Is the Sabbath binding.

Al Touthentop said:

While that law was in effect, Jesus obeyed it perfectly and then created a new testament, or covenant as Paul explains in Hebrews.

Click to expand...

The reason why Jesus created the New Covenant was not so that we could reject the law that he spent the sum of his ministry teaching by word and by example.

Now if you're going to hold to Deuteronomy, then you have to admit that when Jesus said, "I give you a new command," he was adding to the law and therefore breaking it. Of course that wasn't what he was doing, he was giving a command that was of the new covenant, not adding to the old, which he was forbidden to do by the law he said he came to keep and fulfill.

Click to expand...

There was nothing brand new about the command to love our neighbor because it can be found in Leviticus 19:18, but what was new about Christ's command was the quality of the example by which we should love our neighbor, and indeed the Greek word used refers to newness with respect to quality rather than with respect to time:

3501 /néos ("new on the scene") suggests something "new in time" – in contrast to its near-synonym (2537 /kainós, "new in quality").

We should love ourselves as God loves us and that is how we should love our neighbor, so Jesus was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by making changes to the law, but rather he was fulfilling the law by teaching how to correctly understand and obey it.

Saying that he didn't nail it to the cross is to call him a liar. He made a comparison there and said his purpose was to fulfill it. He didn't come to live in disobedience to the law but to keep it perfectly.

Click to expand...

Jesus specifically said he came not to abolish the law in contrast with fulfilling, so you should not interpret that as meaning essentially the same thing. "To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will as made known in His law to be obeyed as it should be (NAS Greek Lexicon pleroo 2c3). After Jesus said he came to fulfill the law in Matthew 5, he proceed to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly obey it or by completing our understanding of it. In Galatians 5:14, loving our neighbor fulfills the entire law, so it refers to something that countless people have done, not to something unique that only Jesus did. In Galatians 6:2, bearing one another's burdens fulfills the law of Christ, so you should interpret that in the same way as you interpret fulfilling the Law of Moses.

That was so a new law could be established. The new covenant would be of no worth if the person establishing it could not keep the old one.

Click to expand...

There is nothing in the Bible that remotely suggests if someone keeps the law perfectly then they get to establish a new set of laws or that the New Covenant would be of no worth if the person establish it could not keep the Mosaic Covenant.

Collosians 2
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, 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.

He "wiped out the handwriting of requirements," of the old law. So animal sacrifice for instance. Or do you not advocate slaughter lambs when we sin? Anyone claiming that animal sacrifice is not required under "the law" has removed something from the scripture as banned in Deuteronomy.

He didn't abolish just a part of it. He declared it finished and fulfilled.

Click to expand...

Jesus warned those who would relax the least part of the law or teach others to do the same, which is a warning you should take more seriously. Crosses were never used for the purpose of disposing of laws. Rather, the handwriting of ordinances that were against us are our violations of the law, not the laws themselves. They didn't have to legislate new laws to replace the old ones every time someone was crucified. Likewise, in Romans 3:31, Paul confirmed that our faith does not abolish our need to obey God's law, but rather our faith upholds it, yet you are acting like he said the opposite.

In Acts 18:18, Paul took a Nazarite vow, which involved making sin offerings (Numbers 6) and in Acts 21:20-24, Paul was on his way to pay for and join the purification rites of others who had taken a similar vow in order to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against the Law and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it. In Hebrews 8:4, it speaks about offerings that were still being made in accordance with the Law. Furthermore, it says that Jesus would not be a priest if he were still on earth, and if the Law were no longer in effect, then it would have no power to do prevent that. So offerings did not stop with the death or resurrection of Jesus, but only stopped because of the destruction of the temple. However, the Bible prophesies of a time when a third temple will be built and when offerings will resume, so those laws have not gone anywhere (Ezekiel 44-46).

Hebrews 8
6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 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 and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

If Jesus didn't make a new covenant, then Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit had to have been lying.

Click to expand...

While we are under the New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, we are nevertheless still under the same God with the same nature and therefore the same instructions for how to walk in the same ways and express the same character traits. For example, the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness is straightforwardly based on God's righteousness, not on any particular covenant, and God's righteousness is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to do what is righteous are eternally valid regardless of which covenant we are under, though as part of the New Covenant those who do not follow those instructions are not children of God (1 John 3:10). Likewise, sin was in the world before the law was given (Romans 5:13), so there were no actions that became righteous or sinful when the law was given, but rather the law revealed what has always been and will always be the way to do that. In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant still involves following God's law, so while the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete, God's eternal righteousness did not become obsolete along with it.

