites missing the goal of the law. The Israelites had a zeal for God, but it was not based on knowing him, so they failed to attain righteousness because they misunderstood the gaol of the law by pursuing it as though righteousness were earned as the result of their works in order to establish their own instead of pursuing it as through righteousness were by faith in Christ, for knowing Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith. In Romans 10:5-10, this faith references Deuteronomy 30:11-20 as the world of faith that we proclaim in regard to saying that the Law of God is not too difficult for us to obey, that obedience to it brings life and a blessing, in regard to what we are agreeing to obey by confessing that Jesus is Lord, and in regard to the way to believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. People frequently like to quote Romans 10:4 and 10:9-10 and frequently like to ignore the point that Paul was making in Romans 10:5-8 and is relevance to how the surrounding verses should be understood.

2 Corinthians 3:11
For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

2 Corinthians 3:6 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.

In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting His law in minds and writing in on our hearts, and in Ezekiel 36:26-27, it involves God taking away our hearts of stone, giving us hearts of flesh, and sending His Spirit to lead us to obey His law. Furthermore, in Deuteronomy 30:11-20, obedience to God's law leads to live and a blessing while it is disobedience to it that leads to death, and there are many other verses that repeatedly sayin that it is the way of life (Deuteronomy 32:46-47, Proverbs 3:18, Proverbs 6:23, Luke 10:25-28, Matthew 19:17, Hebrews 5:9, Revelation 22:14). So 2 Corinthians 2:6-11 needs to be understood in a way that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible rather than a way that is contrary to it. If obeying the letter referred to correctly following God's instructions and that leads to death, then that would mean that God would be misleading us and shouldn't be trusted.

Colossians 2:13-17
13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

1. ) You shall not commit murder.

2.) This person has been changed with committing murder.

The first is an example of a law that is for our own good (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13) while the second is an example of a handwritten ordinance was against someone that was nailed to their cross in order to announce the charge that was against them. For example, in Matthew 27:37, they nailed a handwritten ordinance to Christ's cross that announced the change that he was against him that he was the King of the Jews. This fits perfectly with nailing the list of the sins that we have been charged with committing to Christ's cross and with him dying in our place in order to pay the penalty for our sins, but has nothing to do with him causing us to be free to do what God's law reveals to be sin. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Christ gave himself to free us from God's law, but in order to free us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20) while returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from would be the way to reject what he accomplished.

In Colossians 2:16-23, Paul described the people who were judging the Colossians as promoting human precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, which means that they were being judged by pagans because they were keeping God's feasts and that Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone prevent them from obeying God, especially because God's holy days are important foreshadowed of what is to come and we should live in a way that testifies about the truth of what is to come by continuing to observe them rather than a way that denies the truth of what is to come.

There are also many verses that state clearly that the Law of the Sabbath was given only to the Jews.

Exodus 31:16, 17
16 And the children of Israel shall keep the sabbaths, to observe them throughout their generations.
17 It is a perpetual covenant with me and the children of Israel, it is a perpetual sign with me; for in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, and on the seventh day he ceased, and rested.

Deuteronomy 5:3, 15
3 He did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with all of us who are alive here today.
15 Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. That is why the LORD your God has commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.

God's law was given to Israel in order to equip them to be a light and a blessing to the nations by turning the nations from their wickedness and by teaching them to obey it, which is in accordance with the promise and with spreading the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Did the Law change under the new priesthood, according to the scripture presented - Hebrews 7:11, 12?

Instructions for how to testify about God's nature can't be abolished without first abolishing God. If the way to testify about God's nature could change, then God's nature would not be eternal, so Hebrews 7:11-12 could not be referring to a change of the law in regard to its content, such as with it becoming righteous to commit idolatry or sinful to do charity, but rather the context is speaking about a change of the priesthood, which would require a change of the law in regard to its administration. A priesthood that is administered by God's word made flesh should be understood as being in accordance with God's word rather than as being contrary to it.

Does "any law" include the laws given, along with circumcision?

Yes. If Paul spoke against circumcision for any reason and not just against incorrect reasons, then that would mean that according to Galatians 5:2, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised right after the Jerusalem Council and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason for which God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld God's law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason, which should not be mistake as speaking against becoming circumcised for the reasons for which God commanded it as if they had the authority to countermand God.

When you said, "the law revealed what has always been", I thought you were referring to Galatians 3:19.
Is that the Law you are referring to?
If so, what does Galatians 3:23-25 state happened to that Law?

God's law leads us to Christ because it goal is to teach us how to know him, but it does not lead us to him so that we can be free to do what it reveals to be wickedness. In Acts 3:25-26, Jesus was sent in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness. In Galatians 3:26-29, every aspect of being children of God, in Christ, through faith, and children of Abraham and heirs to the promise is in accordance with being a doer of God's law. In 1 John 3:4-10, those who are not doers of righteousness in obedience to God's law are not children of God. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of God's law. In John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works as him.

 

[HIM]

In my experience, compound words are not always just the sum of their parts. They may take on a usage beyond those parts, which is probably what the scholars are looking at who suggest "abolish".

I think.....

We would be better suited to stick with what we know when sharing rather what we think.
What we think can get us in a pickle with God. In that what we think might be wrong.

