Sam Bacchiocchi vs. Dale Ratzlaff in Sabbath debate

[ricker]

Could Jim or any one of you other Adventists care to point out where I am wrong with my thoughts here? Your main arguement for Sabbath keeping by Gentiles seems to hinge on these verses. I would really like to be proven wrong. Am I way out of line in any or all of my thinking? And where? Thanks! Ricker

23One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"

25He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." 27Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

Notice Jesus said "man" not "mankind".
The word "man" can have multiple meanings in the original language, just as it can in english. We need to study it in context to see exactly what Jesus meant.
First we see the Pharisees criticizing Jesus for allowing His disciples to pick and eat grain on the Sabbath. The Pharisees were concerned about the behavior of the disciples, not Gentiles. The Pharisees knew the Bible very well and would know Exodus 31 by heart. You can't tell me they believed their holy Sabbath was to be kept by Gentiles, who they were loath to even talk to. The Sabbath was a cause of great pride to them, which is readily apparent throughout the Gospels.
If they understood Jesus to say the Sabbath was made for Gentiles too, it would have caused another controversy.
When Jesus said "the Sabbath was made for man", he was addressing the relative importance of the Sabbath, not which specific people it was given to.
Jesus basically said that the Sabbath was made for humans, but he did not say, nor did he mean, that it was made for all humans.
The Bible is clear when it means to say something is meant for all of mankind. See 1 Timothy 2:4, Titus 2:11, etc.

I want you to notice that Jesus compares the Sabbath to ceremonial laws abolished at the cross. I would like to point out that Jesus implied it is OK for His disciples to break the Sabbath when they were hungry. Notice Jesus didn't say they weren't breaking the Sabbath. When is it OK to break a moral law to feed yourself when you are hungry? Is it OK to blaspheme God's name if it will help you out? Is it OK to be a prostitute and break the adultery command if it helps put food on the table? Jesus puts things into perspective when He next says " not man for the Sabbath". This says the Sabbath was created to serve those who were under it, not that they were to serve the Sabbath.

I don't know if I expressed myself very clearly, but I think this passage of scripture does more to undermine your position than it does to help it. The Pharisees knew the Sabbath was given only to them, as did the disciples. There is nowhere before this or after where the Sabbath command is given to Gentiles, only those who became prostylite Jews under the old covenant. Everybody involved knew who Jesus was talking of then, and most everybody does now!
God bless! Ricker

 

[Jimlarmore]

Hi Jim! First I will quote the passage in question:

Notice Jesus said "man" not "mankind".
The word "man" can have multiple meanings in the original language, just as it can in english. We need to study it in context to see exactly what Jesus meant.

Rick,
Sorry for the delay in responding, I have been pretty busy lately. I think He meant all mankind because when Christ was presenting something that was just for the Jews He was clear about it, for instance when the gentile woman came and asked for Christ to heal her daughter Christ told her that He was not supposed to give the food for God's children to the dogs. This was His way of saying the gospel message was sent first to the Jews. In Mark I think Christ was referring to the event at creation when there was only one man and one woman. The Sabbath was made for "MAN" or Adam.

First we see the Pharisees criticizing Jesus for allowing His disciples to pick and eat grain on the Sabbath. The Pharisees were concerned about the behavior of the disciples, not Gentiles. The Pharisees knew the Bible very well and would know Exodus 31 by heart. You can't tell me they believed their holy Sabbath was to be kept by Gentiles, who they were loath to even talk to. The Sabbath was a cause of great pride to them, which is readily apparent throughout the Gospels.
If they understood Jesus to say the Sabbath was made for Gentiles too, it would have caused another controversy.

What the pharasee's believed or didn't believe is irrelevant to this discussion as they were called a bunch of hypocrites and a brood of vipers by God Himself. The texts in the Bible old and new should be our guide as to whether the stanger that is within thy gates is significant or not. I contend that it is especially in light of Isa 56 which clearly speaks of the eunuchs or non-Jews being adopted over and to keep the Sabbath.

When Jesus said "the Sabbath was made for man", he was addressing the relative importance of the Sabbath, not which specific people it was given to.
Jesus basically said that the Sabbath was made for humans, but he did not say, nor did he mean, that it was made for all humans.
The Bible is clear when it means to say something is meant for all of mankind. See 1 Timothy 2:4, Titus 2:11, etc.

I'm sorry but if it was never meant to be for non-Jews then it wouldn't even have been given to Adam as he was not a Jew. When God instituted the Sabbath for Adam He gave it to all mankind as Adam stood as the father of all mankind. The Bible as you point out says God is not a respector of persons. The nation of Israel received a favored nation status because they were to bring God to the world as a nation of priests.