Soyeong said:

If Jesus had given us brand new commandments, then he would have sinned in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and disqualified himself from being our Savior. However, even if he had been giving brand new commandments, then it would have at the very least still been inclusive of the Mosaic Law because if we don't even hate our brother, then we won't murder, and if we don't lust after a woman, then we won't commit adultery.

Click to expand...

Glad you see the problem. Jesus was not violating the law because he was giving new commandments. For example:

34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Now his new commandments could not have been inclusive of the law of Moses because he also gave the (new) commandment to be baptized rather than continuous animal sacrifice for the remission of past sins. And as he explained to them at the last supper, somebody who has been washed does not need to bathe again. So now, under the new covenant, after our baptism we do as John instructed us in his first letter and we confess our sins to God and he is faithful to forgive us.

But let's clear something up.

A law against murder in Texas, is not the same law as the one of its neighbor next door, Arizona. An Arizona cop cannot arrest you in Texas for a murder you commit in Texas. While we could say in principle they are the same law, they are not actually, in practice or theory, the same law.

Likewise, the law against murder under the new covenant is not the same as the one in the law of Moses. And under Christ's law there are significant changes including the lack of clean and unclean animals and feasts, sabbaths, restriction from the "camp" etc. And we know that Paul preached against circumcision, so therefore, if he truly intended us to obey the old law, he would NEVER have preached against circumcision on the eighth day as commanded by the old covenant.

So, that law was nailed to the cross after having been fulfilled. And some of the commandments are the "same" but the jurisdiction has changed. For one, Christ has been made king and we are under his rulership, whereas the Father is who established the law of Moses because he was king at that time. And he then used the death of his Son to establish this new covenant which as Paul explained required the death of the testator. At the death of any person who writes a will, the wishes of the deceased are read out at his death. Peter read out Christ's will and testament on the day of Pentecost. And had he commanded them to be baptized under the old covenant he would have been violating that same covenant.

He was giving them new covenant commands.

HARK! said:

How do you suppose these verses dovetail with the scripture you just posted?

(CLV) Ezk 36:26
I will give you a new heart, And a new spirit will I bestow within you, And I will take away»the heart of stone from your flesh, And I will give you a heart of flesh.

(CLV) Ezk 36:27
My spirit shall I bestow within you, And I will make it that you shall walk in My statutes and observe My ordinances, And you will obey them.

(CLV) Jer 31:33
For this is the covenant which I shall contract with the house of Israel after those days, averring is Yahweh: I will put My law within them, And I shall write it on their heart; I will become their Elohim, And they shall become My people.

Click to expand...

All predictions of the NEW COVENANT. What do you think that the word "new" means?

Al Touthentop said:

Glad you see the problem. Jesus was not violating the law because he was giving new commandments. For example:

34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Now his new commandments could not have been inclusive of the law of Moses because he also gave the (new) commandment to be baptized rather than continuous animal sacrifice for the remission of past sins. And as he explained to them at the last supper, somebody who has been washed does not need to bathe again. So now, under the new covenant, after our baptism we do as John instructed us in his first letter and we confess our sins to God and he is faithful to forgive us.

Click to expand...

I think that you might have been writing this response before you saw my last post, so there was nothing brand new about the commandment, but if he had been giving a brand new commandment, then he would have been sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2. In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus summarized the Mosaic Law as being about how to love God and our neighbor, so that is how he expressed his love, and how we are to love as he loved. Ritual immersion is a common practice in Judaism and there are many mikvehs in the temple area, so that was not brand new, nor was it suggested that it should be done instead of animal offerings. Sin is defined as the transgression of God's law, so confession our sin is confession our disobedience to the Mosaic Law.

But let's clear something up.

A law against murder in Texas, is not the same law as the one of its neighbor next door, Arizona. An Arizona cop cannot arrest you in Texas for a murder you commit in Texas. While we could say in principle they are the same law, they are not actually, in practice or theory, the same law.

Likewise, the law against murder under the new covenant is not the same as the one in the law of Moses. And under Christ's law there are significant changes including the lack of clean and unclean animals and feasts, sabbaths, restriction from the "camp" etc. And we know that Paul preached against circumcision, so therefore, if he truly intended us to obey the old law, he would NEVER have preached against circumcision on the eighth day as commanded by the old covenant.