Strong's defines the word outright in respect to the two words the word comes from. See the citation below. Take note of the use of the words literally and figuratively. The word literally means to be entirely idle. But in the figurative sense; abolish and so forth.

The issue here is for something to be considered figuratively it more often than not relies on what we think or feel rather than what we know. Unless we are dealing with a parable.

Strong's: From G2596 and G691; to be (render) entirely idle (useless) literally or figuratively: - abolish cease cumber deliver destroy do away become (make) of no (none without) effect fail loose bring (come) to nought put away (down) vanish away make void.

They may take on a usage beyond those parts, which is probably what the scholars are looking at

The issue here is taking scholars at their word. They have produced or inadvertently caused to be produced many bad translations and interpretations of the Holy Writ since the inception of the Written Word.

During Jesus' time the "learned scholars" were His greatest opposition.


The LXX which you probably know is the Greek translation of the Old Testament in Jesus' time should be considered in this. It has 3 Occurrences of this word. They are all in Ezra. Here they are respectively.

καταργηθηναι (1)
Ezr 6:8 Moreover I make a decree what ye shall do to the elders of these Jews for the building of this house of God: that of the king's goods, even of the tribute beyond the river, forthwith expenses be given unto these men, that they be not hindered
καταργησαι (1)
Ezr 4:21 Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until another commandment shall be given from me.
κατηργησαν (1)
Ezr 5:5 But the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews, that they could not cause them to cease, till the matter came to Darius: and then they returned answer by letter concerning this matter.

This helps us see how the "scholars" in Jesus' time and before understood the word. Here is the Hebrew word they translated from. As you can see there is no wiggle room. The word in question means what it means and that is how it should be translated.

Strong's: H989 בְּטֵל btel (bet-ale') v.
to stop.

 

[HIM]

Us not up right?

Pardon me? I'm not sure what you are asking.

Below seems to be a typo. It seems that you meant to use the word us rather than up.

It showed up transgressions. Romans 3:20; Romans 4:15; Galatians 3:19

 

[HIM]

Not sure why you posted Heb 7:18. That has nothing to do with what is written in Romans.

Are you sure you read the correct verse?

Hebrews 7:18 So the former commandment is set aside because it was weak and useless
Romans 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man, as an offering for sin. He thus condemned sin in the flesh

They both look like they are talking about the law being weak.

First Romans 8 does not say that the Law was weak. It says it was weak IN the flesh or weakened by the flesh as the translation you chose brings forth. I hope you see the difference.

Second Heb 8:18 says commandment and Rom 8:3 says law. They are not the same though commandments are of the Law, the Law being the Torah. The first 5 books of the Bible. Heb 7:18 is being specific in respect to a commandment or commandments not the Law in it's entirety.

Let's take a look shall we.

We see below in verses 11 and 12 that the priesthood was changed to that which was after the order of Melchizedek. Since there was a change of the priesthood there also must be a change in the law. Since the Law mandated that the priesthood was to be that of the house of Aaron the Levite. The Levite priesthood was not profitable. The people received the Law through them and that did not work out because of their hardhearts and stiff necks. So through the Priesthood of Christ we now receive the Law from God directly to the heart and mind. In that respect the commandment pertaining to the Levites dispensation of the Law made nothing perfect as verse 18 states. And also the commandments pertaining to the Temple service changed because the priesthood changed. These commandments with the priesthood of Levites were disannulled. Because they were weak and not profitable either. They were but a shadow of Christ's ministry. For if the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of a heifer sanctified to the purifying of the flesh. How much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience (who we are, the man of sin) from dead works (sin, acts that cause death) to serve the living God. For those sacrifices in which they offered could never take away sin. But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Perfecting forever them whom are sanctified. Whereof, (this being perfected) the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them. (Heb 9:13,14,26; 10:4,14-16)

Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb 7:13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Heb 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
Heb 7:17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
Heb 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

 

[HIM]

What would you say is the law of faith which is contrasted with works of law? Romans 3:27, 28

Faith establishes the law and the just shall live by this faith that establishes the Law. And it is the Law OF the Faith. In other words it is the Law that comes from faith that the Law is established and we are justified. Not the Law OF the works, that which we do just because we are told to. Since all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God and there are none righteous in and of themselves. not one.

Romans 10:6-8 speaks on this faith and the Law of it a bit more. It basically says, say not in your heart bring Christ down from above or up from the deep. But say the Word is in our mouth and our heart, that is the faith in which we preach. This text is a paraphrase Deut 30:10-14. Wherein it tells what this word that is in our hearts and mouths is. It states that this word in our heart and mouth through Christ is the commandments and statutes contained in the book of the Law. Take note as you check this that the judgements are not mentioned in respect to the word that is in our hearts and mouths. Christ took care of that. Also note in Deut 30:14 the reason for which God has done this. He says, "the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it."

It is no coincidence that this is called another covenant besides that which was given in Horeb (Sinai) in Deut. 29:1,2.
Please note also that it is just another way of saying the new covenant that Jeremiah put forth, in that He said that God would put His Law in our hearts and our minds.

