Clarifying the Debate "basics" on Sabbath and the TEN Commandments

[BobRyan]

Show me 7th day Sabbath commandment for Gentiles?

Mark 2:27 "Sabbath made for mankind"
Is 56:6-8 - gentiles specifically singled out for keeping Sabbath
Is 66:23 "ALL mankind" specifically designated for Sabbath Keeping - for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth.

Acts 18:4 gentiles and Jews coming back "every Sabbath" for more Gospel preaching.
Acts 13 - gentiles specifically asking for MORE Gospel - "Next Sabbath".

 

[BobRyan]

Matt 11:28 Jesus does not say "I AM your rest" or "I AM your Sabbath" He said I will GIVE you rest.

When someone says "come to my store and I will give you a Honda" it does not mean that person IS a Honda.

Sabbath Rest is about the weekly Sabbath day as a day of rest, worship and giving everyone a break from the secular activity rat-race we tend to get into. the "rest" in Matt 11:28 is about salvation - an every day walk with Christ, not "every day with no secular activity".

Some folks enjoy conflating those two things.

 

[Leaf473]

Hi @BobRyan,

(I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question, so if you don't want to answer or if you want to answer somewhere else, that's cool.)

A thing that often comes up when I talk to people who want to keep some portion of the Law is what laws other than the Ten commandments we are to keep today?

Like, if you start reading at the beginning of Genesis what is the first law that you come to that we are to keep today? Do you not reach any "today" laws until Exodus 20?

 

[BobRyan]

Hi @BobRyan,

(I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question, so if you don't want to answer or if you want to answer somewhere else, that's cool.)

A thing that often comes up when I talk to people who want to keep some portion of the Law is what laws other than the Ten commandments we are to keep today?

Like, if you start reading at the beginning of Genesis what is the first law that you come to that we are to keep today? Do you not reach any "today" laws until Exodus 20?

This is the perfect thread for that topic... thanks for bringing it up.

In Gen 4 God implies murder is a sin speaking to Cain "SIN is crouching at your door" but the law-on-stones is not given until Sinai - it was there in Eden none-the-less. And since "Sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4 we know it existed as law.

Gen 26:5 "because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”

Indeed - even "the Gospel was preached to Abraham" Gal 3:8

Clean and unclean animals are mentioned in Gen 6,7,8 - but the Lev 11 text is not in the book of Genesis - the distinction was there non-the-less.

The Baptist Confession of Faith , and also the Westminster Confession of Faith admit that all TEN of the Ten commandments were in Eden - D.L. Moody, R.C.Sproul, C.H.Spurgeon all admit to this.

IN Heb 10:4-12 we find that the laws given in (defined by) animal sacrifices and ceremonial offerings ended at the the cross just as those confessions of Faith state.

We also find that the civil laws under the Theocracy ended when that theocracy ended - just as those confessions of Faith state

1 Cor 7:10 Paul says that circumcision does not matter one way or the other "but what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" and the confessions of Faith above also notice this same Bible detail that these divisions in various kinds of Law are valid and one kind continues while another ends.

Paul is questioned in Acts 21 as to whether he is telling converted Christian Jews to no-longer circumcise their children and he denies it. (Notice they do not accuse him of telling gentiles that because there never was an OT or NT command for gentiles to do that so any accusation against Paul that he was telling newly converted Christian gentiles not to circumcise their children would be hollow.)

=================

This thread is about the TEN - and if you were actually someone who embraced God's Ten commandments and wanted to look at others such as "Love God with all your heart" Deut 6:5 or "Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18 to emphasize how the moral law of God written on the heart not only includes the TEN but others "as well" -- we would have a good deal to discuss (which is what I thought you were initially talking about).

 

[Leaf473]

This is the perfect thread for that topic... thanks for bringing it up.

In Gen 4 God implies murder is a sin speaking to Cain "SIN is crouching at your door" but the law-on-stones is not given until Sinai - it was there in Eden none-the-less. And since "Sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4 we know it existed as law.

Gen 26:5 "because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”

Indeed - even "the Gospel was preached to Abraham" Gal 3:8

Clean and unclean animals are mentioned in Gen 6,7,8 - but the Lev 11 text is not in the book of Genesis - the distinction was there non-the-less.