Click to expand...

The way to act in accordance with God's righteousness and to refrain from sin is based on God's righteousness, not on any particular covenant, and all of God's covenants are made with the same God, so they are the same laws and do not come from independent authorities. God is not in disagreement with Himself about which laws we should follow, so the law of Christ is the same as the Law of the Spirit and the Law of the Father, which was given to Moses. In Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Mosaic Law, even if they performed signs and wonders, so God simply did not leave His people any room to follow someone who does that.



In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become justified, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the problem was that circumcision was being used for a man-made purpose that went above and beyond the purpose for which God commanded it. This means that the Jerusalem Council upheld God's law by correctly ruling against that requirement, and a ruling against requiring something that God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against obeying what God has commanded. The Jerusalem Council did not have the authority to countermand God and they were not enemies of God, so they should not be interpreted as speaking against obeying what God has commanded. However, the bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so if you think that they were speaking against obeying God, then you should be quicker to disregard everything that they said than to disregard anything that God has commanded.

So, that law was nailed to the cross after having been fulfilled. And some of the commandments are the "same" but the jurisdiction has changed. For one, Christ has been made king and we are under his rulership, whereas the Father is who established the law of Moses because he was king at that time. And he then used the death of his Son to establish this new covenant which as Paul explained required the death of the testator. At the death of any person who writes a will, the wishes of the deceased are read out at his death. Peter read out Christ's will and testament on the day of Pentecost. And had he commanded them to be baptized under the old covenant he would have been violating that same covenant.

He was giving them new covenant commands.

Click to expand...

Again, Christ is the same God who gave the Mosaic Law and he is not in disagreement with the Father about which commands we should follow. In John 14:24, he said that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, and if he had taught something different, then according to the Father we should consider Jesus to be a false prophet. Christians teaching that Jesus did away with the law are sadly one of the biggest reasons why Jews have rejected him as the Messiah, and if Jesus had done that, then they would be acting in accordance with what God has instructed them to do. Again, the New Covenant still involves following God's law (Jeremiah 31:33). In Acts 2:38, when Peter told his audience to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, the Mosaic Law was how they knew what sin is.

HARK! said:

When your landlord tosses you out of your apartment; because you didn't keep the terms of the contract; and he makes a new contract with the next tenant; do you believe that he will waive the terms of the new contract with the new tenant? If so, would you still feel that way if he sent his son over to tell you that the terms of the contract will stand, so long as there is land beneath the apartment, and a sky above?

Click to expand...

Since the contract with the new tenant is not any of my concern, it matters not what those terms are.

God discontinued the old covenant and established a new one. By definition, the terms of the new one, even if it contains some of the "same terms" are part of a new contract. The old is null and void. That's why we don't offer animal sacrifices for atonement any more.

Soyeong said:

Jesus warned those who would relax the least part of the law or teach others to do the same, which is a warning you should take more seriously.

Click to expand...

I take it very seriously. That's why I would never tell anyone to go back to the Mosaic law.

So offerings did not stop with the death or resurrection of Jesus, but only stopped because of the destruction of the temple. However, the Bible prophesies of a time when a third temple will be built and when offerings will resume, so those laws have not gone anywhere (Ezekiel 44-46).

Click to expand...

Offerings didn't stop because they rejected Jesus. The temple's destruction was to totally make it obvious that the law was not any longer sanctioned by God. It's the reason that Jesus called Jews who kept to the old law rather than the gospel, "a synagogue of Satan" and said they weren't actually Jews. Paul had written before that one was a Jew not because of their circumcision (or lack thereof) but because one obeyed Christ.

But we are to remember that Christ WAS the third temple that was rebuilt.

John 2
18 So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?”

19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

20 Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”

21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this [d]to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.

What scripture? The scripture that foretells of a third temple. Jesus IS that temple.

While we are under the New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, we are nevertheless still under the same God with the same nature and therefore the same instructions

Click to expand...

Then why did Paul preach against circumcision and say that those who preached it was still a requirement should emasculate themselves? The point is that we're not under the same instructions at all. The New Covenant comes with new instructions. Some coincide with the old instructions. Both covenants are not in play. The first is instructive and the second in force.

for how to walk in the same ways and express the same character traits. For example, the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness is straightforwardly based on God's righteousness, not on any particular covenant, and God's righteousness is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to do what is righteous are eternally valid regardless of which covenant we are under, though as part of the New Covenant those who do not follow those instructions are not children of God (1 John 3:10).