 

[Leaf473]

We would be better suited to stick with what we know when sharing rather what we think.
What we think can get us in a pickle with God. In that what we think might be wrong.

Strong's defines the word outright in respect to the two words the word comes from. See the citation below. Take note of the use of the words literally and figuratively. The word literally means to be entirely idle. But in the figurative sense; abolish and so forth.

The issue here is for something to be considered figuratively it more often than not relies on what we think or feel rather than what we know. Unless we are dealing with a parable.

Strong's: From G2596 and G691; to be (render) entirely idle (useless) literally or figuratively: - abolish cease cumber deliver destroy do away become (make) of no (none without) effect fail loose bring (come) to nought put away (down) vanish away make void.



The issue here is taking scholars at their word. They have produced or inadvertently caused to be produced many bad translations and interpretations of the Holy Writ since the inception of the Written Word.

During Jesus' time the "learned scholars" were His greatest opposition.


The LXX which you probably know is the Greek translation of the Old Testament in Jesus' time should be considered in this. It has 3 Occurrences of this word. They are all in Ezra. Here they are respectively.

καταργηθηναι (1)
Ezr 6:8 Moreover I make a decree what ye shall do to the elders of these Jews for the building of this house of God: that of the king's goods, even of the tribute beyond the river, forthwith expenses be given unto these men, that they be not hindered
καταργησαι (1)
Ezr 4:21 Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until another commandment shall be given from me.
κατηργησαν (1)
Ezr 5:5 But the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews, that they could not cause them to cease, till the matter came to Darius: and then they returned answer by letter concerning this matter.

This helps us see how the "scholars" in Jesus' time and before understood the word. Here is the Hebrew word they translated from. As you can see there is no wiggle room. The word in question means what it means and that is how it should be translated.

Strong's: H989 בְּטֵל btel (bet-ale') v.
to stop.

Saying "I think" is simply a more diplomatic way of beginning a sentence then saying "I know."

We can think things that are wrong, we can also know things that are wrong, in the sense that what we are convinced of may turn out to be incorrect.

"Strong's Concordance
katargeó: to render inoperative, abolish
Original Word: καταργέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: katargeó
Phonetic Spelling: (kat-arg-eh'-o)
Definition: to render inoperative, abolish
Usage: (a) I make idle (inactive), make of no effect, annul, abolish, bring to naught, (b) I discharge, sever, separate from."

Strong's Greek: 2673. καταργέω (katargeó) -- To abolish, to nullify, to render ineffective, to bring to an end

The word has a range of meanings, To make idle is one of them.

Strong's represents the work of a scholar (or scholars?). It gives another possible meaning: Abolish.

Thayer's seems to be the more hardcore work, in that it gives more citations.

 

[HIM]

The word has a range of meanings, To make idle is one of them.

No sorry you don’t see
Take care

 

[Leaf473]

No sorry you don’t see
Take care

We definitely see it differently

Peace be with you

 

[CoreyD]

You are missing something. What the word means is more important than how the word is translated or used in English. So what does the word mean?

This is not correct, for the reason that everyone who is a student of the Bible, knows that there is no one meaning to Hebrew and Greek words.
You know this, don't you?
Context is what usually determines the correct usage of these words. Otherwise the correct understanding is lost.

We see that, for example, in the case nephesh, and we see how people totally muddle the texts that use this word, due to their insistence on believing doctrines.

So, rather than focus on the word itself, let us consider the context.

Romans 7:1 Interlinear: Are ye ignorant, brethren -- for to those knowing law I speak -- that the law hath lordship over the man as long as he liveth?

biblehub.com

Romans 7:2 Interlinear: for the married woman to the living husband hath been bound by law, and if the husband may die, she hath been free from the law of the husband;

biblehub.com

Romans 7:3 Interlinear: so, then, the husband being alive, an adulteress she shall be called if she may become another man's; and if the husband may die, she is free from the law, so as not to be an adulteress, having become another man's.

biblehub.com

Romans 7:4 Interlinear: So that, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of the Christ, for your becoming another's, who out of the dead was raised up, that we might bear fruit to God;

biblehub.com

Romans 7:5 Interlinear: for when we were in the flesh, the passions of the sins, that are through the law, were working in our members, to bear fruit to the death;

biblehub.com

Romans 7:6 Interlinear: and now we have ceased from the law, that being dead in which we were held, so that we may serve in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of letter.

biblehub.com

Romans 7:7 Interlinear: What, then, shall we say? the law is sin? let it not be! but the sin I did not know except through law, for also the covetousness I had not known if the law had not said:

biblehub.com

That's not too hard for us. Simple illustration, isn't it?
However, due to the fact that some of us like to hold on to our ideas with a die hard attitude, we need some clarity.
So let's have a real heart to heart, reasonable, non-evasive discussion.

I was going to explain the illustration, just in case, but I chose to conclude that you are an intelligent man. So, I hope that is okay with you.

First.

• What Law, is Paul referring to in verse 4?

In the event that we are tempted to give an answer, simply based on what we think, Paul helps us, in Romans 7:7.
However, this is a discussion, so I am listening to your response to the question.

Next.
We use the context, and link the illustration

Romans 7:2 Interlinear: for the married woman to the living husband hath been bound by law, and if the husband may die, she hath been free from the law of the husband;

biblehub.com

to verse 4, and verse 6.