The Baptist Confession of Faith , and also the Westminster Confession of Faith admit that all TEN of the Ten commandments were in Eden - D.L. Moody, R.C.Sproul, C.H.Spurgeon all admit to this.

IN Heb 10:4-12 we find that the laws given in (defined by) animal sacrifices and ceremonial offerings ended at the the cross just as those confessions of Faith state.

We also find that the civil laws under the Theocracy ended when that theocracy ended - just as those confessions of Faith state

1 Cor 7:10 Paul says that circumcision does not matter one way or the other "but what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" and the confessions of Faith above also notice this same Bible detail that these divisions in various kinds of Law are valid and one kind continues while another ends.

Paul is questioned in Acts 21 as to whether he is telling converted Christian Jews to no-longer circumcise their children and he denies it. (Notice they do not accuse him of telling gentiles that because there never was an OT or NT command for gentiles to do that so any accusation against Paul that he was telling newly converted Christian gentiles not to circumcise their children would be hollow.)

I'm glad to hear this is the perfect thread for it.

In Gen 4 God implies murder is a sin speaking to Cain "SIN is crouching at your door" but the law-on-stones is not given until Sinai - it was there in Eden none-the-less. And since "Sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4 we know it existed as law.

That's a good observation!

But where is the first place we come to where a "today' law is actually stated?

I'm asking because a term like Civil Laws is kind of vague, imo. If it is critical to God that we keep his Today laws, then it would be very important to be able to say exactly what they are, again imo.

Here's looking forward to a great discussion!

 

[BobRyan]

I'm glad to hear this is the perfect thread for it.


That's a good observation!

But where is the first place we come to where a "today' law is actually stated?

Laws that we can read still today - can be found today in the Bible - Moses' readers were reading in their "today" - they had Genesis and Leviticus and a lot of Exodus - at Sinai.

I'm asking because a term like Civil Laws is kind of vague, imo.

The term "Civil law" is very specific - it is a law where punishment is meted out for violation of it by the ruling government as opposed to "an individual that is unhappy" if the law is broken or a Law like "do not covet" where God counts it as a sin but no civil government or even theocracy would touch that with a ten foot pole..

When the organized government that uses that civil law ends - so does the civil law because there is no "state" to enforce it.

If it is critical to God that we keep his Today laws, then it would be very important to be able to say exactly what they are

There are no civil Laws given by God today to a theocracy. He has no theocracy on Earth today.

But in Lev 18 we find that God has Laws that He will personally enforce against a nation whether it is Christian or not. IN that chapter He lists things (that do not include commands like "Do not take God's name in vain") that He will enforce against any nation -- though His judgment delays in mercy.

As noted above - it is pretty easy to see that "do not covet" is a Law and is not enforceable by civil governments - only by God - because it defines what sin is.

On Page 1 of this thread we see agreement "on the basics" even on both sides of the Sunday vs Sabbath debate -- so that is "the easy part" when it comes to the TEN for all mankind since Eden.

Out of curiosity - how are you on "the easy part"?

Health laws are another example of laws that God oversees but often civil governments do not - so for example eating poisonous plants, eating arsenic in plants will harm your health and God is not going to overrule nature just because someone is foolish wants to eat rats or poison. Having a killer high-sugar and high-cholesterol low-fiber diet is another great way to slowly kill yourself where God is not going to overrule nature to spare you from foolish choices.

 

[Leaf473]

Laws that we can read still today - can be found today in the Bible - Moses' readers were reading in their "today" - they had Genesis and Leviticus and a lot of Exodus - at Sinai.



The term "Civil law" is very specific - it is a law where punishment is meted out for violation of it by the ruling government as opposed to "an individual that is unhappy" if the law is broken or a Law like "do not covet" where God counts it as a sin but no civil government or even theocracy would touch that with a ten foot pole..

When the organized government that uses that civil law ends - so does the civil law because there is no "state" to enforce it.



There are no civil Laws given by God today to a theocracy. He has no theocracy on Earth today.

But in Lev 18 we find that God has Laws that He will personally enforce against a nation whether it is Christian or not. IN that chapter He lists things (that do not include commands like "Do not take God's name in vain") that He will enforce against any nation -- though His judgment delays in mercy.

As noted above - it is pretty easy to see that "do not covet" is a Law and is not enforceable by civil governments - only by God - because it defines what sin is.

