Questions on the Sabbath

[ebia]

I am sorry to say but I fail to see how breaking of bread and praying over it, something they did every single time they ate in the bible, signifies the changing of God's law.

Also if you are following the Eucharist, which i understand to be the breaking of bread and drinking of wine, signifying the body and blood of Christ as was done on passover. Then why do you not follow that the breaking of bread was on a Thursday night? Does that mean we should change the day of worship to neither sunday nor sabbath but rather Thursday?

Because Sunday is the day of new creation. That's the day when the whole course and nature of creation shifted. FWIW, though - almost all churches with a reasonable eucharistic theology also celebrate the eucharist on Maundy Thursday each year.

 

[Standing Up]

Ok, so you pick and choose which parts of the weekly Sabbath commandments to keep and not keep, trying to copy Jesus as much as possible and taking into consideration the time and culture in which you presently live, but nonethelss, still breaking God's Law or Sabbath commandments as outlined in the OT, such as not cooking, gathering, sparking a fire, etc.

What are the Sabbath references in John and Acts?

 

[Standing Up]

>>Matt 24:20 - (Jesus is talking about the end times) "Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath" (ESV)
The argument could also be made that Jesus rested in the tomb on the Sabbath day, but unless you accept the Sabbath that may seem unimportant.<<

Well, two things that probably won't make much sense for now, but I didn't want your comment to simply go unanswered. One Jesus rested on a feast Sabbath and a weekly Sabbath. Two Jesus rested on the 17th and forward as the ark (Gen. 8:4), never to make provision again, having risen out from the dead.

 

[Bobinator]

One of the things we need to consider is that at the time Jesus walked the earth, he had not been crucified or risen from the dead yet. So the new covenant had not yet been in full operation where it concerned the common man.

We note, however, that the disciples could heal the sick and cast out devils before the Lord's death, but that of course, was through the name of Jesus, who was walking in total agreement with the Father. And so it is reasonable to beleive that Jesus' authority was passed down to his disciples, and it was through Him that these miracles were wrought. Otherwise, the Old Testament Law was still in effect.

We also find that in Acts 10:13- The Lord authorizes Peter to eat things that were forbidden under Old Testament Law, stating that it has now been made clean. This was after the Lord's ascension. I can only speculate that forbidden meat in Old Testament days was a way to make a distinction between good and evil, and was a type and shadow of avoiding spiritual abominations. I know that the appearance of some demonic spirits take after certain animals, like snakes, crocodiles, owls and frogs.

Galations 3:24-25- Wherefore the law was our school master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a school master.

This sort of reminds of learning higher math, like calculus. Most of us never use it in our professional lives, but the whole point is to get the mind working in a certain way so we can become more proficient at our jobs or day to day living in some way. Strange, but true.

It is also reasonable to consider that every Jew was raised under the written Laws and observed the Sabbath. It was a way of life. Even tradition, if you will. So, just because Jesus did something on a certain day or participated in a daily/weekly ritual or activity, doesn't mean it's a spiritual law.

 

[bdgienger22]

Whew so many different angles are coming in here I am in three different conversations. Okay ebia in this post, I will indeed concede your point on Constantine the Great. However if you look up the Council of Laodicea 364 AD I believe canon 29, this is the first time that Sunday Sabbath is canonized. Now you keep insisting that evidence is outside of the Bible, so here is evidence that the 1st Century Church did not practice Sunday worship.

So where is this extra-biblical history you are speaking of?

 

[bdgienger22]

Bobinator interesting that you should bring up the clean and unclean, if you read that vision in context Peter says in Acts 10:28 - "God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean." Which seems to suggest that Peter's vision, like many visions in the Bible is not literal but figurative, proclaiming all men clean and not necessarily all meat.

Interesting, however didn't Jesus choose to not follow some of the laws, for instance in Matthew 23 Jesus refuses to take part in a hand washing ritual. So why then did Jesus still observe the Sabbath if he meant to abolish it. Wouldn't it make more sense for Jesus to consistently not follow the law. Like you say he hadn't gone to the cross yet, so why the selectiveness by Jesus?

Consider Revelations 12:17 - "Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus."
So why is the Devil making war against those who keep the commandments of God if continuing to follow the commandments of God is a sin after Jesus has abolished them. He has no need to make war on them because they are already lost, correct?

Okay Colossians does indeed refer to Sabbath, but in context of the verse isn't Paul talking about ritual Sabbaths?