Romans 7:4 Interlinear: So that, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of the Christ, for your becoming another's, who out of the dead was raised up, that we might bear fruit to God;

biblehub.com

Romans 7:6 Interlinear: and now we have ceased from the law, that being dead in which we were held, so that we may serve in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of letter.

biblehub.com

The woman is bound - Greek deó (to tie, bind) to her husband, by law, as long as he is alive.
Now here is a really interesting part. This I love .
If her husband dies, the woman is katargeó _______________.
It's a discussion, and I give you the honors HIM. Please fill in the English word. I'm listening to you.
So, we don't decide on just any word, the word usages are here.

Once we have that, we want to connect it to the verses afore mentioned - verses 4, and 6.
Now we have the correct usage of the word.
What did you get from the context?
____________________________________________

We can run this, in my view, very fun exercise, on any scripture. Context matters.
Here is another scripture. Ephesians 2:15

Ephesians 2:15 Interlinear: the enmity in his flesh, the law of the commands in ordinances having done away, that the two he might create in himself into one new man, making peace,

biblehub.com

Here, the same Greek word katargeó is used.

1. First. What Law is being refered to.
2. Next. Use the context.
3. Finally. Establish the correct word usage.

There are yet, other scriptures - Colossians 2:14, where we have an even stronger word - exaleiphó: to wipe out, erase, obliterate, but we can consider each at a reasonable pace, using our simple three step method.

 

[CoreyD]

No sorry you don’t see
Take care

The word doesn't have a range of meanings?

 

[HIM]

This is not correct

No it isn’t.
It is a verb and it means render idle. Look the word up in your concordance. Look at how it was used and how rendered idle fits in every instance. Look how it was used in Ezra in the text posted of the LXX I have no interest going on and on about this. That is why I dropped it with leaf. Why you picked up the conversation is beyond me when we have our own topic which is still in the wind. And btw what leaf posted from strongs was not from strongs. It is edited. The citation looks more like this. Take note to what it says in regard to literal and figurative.

ek: καταργέω
Transliteration: katargeō
Pronunciation: kat-arg-eh'-o
Definition: From G2596 and G691; to be (render) entirely idle (useless) literally or figuratively: - abolish cease cumber deliver destroy do away become (make) of no (none without) effect fail loose bring (come) to nought put away (down) vanish away make void.

Figutive is subject to what we think or feel not what is there in the text or what is known to be objective. Take care

 

[CoreyD]

And yet not one scripture you provided says we can break the Sabbath commandment.

They all say that we were not commanded to keep the Sabbath, so breaking the sabbath is what we call n/a - Not applicable.

Christ said the Sabbath was made for everyone Isa 56:1-6 for mankind Mat 2:27.

I am sorry you feel this way. I really am. You have no idea.
Can I ask, were you taught this way from a young age?

Have you ever studied the Bible without a deeply entrenched doctrine?
I ask this because, it's important to study the Bible with a clear mind, uninfluenced by doctrine.
I know this isn't always the case, since most of us were raised in some religion, but taking a study of the Bible without the cloud, is really quite rewarding.

Isaiah 56:1-8 is dealing with God's people - the nation of Israel.
Those whom are included in keeping the Sabbath are the foreigners.
You can read the Greek text, and you will not find the word "everyone".

Isaiah 56:2 Interlinear: O the happiness of a man who doth this, And of a son of man who keepeth hold on it, Keeping the sabbath from polluting it, And keeping his hand from doing any evil.

Isaiah 56:3 Interlinear: Nor speak let a son of the stranger, Who is joined unto Jehovah, saying: 'Jehovah doth certainly separate me from His people.' Nor say let the eunuch, 'Lo, I am a tree dried up,'

Isaiah 56:4 Interlinear: For thus said Jehovah of the eunuchs, Who do keep My sabbaths, And have fixed on that which I desired, And are keeping hold on My covenant:

Isaiah 56:5 Interlinear: I have given to them in My house, And within My walls a station and a name, Better than sons and than daughters, A name age-during I give to him That is not cut off.

Isaiah 56:6 Interlinear: And sons of the stranger, who are joined to Jehovah, To serve Him, and to love the name of Jehovah, To be to Him for servants, Every keeper of the sabbath from polluting it, And those keeping hold on My covenant.

Even if you did find the word "everyone" though, the context shows those refer to the foreigners that joined Israel.

God required that everyone in the Israelite camp, observe the sabbath.
Leviticus 16:29
This is to be a permanent statute for you: On the tenth day of the seventh month, you shall humble yourselves and not do any work - whether the native or the foreigner who resides among you -

However, I totally understand Sabbath keepers, and how every scripture is about the ten commandments and everyone given the Sabbath.

I will stick with what God said, but thanks for your view and all gets sorted out soon enough.

Please do. Please stick to what God said. I really hope you do.
I shared God's view, not my view, and I was really hoping we could discuss that view, because I have never met a Sabbath keeper that was willing to address God's view at Deuteronomy 5:2, 15.

Not that I expected that to change, but I was hoping one of them would surprise me.
Don't worry though. I am not disappointed. I understand you.
May you go in peace.