On Page 1 of this thread we see agreement "on the basics" even on both sides of the Sunday vs Sabbath debate -- so that is "the easy part" when it comes to the TEN for all mankind since Eden.

Out of curiosity - how are you on "the easy part"?

Health laws are another example of laws that God oversees but often civil governments do not - so for example eating poisonous plants, eating arsenic in plants will harm your health and God is not going to overrule nature just because someone is foolish wants to eat rats or poison. Having a killer high-sugar and high-cholesterol low-fiber diet is another great way to slowly kill yourself where God is not going to overrule nature to spare you from foolish choices.

I don't understand what you're saying here

Laws that we can read still today - can be found today in the Bible - Moses' readers were reading in their "today" - they had Genesis and Leviticus and a lot of Exodus - at Sinai.

What I'm asking is, of those laws that we can read still today - can be found today in the Bible, what is the first that we come to that we are to keep today?

If you believe it is very easy to divide the law up into categories, great! Of the categories that we are to keep today, what is the first law that is actually stated as a law that we come to in the Bible?

I don't really consider myself part of any particular denomination. If one of theologians you list who agrees "on the basics" joins the thread here, I'll be happy to ask him the same questions!

Myself, I don't think it's possible to divide up the law in a reasonable fashion into this part for today and that part for yesterday, so I'm suspicious of any theology that does that.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't understand what you're saying here

you said civil laws are vague - I said in fact they are very specific - and are defined as those laws which a nation-state/government can impose penalties. How is that not "every day" use?

What I'm asking is, of those laws that we can read still today - can be found today in the Bible, what is the first that we come to that we are to keep today?

And I point out that today we can still read the Gen 4 statement about sin and murder, and we can still read the Gen 2 statements about marriage one-man one-woman and we can still read the references in Gen 6,7,8 to clean and unclean animals, and we can see in Gen 9 the death penalty for murder etc.

We can still read the Gen 2:1-3 statement about God making the Sabbath a holy day and we can still read today the Ex 20:11 reference back to that Gen 2 statement.

But just as clean/unclean is "undefined" until the reader finds Lev 11 which was also made available to the reader when Genesis was made available to the reader - so some other Laws

If you believe it is very easy to divide the law up into categories, great!

Indeed - it is so easy that the "Confessions of faith" even non-Sabbath keeping groups have done it - as noted in posts 1 and 2 of this thread.

Of the categories that we are to keep today, what is the first law that is actually stated as a law that we come to in the Bible?

God says Abraham obeyed His "laws" in Gen 26:5 - God's Commands are law.

I don't really consider myself part of any particular denomination. If one of theologians you list who agrees "on the basics" joins the thread here, I'll be happy

How about "reading" what they wrote?

Myself, I don't think it's possible to divide up the law in a reasonable fashion

1 Cor 7:19 Paul explicitly shows that you are mistaken as even he shows that such a division exists so also in Heb 10:4-12. We can read that today as well.

That was posted like this - already

1 Cor 7:10 Paul says that circumcision does not matter one way or the other "but what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" and the confessions of Faith above also notice this same Bible detail that these divisions in various kinds of Law are valid and one kind continues while another ends.

Myself, I don't think it's possible to divide up the law in a reasonable fashion

You respond with a sort of "I don't care what Paul says about that distinction" after I just posted Paul's own statement.

In any case - you have free will and can ignore all these Bible details as you wish . I am not saying you do not have the right to chart your own course.

I read the Bible "today" - it tells me that the TEN that have "honor your father and mother as the first commandment with a promise" are included in the Law of God written on heart and mind under the NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-34 (as we saw on page 1, post 11)

 

[Leaf473]

you said civil laws are vague - I said in fact they are very specific - and are defined as those laws which a nation-state/government can impose penalties. How is that not "every day" use?



And I point out that today we can still read the Gen 4 statement about sin and murder, and we can still read the Gen 2 statements about marriage one-man one-woman and we can still read the references in Gen 6,7,8 to clean and unclean animals, and we can see in Gen 9 the death penalty for murder etc.

We can still read the Gen 2:1-3 statement about God making the Sabbath a holy day and we can still read today the Ex 20:11 reference back to that Gen 2 statement.

