Historicity of the change of the Sabbath Commandment

[Acts24Fourteen]

James is correct, that to transgress one, is to transgress all:

I could not agree more. ...

Before getting to the last portion, you are saying that the Ten Commandments exist then, even for the Christian, now, today, to be obeyed? After all, we have to have the right definition of sin, 1 John 3:4, don't we, in order to address the last portion.

 

[Acts24Fourteen]

And what OT laws does Acts 15 not uphold?

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
...

Ah yes, a little bit more of the actual context, and everything is clear:

Acts 15:1 KJV - And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.​

Justification.

 

[BABerean2]

Acts 15 deletes no commandments of God.

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

So somehow you have reversed the meaning of the text to get your Sabbath doctrine to work.

.

 

[BobRyan]

Clearly acts 15 is not a rewrite of the existing scriptures known to the saints in the NT and quoted by them all through the NT text.

Hint: No scripture in NT or OT required all believing gentiles to be circumcised. Nothing other than "man made tradition" for that idea - as we all know.

Acts 15 is not deleting any scriptures - it is also not replacing all of scripture with 3 or 4 sentences. We see that by the fact that much more scripture is quoted by the NT authors than you find in Acts 15.

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
Act 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Act 15:26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Act 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
(Nothing more than these things, seemed good to the Holy Ghost and the men of the Jerusalem Council.)

Does that "nothing more" mean that the 5th commandment quoted in Eph 6:2 is to be deleted? no!
Does that "nothing more" mean the commandments in Rom 13 and James 2 - not quoted in Acts 15 - are to be deleted??? no!

Acts 15 deletes no commandments of God.

And it appeals to laws of Moses regarding meat that has blood in it.

Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Lev 17
14 “For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.’ 15 When any person eats an animal which dies or is torn by beasts, whether he is a native or an alien, he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening; then he will become clean.

So somehow you have reversed the meaning of the text to get your Sabbath doctrine to work.

Just not in "real life" as we see in the examples I gave in the post above.

Hint: No scripture in NT or OT required all believing gentiles to be circumcised. Nothing other than "man made tradition" for that idea - as we all know.

I prefer real life and "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine and tradition.

 

[BobRyan]

Let's make it easy ---

All efforts to oppose the Commandments of God can be resolved by answering this simple question

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


If you oppose the Commandments of God in NT times - then answer this question -

In Eph 6:2 - "honor your father and mother for this is the first commandment with a promise" -- what Law - what unit of Law is it to be found that 'honor your father and mother" is the FIRST commandment with a promise??

First commandment where?

========================= next

having provided the obvious answer to that question - the next point is addressed by Mark 7 declaring that God's law cannot be edited/changed by church tradition.

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

======================= hence the answer to the OP

Ex 20:8-11 says the 7th day is a day of rest.
Lev 23:1-4 says it is reserved as a day of worship and is kept from sunset Friday to sundown Saturday evening.
Is 66:23 says it is to be a day of worship for "All mankind to come before Me and worship".
Mark 2:27 says it was 'made for mankind'
Rev 14:7 says to "WORSHIP Him who MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them"
Rev 14:12 says the saints "keep the Commandments of God and their faith in Jesus"

So it is possible that you want to keep Sabbath because you know you are part of "mankind"

 

[BABerean2]

having provided the obvious answer to that question - the next point is addressed by Mark 7 declaring that God's law cannot be edited/changed by church tradition.

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

.

 

[BobRyan]

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

.

The law of the priesthood changed because as Heb 7 points out Christ could not be a priest under the Sinai covenant unless he was of the tribe of Levi. But the command to "honor your parents" does not change for the Ten Commandments are the LAW of God under BOTH covenants. Different Covenants - same moral law of God.

 

[BobRyan]

Those who are carefully avoiding the simple question asked in Today at 11:08 AM #165
please note that this Eph 6:2 statement is a case of Paul affirming that same unit of Law - long after the cross. Long after the Heb 7 change.

 

[Acts24Fourteen]

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Wash, rinse --- repeat :

Out of context, read one line earlier:

Hebrews 7:11 KJV - 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?

Hebrews 7:12 KJV - For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
​

Which of the Ten Commandments makes men priests, or was given "under" the Levitical priesthood, rather than being spoken by God from Heaven above them all and before there ever was a Levitical priesthood [which was made for a transgressed law]. I know of a Levitical priestly "law" that was given to the order of Aaron, to make of men priests after Levi, but it is not found in the Ten Commandments.

Hebrews 7 reveals the transition from Levitical priesthood of order of Levi/Aaron to the previous Melchizedek which was greater and older.

 

[BABerean2]

Which of the Ten Commandments makes men priests

Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

The Law was added 430 years after the promise to Abraham, because of transgressions, until the Seed could come.

The inheritance comes through the Seed, not the law.




Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.


Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.


Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.



Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.


Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.


Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.



Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
.