 

[CoreyD]

I find it interesting that you quote a passage from Romans that agrees with the passage from Galatians that speaks to the fruit of the Spirit not violating the 10 commandments, but for some reason you think Paul disagrees with himself. Why would an inspired Bible writer argue against himself?

May I encourage you to read Galatians 5 from the beginning.
You probably did this a number of times though, so I think you need help.

I hope you don't mind.
Galatians 5:2-4
2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

How many times did Paul make this point, and it hasn't gotten through.
Galatians :10-14; Romans 3:19-31
By now, you would expect the man got a few gray hairs talking to... how did he address them? "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?" Galatians 3:1
It might help to read Paul's words in the entire book of Romans, and Galatians.

If you insist on keeping one commandment, you are obligated to obey all - the whole law, and if you are trying to be justified by keeping any one of them, you are alien to Christ, and you can forget about grace. Don't even mention it, is what Paul is saying, because you know nothing about it.

Those Galatians needed what we might refer to as, "knocking some sense into them". They were "foolish bad".
Paul said, to these "foolish ones"...
Galatians 5:13, 14
13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

In other words... "Foolish ones. Stop looking at the Law. The entire law has been fulfilled in one single command. Don't you get it?"
I have a feeling you don't get it.

The fruit of the Spirit does not violate the Royal Law. They are in full harmony.
James 2:8
If indeed you keep the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well.

If Sabbath keepers saw this Law, they would do quite well, but sadly, all they seem able to see, is the ten commandments... and that saddens me. It's heart rending honestly. If you really knew how it hurts.

 

[CoreyD]

Us not up right?

Pardon me? I'm not sure what you are asking.

Below seems to be a typo. It seems that you meant to use the word us rather than up.

CoreyD said:
It showed up transgressions. Romans 3:20; Romans 4:15; Galatians 3:19

It's no typo.
I can well understand when God confused the languages, how difficult communicating was.
Today, because we are from different parts of the earth, we sometimes do not understand the terms someone else uses.

show up
verb

1. To appear, arrive, or attend, especially suddenly or erratically.
2. To outperform or one-up, often in an arrogant manner.
3. To make visible; to expose.
4. Appear or become visible; make a showing.
   "I hope the list key is going to surface again"
5. Be or become visible or noticeable.
   "The dirty side will show"

The Law showed up - made visible, or exposed - transgressions. Galatians 3:19; Romans 3:20; Romans 4:15; Romans 5:13; Romans 7:9

 

[DamianWarS]

If the Sabbath was abolished, there would be many verses and much text to show it, yet there is none. The apostles would have had many discussions and the councils at Jerusalem would have written at least one with a determination of it being abolished and yet there is nothing. Paul exhorts in Corinthians that Circumcision is nothing in comparison to the Ten Commandments.

1 Corinthians 7:19
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Since there are more than forty verses and up to ten verses at a time clearly stating that Circumcision of the flesh is a yoke of bondage and abolished, how many scriptures would you expect stating the Sabbath was abolished or changed to Sunday? Perhaps seventy or more? The fact is there is not even one verse that says, 'The Sabbath is abolished' or is now Sunday.

Acts 15:1-19 The Council at Jerusalem​

1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’[b]—
18 things known from long ago.[c]
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

The Ten Commandments are the only thing that God personally spoke and then personally etched His Law into stone tablets with His own finger. Yet there is not one clear scripture or commandment from Christ or even a direction from a apostle or as you can see from the Jerusalem Council to abolish the Sabbath anywhere in scripture, just a couple of erroneous assumptions. One of God's Commandments supposedly changes or is abolished and we do not have even one clear verse. Why not? The answer is simple. It was never abolished or changed to Sunday by the authority of God so no such scripture exists..

Who told you the sabbath was abolished? It is fulfilled not abolished. You seem to conflate "commandments" in 1 Cor 7:19 with the 10 commandments but without any biblical support that makes that leap. You ask where is "abolish", well aside from you missing the point, I ask in return where does the text says "10 Commandments" in 1 Cor 7:19?

The NT shows us Paul intented something else as Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 are mirror copies of 1 Cor 7:19 and help us to define the context of these "commandments".

According to Gal 5:6 it is "love expressed through faith" and according to 6:15 it is the new creation. These are analogous concepts but based on the near exact language and structure as 1 Cor 7:19 and should all be talking about the same thing. It's not in addition to, it is the exact same thing. "commandments" of 1 Cor 7:19 is "love express though faith" in Gal 5:6 and is the new creation in Gal 6:15. Paul spells it's out without confusion and he doesn't point to the 10 commandments.

 

[HIM]

Isaiah 56:1-8 is dealing with God's people - the nation of Israel.
Those whom are included in keeping the Sabbath are the foreigners.
You can read the Greek text, and you will not find the word "everyone".