But just as clean/unclean is "undefined" until the reader finds Lev 11 which was also made available to the reader when Genesis was made available to the reader - so some other Laws



Indeed - it is so easy that the "Confessions of faith" even non-Sabbath keeping groups have done it - as noted in posts 1 and 2 of this thread.




God says Abraham obeyed His "laws" in Gen 26:5 - God's Commands are law.



How about "reading" what they wrote?



1 Cor 7:19 Paul explicitly shows that you are mistaken as even he shows that such a division exists so also in Heb 10:4-12. We can read that today as well.

That was posted like this - already




You respond with a sort of "I don't care what Paul says about that distinction" after I just posted Paul's own statement.

In any case - you have free will and can ignore all these Bible details as you wish . I am not saying you do not have the right to chart your own course.

I read the Bible "today"

HI Bob,

I'll try to ask a more specific question:
Is this a law that we are to keep today?
Genesis 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Why or why not?

 

[BobRyan]

HI Bob,

I'll try to ask a more specific question:
Is this a law that we are to keep today?
Genesis 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Why or why not?

Acts 15 says it is.

Acts 15
. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from acts of sexual immorality; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”

=============

Now back to my question - why are you rejecting Paul's statement in 1 Cor 7:19 as if no such division can exist as Paul and almost all Bible scholars in all major denominations admit to existing?

1. Why are you staying stuck on the "easy part"?? The part where Bible scholars on BOTH SIDES of the Sabbath debate agree. A key topic on this thread.
2. And if as you say - you cannot tell the difference between "Do not take God's name in vain" in Ex 20:7 and "Remember the Sabbath" Ex 20:8 - why do you not simply choose to keep both? (Or are you choosing to reject both?). Another point specific to this thread. Since you claim you cannot distinguish between them you should be keeping or rejecting both "the same"

 

[Leaf473]

Acts 15 says it is.

Acts 15
. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from acts of sexual immorality; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”

I agree that Acts 15 mentions the concept. Is this another category, then, if a concept is given in the new testament as something to keep, then all the laws that relate to that concept are for today?

=============

Now back to my question - why are you rejecting Paul's statement in 1 Cor 7:19 as if no such division can exist as Paul and almost all Bible scholars in all major denominations admit to existing?

I'm not rejecting Paul's statement, there's more than one way to understand what he is saying.
Regarding Bible scholars, they are not here for me to ask about the other 603 laws, traditionally numbered.

1. Why are you staying stuck on the "easy part"?? The part where Bible scholars on BOTH SIDES of the Sabbath debate agree. A key topic on this thread.

Because I'm suspicious of approaches that can't handle the entire law.

2. And if as you say - you cannot tell the difference between "Do not take God's name in vain" in Ex 20:7 and "Remember the Sabbath" Ex 20:8 - why do you not simply choose to keep both? (Or are you choosing to reject both?). Another point specific to this thread. Since you claim you cannot distinguish between them you should be keeping or rejecting both "the same"

Well, that's one of the things I'm getting at. If the entire law can't be reasonably divided up, then it makes sense to look for a way to keep it all.

 

[BobRyan]

I agree that Acts 15 mentions the concept. Is this another category, then, if a concept is given in the new testament as something to keep, then all the laws that relate to that concept are for today?

no - because if that were the rule "whatever is not repeated should be deleted" then we would be deleting "do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 since it is never quoted in the NT. I assume you agree we should keep that one even though it is not in the NT

 

[BobRyan]

2. And if as you say - you cannot tell the difference between "Do not take God's name in vain" in Ex 20:7 and "Remember the Sabbath" Ex 20:8 - why do you not simply choose to keep both? (Or are you choosing to reject both?). Another point specific to this thread. Since you claim you cannot distinguish between them you should be keeping or rejecting both "the same"

Well, that's one of the things I'm getting at. If the entire law can't be reasonably divided up, then it makes sense to look for a way to keep it all.

So for now you are keeping both of those commandments since you cannot tell any difference?

Seriously?

 

[A_Thinker]

So it does not matter whether one meets to worship on Sunday then.

Especially since the 4th commandment says nothing about meeting to worship ...

 

[BobRyan]

Well, that's one of the things I'm getting at. If the entire law can't be reasonably divided up, then it makes sense to look for a way to keep it all.

Lets keep with the easy details.

Part 1 of the "very easy part"

Do you have a problem with Heb 10:4-12 telling us not to sacrifice animals or make ceremonial offerings after the cross?