I agree with you about Galatians it does indeed slam the Church for trying to live by the Law of Abraham, but isn't Paul speaking against the covenant of circumcision. Which was what bound Jews to the Law. I'm not totally convinced I mean look at the text in Revelation and what do you do with 1 John 2 where he talks all about obedience?

 

[bdgienger22]

Hmm to Standing Up, umm so you said I pick and choose how I keep the Sabbath based on how Jesus did and yet I am still breaking the Sabbath. So does that mean that Jesus broke the Sabbath too, because before his death he hadn't abolished the Law yet according to your belief system. So are you telling me that Jesus broke the Sabbath?

 

[bdgienger22]

Sorry forgot to supply the post-cross Sabbath Reference texts:

Acts 13:14 - "but they went on from Perga and came to Antioch in Pisidia. And on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down."

Acts 17:1,2 - "Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,"
3 Sabbaths in a row!

Acts 18:4 - "And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks."

As for Revelation 1:10 where it talks about in the Spirit of the "Lord's Day" what day is ever referred to as the Lord's Day other then the Sabbath? Mark 2:28 says that Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath, so wouldn't that make the Sabbath the Lord's Day?

 

[ebia]

Whew so many different angles are coming in here I am in three different conversations. Okay ebia in this post, I will indeed concede your point on Constantine the Great. However if you look up the Council of Laodicea 364 AD I believe canon 29, this is the first time that Sunday Sabbath is canonized. Now you keep insisting that evidence is outside of the Bible, so here is evidence that the 1st Century Church did not practice Sunday worship.

Canonisation is almost always the official recognition of what is already happening - often for a very long time, and almost never the instigation of something new. The fact that it needed to be canonised is a good indication that a few groups were still keeping a sabbath but most were not.

 

[WithBendedKnee]

The question comes to mind in regards to your logic above, that if everyone else is jumping off a bridge.....

 

[bdgienger22]

Well ebia I guess the time has come for you to bring forth any (and I mean any) evidence that you have for all the claims you have made. Honestly you have yet to site a single shred of evidence... so if you ever dig something up then please I can't wait to see it. But I flat out refuse to have a conversation with anyone that is so arrogant that they believe their words are proof enough.

 

[ebia]

The question comes to mind in regards to your logic above, that if everyone else is jumping off a bridge.....

I'm just commenting on where the historical evidence points - if something is being canonised in year 364, we can be pretty sure that it is widely established before then and that it was not innovative on that date.

I'm wasn't trying to comment on the reasoning that went with the canonisation of

 

[ebia]

Well ebia I guess the time has come for you to bring forth any (and I mean any) evidence that you have for all the claims you have made. Honestly you have yet to site a single shred of evidence... so if you ever dig something up then please I can't wait to see it.

As I said before, I don't really want to get into a debate about it. But some of the comments made demanded a response, IMO.

But I flat out refuse to have a conversation with anyone that is so arrogant that they believe their words are proof enough.

That's your call, but I don't believe my words are proof enough. I don't actually think I could convince you whatever evidence I had to offer.

It seems to me there are 3 categories of argument:

• Direct New Testament comment on when to worship - the problem is that there are very few such comments and all are ambiguous.
• Extra-scriptural historical comment - like all early historical data on the church there isn't a mass of it - particularly very early - and it will always be sufficently ambiguous to be disputable by someone with a vested interest in the argument.
• Theological - this is the crunch one, but this runs much much deeper than the surface question of sabbath keeping. Unless one has a proper theology of creation, of new creation, of the law post resurrection, of the whole meta-narrative of the bible, and so forth dealing with the particular of sabbath vs Sunday worship isn't going to work; we simply haven't put the groundwork in place on which to build that argument.

 

[Standing Up]

Don't forget the reference at Acts 2:1 to the day of Pentecost, which was on a Sunday, which was probably the seventh Sunday in a row they met. The first two are at John 20:19 and John 20:26, as they counted from First Fruits to Pentecost (Lev. 23:15-16).

 

[Bobinator]

Bobinator interesting that you should bring up the clean and unclean, if you read that vision in context Peter says in Acts 10:28 - "God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean." Which seems to suggest that Peter's vision, like many visions in the Bible is not literal but figurative, proclaiming all men clean and not necessarily all meat.