I want you to notice that Jesus compares the Sabbath to ceremonial laws abolished at the cross.

I'm sorry but I don't see that. Please explain what you mean.

I would like to point out that Jesus implied it is OK for His disciples to break the Sabbath when they were hungry. Notice Jesus didn't say they weren't breaking the Sabbath. When is it OK to break a moral law to feed yourself when you are hungry? Is it OK to blaspheme God's name if it will help you out? Is it OK to be a prostitute and break the adultery command if it helps put food on the table? Jesus puts things into perspective when He next says " not man for the Sabbath". This says the Sabbath was created to serve those who were under it, not that they were to serve the Sabbath.

Christ never sinned and He didn't allow or condone His disciples to sin in this incident. It's true that the pharasee's viewed the picking of corn to feed themselves as sin but the fact that the one who instituted the Sabbath at creation "didn't" says that it wasn't breaking it at all. I never find Christ telling anyone it is ok to comit adultery or blasphem God. Explain what you mean.

I don't know if I expressed myself very clearly, but I think this passage of scripture does more to undermine your position than it does to help it. The Pharisees knew the Sabbath was given only to them, as did the disciples. There is nowhere before this or after where the Sabbath command is given to Gentiles, only those who became prostylite Jews under the old covenant. Everybody involved knew who Jesus was talking of then, and most everybody does now!
God bless! Ricker

Like I said the phrasees's perspective does not establish the truth of the Sabbath being given to non-Jews. In the book of Acts we see Paul preaching on the Sabbath to a whole town of Gentiles. I think that is significant because if the Sabbath was only for the Jews to worship on Paul wouldn't have preached to them on that day. Peter was given the vision of the unclean beasts not to tell everyone that what was unclean to eat is now clean but to tell him that God does not consider anyone to be unclean. Did you read Isa 56?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[djconklin]

In the 5th century, when most of the church was Gentile, most churches (except those in Rome and Alexandria) kept the Sabbath.

 

[ricker]

Rick,
Sorry for the delay in responding, I have been pretty busy lately. I think He meant all mankind because when Christ was presenting something that was just for the Jews He was clear about it, for instance when the gentile woman came and asked for Christ to heal her daughter Christ told her that He was not supposed to give the food for God's children to the dogs. This was His way of saying the gospel message was sent first to the Jews. In Mark I think Christ was referring to the event at creation when there was only one man and one woman. The Sabbath was made for "MAN" or Adam.

The issue being discussed was not who the Sabbath was given to. Like I wrote earlier, Jesus was addressing the relative importance of the Sabbath, not it's origins. These were Hebrews talking of Hebrews. The whole passsage is about observance questions.

What the pharasee's believed or didn't believe is irrelevant to this discussion as they were called a bunch of hypocrites and a brood of vipers by God Himself. The texts in the Bible old and new should be our guide as to whether the stanger that is within thy gates is significant or not. I contend that it is especially in light of Isa 56 which clearly speaks of the eunuchs or non-Jews being adopted over and to keep the Sabbath.

I disagree with you. While it's true Jesus had a lot of bad things to say about "the teachers of the law", the Pharisees would have had a major disagreement with Jesus if they understood Him as saying the Sabbath was for the Gentiles, and we have no record of that.

I'm sorry but if it was never meant to be for non-Jews then it wouldn't even have been given to Adam as he was not a Jew. When God instituted the Sabbath for Adam He gave it to all mankind as Adam stood as the father of all mankind. The Bible as you point out says God is not a respector of persons. The nation of Israel received a favored nation status because they were to bring God to the world as a nation of priests.

We won't let proof texts interpret proof texts. Let's read Mark 2 for what it says. We need to find what everything means in context before we can put it all together. BTW Please, please tell me where you find the Israelites were to evangelize the world! Thanks!



I wrote:

I want you to notice that Jesus compares the Sabbath to ceremonial laws abolished at the cross.

You wrote:

I'm sorry but I don't see that. Please explain what you mean.
Christ never sinned and He didn't allow or condone His disciples to sin in this incident. It's true that the pharasee's viewed the picking of corn to feed themselves as sin but the fact that the one who instituted the Sabbath at creation "didn't" says that it wasn't breaking it at all. I never find Christ telling anyone it is ok to comit adultery or blasphem God. Explain what you mean.

Mark 2 says:

24The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
25He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."

Isn't Jesus answering the Pharisees's questions of the disciples percieved breaking of the Sabbath command by referring back to when David broke a cerimonial law to feed himself? Isn't this plainly putting both the behavior of the respective people and the laws in the same category?

Like I said the phrasees's perspective does not establish the truth of the Sabbath being given to non-Jews.