Well first let us say Isaiah was written in Hebrew. And second you are mistaken the word every is in the text. Here is the text. The bold emphasis is mine.
Isa 56:6 וּבְנֵ֣י Also the sons
הַנֵּכָ֗ר of the stranger
הַנִּלְוִ֤ים that join
עַל־ and
יְהוָה֙ themselves to the LORD
לְשָׁ֣רְת֔וֹ to serve
וּֽלְאַהֲבָה֙ him and to love
אֶת־ שֵׁ֣ם the name
יְהוָ֔ה of the LORD
לִהְי֥וֹת become
ל֖וֹ לַעֲבָדִ֑ים to be his servants
כָּל־ every
שֹׁמֵ֤ר that keepeth
שַׁבָּת֙ the sabbath
מֵֽחַלְּל֔וֹ from polluting
וּמַחֲזִיקִ֖ים it and taketh hold
בִּבְרִיתִֽי׃ of my covenant

Since you brought up the Greek let's take a look at the LXX which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture compiled before Christ. As we look we see that πάντας is used which means all. And it is is used to translate כָּל־ which means every . What is nice about this forum is when we find we have made a mistake we can go back and edit it by deleting the mistake or making a note in the post so we do not lead others down the wrong path that we were in. But hey that is up to you.

Isa 56:6 και And
τοις to the
αλλογενέσι foreigners
τοις προσκειμένοις joining
κυρίω to the LORD,
δουλεύειν to serve
αυτώ him,
και and
αγαπάν to love
το the
όνομα name
κυρίου of the LORD,
του είναι to be
αυτώ to him
εις for
δούλους manservants
και and
δούλας maidservants,
και and
πάντας all
τους the
φυλασσομένους ones keeping
τα σάββατά
μου my Sabbaths,
μη to not
βεβηλούν profane,
και and
αντεχομένους the ones holding to
της διαθήκης μου my covenant.

 

[HIM]

Even if you did find the word "everyone" though, the context shows those refer to the foreigners that joined Israel.

Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Rom 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Rom 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
Rom 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

 

[HIM]

God required that everyone in the Israelite camp, observe the sabbath.
Leviticus 16:29
This is to be a permanent statute for you: On the tenth day of the seventh month, you shall humble yourselves and not do any work - whether the native or the foreigner who resides among you -

The day of atonement was fulfilled in Christ. This is covered in Hebrews 7-9 through the change of the priesthood to Christ.
This was addressed in part in another post. Here it is again.

Are you sure you read the correct verse?

Hebrews 7:18 So the former commandment is set aside because it was weak and useless
Romans 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man, as an offering for sin. He thus condemned sin in the flesh

They both look like they are talking about the law being weak.

First Romans 8 does not say that the Law was weak. It says it was weak IN the flesh or weakened by the flesh as the translation you chose brings forth. I hope you see the difference.

Second Heb 8:18 says commandment and Rom 8:3 says law. They are not the same though commandments are of the Law, the Law being the Torah. The first 5 books of the Bible. Heb 7:18 is being specific in respect to a commandment or commandments not the Law in it's entirety.

Let's take a look shall we.

We see below in verses 11 and 12 that the priesthood was changed to that which was after the order of Melchizedek. Since there was a change of the priesthood there also must be a change in the law. Since the Law mandated that the priesthood was to be that of the house of Aaron the Levite. The Levite priesthood was not profitable. The people received the Law through them and that did not work out because of their hardhearts and stiff necks. So through the Priesthood of Christ we now receive the Law from God directly to the heart and mind. In that respect the commandment pertaining to the Levites dispensation of the Law made nothing perfect as verse 18 states. And also the commandments pertaining to the Temple service changed because the priesthood changed. These commandments with the priesthood of Levites were disannulled. Because they were weak and not profitable either. They were but a shadow of Christ's ministry. For if the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of a heifer sanctified to the purifying of the flesh. How much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience (who we are, the man of sin) from dead works (sin, acts that cause death) to serve the living God. For those sacrifices in which they offered could never take away sin. But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Perfecting forever them whom are sanctified. Whereof, (this being perfected) the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them. (Heb 9:13,14,26; 10:4,14-16)

Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb 7:13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Heb 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
Heb 7:17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
Heb 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

They all say that we were not commanded to keep the Sabbath, so breaking the sabbath is what we call n/a - Not applicable.

Who is "they" and who gives "they" more authority than God?

I am sorry you feel this way. I really am. You have no idea.
Can I ask, were you taught this way from a young age?

Only when I came to Christ and placed my faith in Jesus who told us to live by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Mat 4:4

And God personally spoke and wrote these Words

Exo 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.

This is who I yield myself a servant to obey- can your authority who told you the Sabbath was n/a do this?

11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.


God wrote and spoke His Ten Commandments and calls them "My commandments"

Exodus 20: 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

God called the Ten Commandments "My covenant "

Exo 34: 28 So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.


God said:
Psa 89:34 My covenant I will not break,
Nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips.

For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Heaven and earth are still here and Jesus has not come in the Clouds.

This is who I yield myself a servant to obey- who is your authority?

Have you ever studied the Bible without a deeply entrenched doctrine?
I ask this because, it's important to study the Bible with a clear mind, uninfluenced by doctrine.
I know this isn't always the case, since most of us were raised in some religion, but taking a study of the Bible without the cloud, is really quite rewarding.

Please take your own advice. I asked a simple question- where did God abrogate His Sabbath commandment. He blessed the Sabbath and only God can reverse Num 23:20 Where is the scripture where God broke His promise?

Isaiah 56:1-8 is dealing with God's people - the nation of Israel.