Heb 10:
4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,
“Sacrifice and offering You have not desired,
But a body You have prepared for Me;
6 In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure.
7 “Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come
(In the scroll of the book it is written of Me)
To do Your will, O God.’”

8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God,

So then you agree with all Bible scholars that animal sacrifices and offerings ended at the cross - according to scripture - right ? or is this still confusing in some way?

And it is very easy to see that the fact that we are not supposed to continue offering animal sacrifices after the cross according to the explicit Word of God in Heb 10 --- does NOT also mean that it must now be ok to "take God's name in vain" - as if moral laws vanish as soon as animal sacrifices end.

Or is that in any way confusing?

 

[BobRyan]

Especially since the 4th commandment says nothing about meeting to worship ...

Lev 23:2-3 says the 4th commandment specifies a "day of holy convocation"
And we see believing gentiles and Jews meeting "every Sabbath" Acts 18:4 in the NT for more gospel preaching. To the point that in Acts 13 it is the believing gentiles that ask for more gospel preaching on "the next Sabbath"

Is 66:23 "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship" and it points out that this remains to be true for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth.

 

[BobRyan]

You are saying that a ritual observance of a law is more important than what one believes about Jesus

I don't think I have said any such thing

So it does not matter whether one meets to worship on Sunday then.

You can meet on any days you like - the question here is about keeping the Sabbath commandment or not. It has nothing to do with whether you want to meet on Tuesday for a worship service, or on a Wednesday for prayer meeting.

 

[BobRyan]

Part 2: of the very easy part

I don't understand what you're saying here

you said civil laws are vague - I said in fact they are very specific - and are defined as those laws which a nation-state/government can impose penalties. How is that not "every day" use?

It is also easy for all to see that just because there is no theocracy on Earth with federal laws specifying the OT death penalty for blasphemy or gluttony - does not also mean that to "take God's name in vain" is no longer a sin? (Or is this in any way confusing?)

 

[Leaf473]

no - because if that were the rule "whatever is not repeated should be deleted" then we would be deleting "do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 since it is never quoted in the NT. I assume you agree we should keep that one even though it is not in the NT

I think the rule would be stated as "whatever is repeated in the NT is included in the list of laws we keep today." But that list wouldn't be limited to only what is repeated.

As I understand the commandment about taking God's name in vain, it is refering to the tetragrammaton, "yhwh". I don't think anyone knows what that name is, all we have is four consonants. If we don't know what the name is, I don't understand how we could use it either in vain or for a purpose.

If you want to include it in the list, that's fine. After all, I'm asking what your list is.

So for now you are keeping both of those commandments since you cannot tell any difference?

Seriously?

Yes, I seriously see myself as keeping those laws plus the rest of the entire law. Or you could say I see the entire law as fulfilled. I arrived at that view because I couldn't see a reasonable way to divide up the law.

But my understanding is that you feel that you can, so cool!
Here's the list that I see so far:

The Ten Commandments
Don't murder (included in the Ten)
Eat only clean animals
Don't eat meat with blood in it

Did I leave any out? If not, is that the complete list?

 

[Leaf473]

Lets keep with the easy details.

Part 1 of the "very easy part"

Do you have a problem with Heb 10:4-12 telling us not to sacrifice animals or make ceremonial offerings after the cross?

Heb 10:
4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,
“Sacrifice and offering You have not desired,
But a body You have prepared for Me;
6 In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure.
7 “Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come
(In the scroll of the book it is written of Me)
To do Your will, O God.’”

8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God,

So then you agree with all Bible scholars that animal sacrifices and offerings ended at the cross - according to scripture - right ? or is this still confusing in some way?

And it is very easy to see that the fact that we are not supposed to continue offering animal sacrifices after the cross according to the explicit Word of God in Heb 10 --- does NOT also mean that it must now be ok to "take God's name in vain" - as if moral laws vanish as soon as animal sacrifices end.

Or is that in any way confusing?

No, that's not confusing. I follow what you're saying there.
However, and I really don't want to get sidetracked here, does it actually say not to offer animal sacrifices? or just that they have ended? or should that be translated "Paused"?
There are some passages that some people say refer to sacrifices being restarted at some point.

But the main reason I posted on this thread was to ask you what your list of laws we keep today is.