Interesting, however didn't Jesus choose to not follow some of the laws, for instance in Matthew 23 Jesus refuses to take part in a hand washing ritual. So why then did Jesus still observe the Sabbath if he meant to abolish it. Wouldn't it make more sense for Jesus to consistently not follow the law. Like you say he hadn't gone to the cross yet, so why the selectiveness by Jesus?

Consider Revelations 12:17 - "Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus."
So why is the Devil making war against those who keep the commandments of God if continuing to follow the commandments of God is a sin after Jesus has abolished them. He has no need to make war on them because they are already lost, correct?

Okay Colossians does indeed refer to Sabbath, but in context of the verse isn't Paul talking about ritual Sabbaths?

I agree with you about Galatians it does indeed slam the Church for trying to live by the Law of Abraham, but isn't Paul speaking against the covenant of circumcision. Which was what bound Jews to the Law. I'm not totally convinced I mean look at the text in Revelation and what do you do with 1 John 2 where he talks all about obedience?

Bdgeinger-

Acts 10:13 says &#8220;kill and eat&#8221;, so the Lord was referring to food. This vision and Word from the Lord occurred 3 times.

In verse 28, there is a strong implication that Peter&#8217;s conversation with the Lord included other details that were not specifically written. Of course, if eating pork and snakes were now considered lawful by the Lord, then how much more is fellowshipping with another human being of a different nationality? We find later that Peter still had trouble with this because in another scripture, Paul rebukes Peter for being two-faced about this and avoiding the gentiles so as not to be judged by the Jews. Peter was more concerned about his image than doing what was right.

There&#8217;s nothing spiritual about hand washing. Again, it was possibly another type and shadow in the Law of Moses about not allowing your temple (body) to be polluted with spiritual uncleanness, or not allowing Satan to enter you. You&#8217;ll also find that God gave Moses instructions for people to wash to avoid plagues, infections and diseases. Nothing spiritual about that, but very practical life-saving habits that would spare people a lot of suffering, grief and untimely deaths. They didn&#8217;t have antibiotics in those days. I&#8217;m sure Jesus washed his hands before eating as do I. But it may have been the case where water wasn&#8217;t available, and Jesus knew what the law was intended for. Washing one&#8217;s hands will not make anyone more spiritual or bring them closer to God. What matters is what&#8217;s in your heart.

Matthew 15: 11- &#8220;Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. [20] These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.&#8221;

Revelations is strictly about the end times. We know that before Jesus comes back, there will be great destruction upon the face of the earth, as well as heavy persecution of the church. Jesus spoke of this in Matthew 24. It is further spoken of in the Book of Daniel and in many other places in the Bible, i.e. Ezekiel (particularly 8 & 9), Jeremiah, Joel, etc. There will only be 3 groups of Christians- Those that comprise of the &#8220;woman&#8221;, the man-child she births, and the &#8220;remnant of her seed.&#8221; The woman and man-child will be protected by God, the remnant will become martyrs. All other Christians fall away from the faith and take the mark of the beast. The &#8220;woman&#8221; and &#8220;man-child&#8221; will be the only ones left standing when the Lord returns. These are Christians who have developed a very close and deep relationship with the Lord. Jesus defeated Satan on the cross, but you have to be &#8220;one with the Father&#8221; like Jesus in order to proclaim that same victory for yourself. Jesus may have defeated Satan, but we haven&#8217;t done so in our own lives through Christ. That&#8217;s why we still have problems in life and physically die, because we haven&#8217;t died to self.

Anyway, this part is a bit off-topic, but your post was worth it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The Pharisee's "sat in Moses seat".

God told Moses that he would "be a God to them"(Israel).

Moses was "God", and Aaron was his "priest" over Israel.

Together they administered the Law of God, through what was called the Mosaic/Aaronic/Levitical priesthood.

That priesthood still existed and was in legitimate authority at the time of Christ and the disciples. Christ recognized and supported that authority.

He supported all of the laws including sabbath observance.

He chided the Pharisee's for failing to consider the "weightier matters of the law" but added that the 'other' (tithing, and by implication all the OT laws) should not be "left undone". Curious way of phrasing this.

The temple and priesthood were destroyed around 70AD by the Romans.

End of OT law.

Disciples had been observing OT laws and Christ's teachings about the true spirit of the Law.

When the Levitical priesthood ended OT observance under the supervision of the priesthood ended.

The disciples were left with the spiritual teachings of Christ upon which to build the NT church.