Yes, God's people are the Nation of Israel and still is today-Israel is just a name God gave His people-it was both literal and metaphorically. It's not about nationality, its about faith. Gal 3:26-28

Why God wrote His New Covenant with Israel that still has God's law, but its based on Him doing- writing His law in our hearts and minds instead of people doing, which is why it is established on better promises. Heb 8:6 not better laws because God keeps His promises Psa 89:34 and His law is perfect. Psa 19:7 just as He is.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins [b]and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

This is a beautiful promise I would not want to write myself out of God's covenant promise

God's people keep God's commandments

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


What faith did Jesus have? Did He profane the Sabbath and tell us not to keep. NO! Jesus kept every Sabbath Luke 4:16 John 15:10 and instructed us not to break or teach others to break the least of the commandments. Mat 5:19-30 because Jesus said when one keeps their rules/traditions over obeying the commandments of God quoting directly from the Ten ones hearts is far from Him, the opposite of the New Covenant.

This is who I yield myself a servant to obey.

Those whom are included in keeping the Sabbath are the foreigners.
You can read the Greek text, and you will not find the word "everyone"

The old testament is in Hebrews and the Word here means ALL

kol: the whole, all
Original Word: כֹּל
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: kol
Phonetic Spelling: (kole)
Definition: the whole, all

Where does what Christ deems righteousness ever change. Please give me a thus saith the Lord.

56 Thus says the Lord:

“Keep justice, and do righteousness,
For My salvation is about to come,
And My righteousness to be revealed.
2 Blessed is the man who does this,
And the son of man who lays hold on it;
Who keeps from defiling the Sabbath,
And keeps his hand from doing any evil.”

“Also the sons of the foreigner
Who join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him,
And to love the name of the Lord, to be His servants—
Everyone (ALL) who keeps from defiling the Sabbath,
And holds fast My covenant (because God does not alter the words of His covenant) Psa 89:34
7 Even them I will bring to My holy mountain, (heaven)
And make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices
Will be accepted on My altar;
For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.”


Did the Sabbath stop in the NC for God's faithful? Did they stop doing righteousness and stop holding fast God's covenant. NO!

Luke 23:56 56 Then they returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils. And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment.


Acts 13:14
But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and sat down.

Acts 13:27
For those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they did not know Him, nor even the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath, have fulfilled them in condemning Him.

Acts 13:42
So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.

Acts 13:44
On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God.
Acts 15:21

For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

Acts 16:13
And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there.

Acts 17:2
Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

Acts 18:4
And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.


You claim the Sabbath is not applicable. Does God's Sabbath end in heaven? Do you really think those who don't want to keep the Sabbath now, will suddenly want to in heaven? God's will for His people is the same in heaven as it is on this earth. Matthew 6:10 Those who don't want to keep the Sabbath now, I don't think would be happy in heaven, where God's Sabbath continues for eternity. God's loves us to much He would never force anyone to do something, it's all about choices.

Isa 66:22
For as the new heavens and the new earth
Which I will make shall remain before Me,” says the Lord,
“So shall your descendants and your name remain.

23 And it shall come to pass
That from one New Moon to another,
And from one Sabbath to another,
All flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says the Lord.

Its all about who we yield ourselves authority to....

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Two choices, two paths...

Revelation 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

15 But outside are dogs (sinners) and sorcerers (breaking commandment #1 Exodus 20:3) and sexually immoral (breaking commandment # 7 Exodus 20:14) and murderers (commandment #6 Exodus 20:13) and idolaters (breaking commandment #2 Exo 20:4) , and whoever loves and practices a lie. (Breaking any of the commandments. 1 John 2:4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.)

Psa 119:151You are near, O Lord,
And all Your commandments are truth.

We are only saved by the blood of Christ through faith. Christ tells us how to live by His standard of righteousness Psa 119:172 Psa 119:142 and gives us the power to do so through our love to Him. John 14:15-18

So I hope you consider in prayer.

 

[CoreyD]

While there is room to interpret servants of God as speaking against obeying God's word, it makes a lot more sense to interpret them as being in favor of obeying God. Paul spoke about multiple categories of law other than the Law of God, such as the law of sin and works of the law, so it is always important to discern this law Paul is referring to out of all of the categories of law that he spoke about. For example, in Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul contrasted the Law of God with the law of sin and contrasted the Law of the Spirit with the law of sin and death. In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith and in Romans 3:31 and Galatians 3:10-12, he said that our faith upholds the Law of God in contrast with saying that works of the law are not of faith. So when we correctly discern which law Paul was speaking about and do not make the interpreting Paul speaking against obeying the Law of God for an incorrect reason as speaking against obeying it, then we will find that he never spoke against anyone obeying anything that God has commanded for the reasons for which He commanded it.


In Romans 7:22-23, Paul delighted in obeying the Law of God, but contrasted that with the law of sin that held him captive and it would be absurd to interpret Romans 7:5-6 as referring to the Law of God as if Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death or as if he delighted in being held captive to sin, but rather it is the law of sin that he described as holding him captive. A law that stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death is a law that is sinful, however, Romans 7:7 says that the Law of God is not sinful, but is how we know what sin is, so Paul is contrasting the Law of God with the law of sin throughout that passage. When our sin is revealed, then that lead us to repent and causes sin to decrease, but the law of sin is sinful and causes sin to increase. Paul said that the Law of God is good and that he wanted to do good, but spoke about the law of sin that was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do.