Click to expand...

Following the old covenant is to reject Christ. We're not under that covenant and therefore keeping the Sabbath is not a command and has spiritual benefit. Before the law of Moses, there was sin because there was law. Sin is disobedience to God. To go back to a law that God says has been fulfilled and is no longer in effect, is to itself disobey. It's a sin. That's not to say the old covenant isn't useful or instructive.

Likewise, sin was in the world before the law was given (Romans 5:13), so there were no actions that became righteous or sinful when the law was given, but rather the law revealed what has always been and will always be the way to do that. In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant still involves following God's law, so while the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete, God's eternal righteousness did not become obsolete along with it.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that God's righteousness has been made obsolete nor did Paul or the other new testament writers. But his old law has been made obsolete and therefore we are to obey the commands that have jurisdiction now. Sin was in the world prior to the Mosaic law because there was a law even then and disobedience to it was sinful.

There was a law when Cain killed Abel. And God told Cain prior that it was he who had to master himself so that the sin at the door would not achieve its desire for him. Cain will be judged by that law. Those who lived under the Mosaic law will be judged according to its commands and those of us under Christ's law will be judged by it. That is why John saw multiple books being opened in Revelation and each person judged according to the book that applied to them.

HARK! said:

Isaiah 40:8 New King James Version (NKJV)
The grass withers, the flower fades,
But the word of our God stands forever.”

Click to expand...

Unless he says he's establishing a new covenant apparently. Then all of his words go out the window.


1 Peter 1:23-25 New King James Version (NKJV)
23 having been born again, not of a corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, 24 because “All flesh is as grass,
And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, And its flower falls away, 25 But the word of the Lord endures forever.” Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.

Which was the new covenant.

Matthew 24:35 NKJV
Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

This doesn't really support your argument that we are to keep the old law. To keep the old law is to sacrifice animals and Sabbaths and feasts and circumcision.

Ecclesiastes 1:9 NKJV
That which has been is what will be, That which is done is what will be done, And there is nothing new under the sun.

Click to expand...

So are you arguing that God was wrong when he said he would establish a new covenant?

HARK! said:

So are you arguing that God was wrong when he said his words stand forever?

Click to expand...

Actually, Jesus said that the Law and Prophets were till John the baptist.

Jesus' words last forever. He founded the eternal kingdom of God.

HARK! said:

That's a twisted interpretation. Here's what the verse literally says:

(CLV) Lk 16:16
"The law and the prophets are unto John; thenceforth, the evangel of the kingdom of God is being brought, and everyone is violently forcing into it, and the violent are snatching it.

If you're trying to say that the law ended with John; then the very next verse will bring clarity to that distorted view.

(CLV) Lk 16:17
Yet it is easier for heaven and earth to pass by than for one serif of the law to fall.

Click to expand...

Lk 16:16-18 is about noncontextual sayings of Jesus put together. The verses were not said in such order.

NIV rightly notices:

Additional Teachings

16“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it.
17It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.
18Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

---

You can find the context in other Gospels, for example:

"Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, d and violent people have been raiding it. 13For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. 15Whoever has ears, let them hear.
Mt 11:13-15

HARK! said:

Both verses speak of the law; therefore they are related.

So by your distorted interpretation of Lk 16:16, how do you reconcile that with Lk 16:17, to bring scripture into harmony?

Click to expand...

Again, these sayings are put together without context. You can find them in their context in other Gospels. Verse Lk 16:17 was not said after verse Lk 16:16.

Here you have it in context:
"Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, d and violent people have been raiding it. 13For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. 15Whoever has ears, let them hear.
Mt 11:13-15

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
Mt 5:17-18

HARK! said:

Here we have your words:



Again, how do you reconcile that opinion with this scripture:


(CLV) Lk 16:17
Yet it is easier for heaven and earth to pass by than for one serif of the law to fall.

Click to expand...

Easily. The old heaven and earth passed in the first century.

It was an idiom, not the literal universe and planet dissolving.

HARK! said:

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

OK, I need to see the Book, Chapter, and Verse for that one.

Click to expand...

For the Son of man is about to come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There are some of those standing here, who in no wise shall taste of death, until they have seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom."
Mt 16:27

If you do not want to believe that some people from the first century are still alive today, you must believe that Jesus came in His kingdom in the first century.

Again, very simple.