 

[BobRyan]

which brings us back again to this much-to-be-avoided post -
Today at 11:08 AM #165

 

[bbbbbbb]

Before getting to the last portion, you are saying that the Ten Commandments exist then, even for the Christian, now, today, to be obeyed? After all, we have to have the right definition of sin, 1 John 3:4, don't we, in order to address the last portion.

What James is stating clearly is that the Law (all 600+ commandments) stands forever and if anyone breaks even one of those commandments he is guilty of violating all of the commandments. James does not limit it to only ten of them.

 

[Sophrosyne]

What James is stating clearly is that the Law (all 600+ commandments) stands forever and if anyone breaks even one of those commandments he is guilty of violating all of the commandments. James does not limit it to only ten of them.

They do this all the time playing the switcheroo game words mean only what THEY want them to regardless of the author who wrote them. James even talks about a "Royal Law" and guess what? They think it is either the Mosaic Law or the 10 commandments of which there is no need to call it anything but the Law (Mosaic). I have yet to see ANY Jew in the Old OR New Testament separate the 10 commandments from what they call "the Law" and call it the Law.

 

[BobRyan]

What James is stating clearly is that the Law (all 600+ commandments) stands forever and if anyone breaks even one of those commandments he is guilty of violating all of the commandments. James does not limit it to only ten of them.

James says this --

8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.

He does not say "so go ahead and break them - be condemned by the Law as a sinner because that is what we are - no worries - carry on... no changes... ignore what I said previously"

 

[bbbbbbb]

James says this --

8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.

He does not say "so go ahead and break them - be condemned by the Law as a sinner because that is what we are - no worries - carry on... no changes... ignore what I said previously"

Thank you for posting the passage from James. Do you believe the "whole law" consists of only ten of the 600+ commandments?

 

[Sophrosyne]

Thank you for posting the passage from James. Do you believe the "whole law" consists of only ten of the 600+ commandments?

Plus dietary laws..... for most SDA folks

 

[Meowzltov]

Plus dietary laws..... for most SDA folks

Well the dietary laws are part of the 613... so logic would indicate they would follow all the 613; but do they? or do they pick and choose?

 

[BobRyan]

Well the dietary laws are part of the 613... so logic would indicate they would follow all the 613; but do they? or do they pick and choose?

until we read page 1 of this thread -- and see this regarding that same separation of laws as is found in 1 Cor 7:19

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


And the Baptist Confession of Faith - joins with the Westminster Confession of Faith on that point.

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

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 67029856, member: 235244"]The Baptist Confession of Faith - section 19 almost identical to the Westminster section 19 quoted above.

Notice how they both fit that 7 point summary already posted on page 1?

Baptist Confession of Faith Section 19

Section 19:

C.H. Spurgeon's edition of the "Baptist Confession of Faith"
-- CH Spurgeon

The Perpetuity of the Law of God

Very great mistakes have been made about the law. Not long ago there were those about us who affirmed that the law is utterly abrogated and abolished, and they openly taught that believers were not bound to make the moral law the rule of their lives. What would have been sin in other men they counted to be no sin in themselves. From such Antinomianism as that may God deliver us. We are not under the law as the method of salvation, but we delight to see the law in the hand of Christ, and desire to obey the Lord in all things. Others have been met with who have taught that Jesus mitigated and softened down the law, and they have in effect said that the perfect law of God was too hard for imperfect beings, and therefore God has given us a milder and easier rule. These tread dangerously upon the verge of terrible error, although we believe that they are little aware of it.​

​

Section 19 of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" .​

​

Section 19​

. The Law of God ​

• God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience which was written in his heart, and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it.

• The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the TEN COMMANDMENTS, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.

• Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away. ​

• To the people of Israel He also gave sundry judicial laws which expired when they ceased to be a nation. These are not binding on anyone now by virtue of their being part of the laws of that nation, but their general equity continue to be applicable in modern times.

The moral law ever binds to obedience everyone, justified people as well as others, and not only out of regard for the matter contained in it, but also out of respect for the authority of God the Creator, Who gave the law. Nor does Christ in the Gospel dissolve this law in any way, but He considerably strengthens our obligation to obey it ​

Baptist Confession of Faith

Section 22.


Point 7

7. As it is the law of nature that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, should be set apart for the worship of God, so He has given in His Word a positive, moral and perpetual commandment, binding upon all men, in all ages to this effect. He has particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath to be kept holy for Him. From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ this was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ it was changed to the first day of the week and called the Lord's Day. This is to be continued until the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week having been abolished.
​

 

[BobRyan]

Thank you for posting the passage from James. Do you believe the "whole law" consists of only ten of the 600+ commandments?

The Moral Law of God is not the same as the civil law applicable only to a theocracy - as even the "Baptist Confession of Faith" AND the "Westminster Confession of Faith" freely admit.

So also laws of ceremony, priests and sacrifice that are stated to be at an end in Heb 7 and 10.

Which brings us back to the much-to-be-feared-and-avoided two super easy questions.

Today at 11:08 AM #165

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well the dietary laws are part of the 613... so logic would indicate they would follow all the 613; but do they? or do they pick and choose?

Most assuredly they pick and choose.