While there is room to translate the Greek word "telos" can as saying "Christ is the end of the law", there is also room to translate it as saying "Christ is the goal of the law" and there are a number of verses where the context shows that it should be translated as "purpose" or "goal", though even "end" can mean "intention" or "aim". In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the law is to teach us how to experience knowing God and Jesus, which is eternal life (John 17:3), which is also why Jesus said that obeying it is the way to inherit eternal life (Luke 10:25-28, Matthew 19:17).

The context of Romans 9:30-10:10 has nothing to do with Christ ending the Law of God as if it makes sense for God's word made flesh to end God's word, but rather it is speaking about the Israelites missing the goal of the law. The Israelites had a zeal for God, but it was not based on knowing him, so they failed to attain righteousness because they misunderstood the gaol of the law by pursuing it as though righteousness were earned as the result of their works in order to establish their own instead of pursuing it as through righteousness were by faith in Christ, for knowing Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith. In Romans 10:5-10, this faith references Deuteronomy 30:11-20 as the world of faith that we proclaim in regard to saying that the Law of God is not too difficult for us to obey, that obedience to it brings life and a blessing, in regard to what we are agreeing to obey by confessing that Jesus is Lord, and in regard to the way to believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. People frequently like to quote Romans 10:4 and 10:9-10 and frequently like to ignore the point that Paul was making in Romans 10:5-8 and is relevance to how the surrounding verses should be understood.


2 Corinthians 3:6 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.

In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting His law in minds and writing in on our hearts, and in Ezekiel 36:26-27, it involves God taking away our hearts of stone, giving us hearts of flesh, and sending His Spirit to lead us to obey His law. Furthermore, in Deuteronomy 30:11-20, obedience to God's law leads to live and a blessing while it is disobedience to it that leads to death, and there are many other verses that repeatedly sayin that it is the way of life (Deuteronomy 32:46-47, Proverbs 3:18, Proverbs 6:23, Luke 10:25-28, Matthew 19:17, Hebrews 5:9, Revelation 22:14). So 2 Corinthians 2:6-11 needs to be understood in a way that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible rather than a way that is contrary to it. If obeying the letter referred to correctly following God's instructions and that leads to death, then that would mean that God would be misleading us and shouldn't be trusted.


1. ) You shall not commit murder.

2.) This person has been changed with committing murder.

The first is an example of a law that is for our own good (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13) while the second is an example of a handwritten ordinance was against someone that was nailed to their cross in order to announce the charge that was against them. For example, in Matthew 27:37, they nailed a handwritten ordinance to Christ's cross that announced the change that he was against him that he was the King of the Jews. This fits perfectly with nailing the list of the sins that we have been charged with committing to Christ's cross and with him dying in our place in order to pay the penalty for our sins, but has nothing to do with him causing us to be free to do what God's law reveals to be sin. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Christ gave himself to free us from God's law, but in order to free us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20) while returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from would be the way to reject what he accomplished.

In Colossians 2:16-23, Paul described the people who were judging the Colossians as promoting human precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, which means that they were being judged by pagans because they were keeping God's feasts and that Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone prevent them from obeying God, especially because God's holy days are important foreshadowed of what is to come and we should live in a way that testifies about the truth of what is to come by continuing to observe them rather than a way that denies the truth of what is to come.


God's law was given to Israel in order to equip them to be a light and a blessing to the nations by turning the nations from their wickedness and by teaching them to obey it, which is in accordance with the promise and with spreading the Gospel of the Kingdom.


Instructions for how to testify about God's nature can't be abolished without first abolishing God. If the way to testify about God's nature could change, then God's nature would not be eternal, so Hebrews 7:11-12 could not be referring to a change of the law in regard to its content, such as with it becoming righteous to commit idolatry or sinful to do charity, but rather the context is speaking about a change of the priesthood, which would require a change of the law in regard to its administration. A priesthood that is administered by God's word made flesh should be understood as being in accordance with God's word rather than as being contrary to it.


Yes. If Paul spoke against circumcision for any reason and not just against incorrect reasons, then that would mean that according to Galatians 5:2, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised right after the Jerusalem Council and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason for which God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld God's law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason, which should not be mistake as speaking against becoming circumcised for the reasons for which God commanded it as if they had the authority to countermand God.


God's law leads us to Christ because it goal is to teach us how to know him, but it does not lead us to him so that we can be free to do what it reveals to be wickedness. In Acts 3:25-26, Jesus was sent in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness. In Galatians 3:26-29, every aspect of being children of God, in Christ, through faith, and children of Abraham and heirs to the promise is in accordance with being a doer of God's law. In 1 John 3:4-10, those who are not doers of righteousness in obedience to God's law are not children of God. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of God's law. In John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works as him.

@HIM wasn't interested in discussing it, but if you would like to, I'd be happy to go into the word usage, and which Law is being discussed. Can you respond to this post then? Thanks.