Why not? Weren't they experts on the law? Hadn't they read Genesis 2 where Sabbath observance was established for all mankind? There was no Papacy in place yet to corrupt things. I'm sure they knew Isaiah 56,66 etc. What are we told of the old covenant that they weren't? There is no command under the new covenant, after all. Just a thought.

In the book of Acts we see Paul preaching on the Sabbath to a whole town of Gentiles. I think that is significant because if the Sabbath was only for the Jews to worship on Paul wouldn't have preached to them on that day. Peter was given the vision of the unclean beasts not to tell everyone that what was unclean to eat is now clean but to tell him that God does not consider anyone to be unclean. Did you read Isa 56?

I work best thoroughly covering one passage or issue at a time in context. I will put it all together for myself by printing and reviewing our study when I feel we have covered what we both find relevant. I will let you reply once more to this and then we can look at Isaiah 56 or whatever you want to. Thanks for your time and putting up with me. God bless! Ricker

 

[Loveaboveall]

We won't let proof texts interpret proof texts. Let's read Mark 2 for what it says. We need to find what everything means in context before we can put it all together. BTW Please, please tell me where you find the Israelites were to evangelize the world! Thanks!

1 Peter 2:9 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Exodus 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Without getting too in depth... The priesthood was to be the spiritual leaders, the ones who demonstrated who God was to the people. The priest, officiating in the temple, was a type of Christ. Just as we are a royal nation and holy priesthood to the world, so the COI were supposed to be also!

Here is some more to chew on...

Isa 42:6-7 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, [and] them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

 

[Jimlarmore]

The issue being discussed was not who the Sabbath was given to. Like I wrote earlier, Jesus was addressing the relative importance of the Sabbath, not it's origins. These were Hebrews talking of Hebrews. The whole passsage is about observance questions.

I think it's both. Observance cannot be defined outside of origins primarily because in the 4th commandment the Bible takes us back to the event of creation to tell us why we were to observe and remember it . The pharasee were not being pious in their accuastions of Christ and His disciples, as I have said before , Christ ,who is God and instituted the Sabbath, knew that the disciples were not sinning when they picked corn to eat a meal on the Sabbath. . The pharasee were trying desparately to condemn Him any way they could and were using traditional man made rules for Sabbath observance that was a burden for most of the folks who tried to observe it. I don't know if you know or not but some of the rules were way out there as far as being rediculous and had nothing to do with proper Sabbath observance. That is why Christ said the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. The Jews had made it so the Sabbath was more important than the one who kept it.

Judiasm at that time had a terrible taint of exclusivity to it there's no doubt but that was not God's original plan.

I disagree with you. While it's true Jesus had a lot of bad things to say about "the teachers of the law", the Pharisees would have had a major disagreement with Jesus if they understood Him as saying the Sabbath was for the Gentiles, and we have no record of that.

What we have is the correct way the Sabbath was given by the one who instituted it in the first place and that was Christ. He said the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. There was no mention of exclusivity here for the nation of Israel as He did on occasion to others.

We won't let proof texts interpret proof texts. Let's read Mark 2 for what it says. We need to find what everything means in context before we can put it all together. BTW Please, please tell me where you find the Israelites were to evangelize the world! Thanks!

I think Loveaboveall did a pretty good job of that earlier but here's some more: Isa 55,

1

Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
2

Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.
3

Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.
Acts 13:47
4

Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.
5

Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the LORD thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.

Acts 13:37


47

For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
Isa 49:6

Isn't Jesus answering the Pharisees's questions of the disciples percieved breaking of the Sabbath command by referring back to when David broke a cerimonial law to feed himself? Isn't this plainly putting both the behavior of the respective people and the laws in the same category?

We've already hashed over whether the Sabbath was ceremonial or not. Clearly, in this case Christ is not saying that the Sabbath was ceremonial either. As a matter of fact His reference to what David did was to show that man's tradition and rules are not always the same as God's laws.

Why not? Weren't they experts on the law? Hadn't they read Genesis 2 where Sabbath observance was established for all mankind? There was no Papacy in place yet to corrupt things. I'm sure they knew Isaiah 56,66 etc. What are we told of the old covenant that they weren't? There is no command under the new covenant, after all. Just a thought.

There doesn't have to be a command under the new covenant because the same law that was at the heart of the old covenant is also at the heart of the new. When it says that God would put His laws on the inward parts in Jeremiah there was no new covenant in existence yet at all, however the author of Hebrews uses the exact same language/wording in writing the same thing about God's Laws being written on the heart under the new covenant. Logical conclusion is that the ten commandment laws of God that are called holy and good by Paul are the same ones he said would be written on the heart in the book of hebrews.

I work best thoroughly covering one passage or issue at a time in context. I will put it all together for myself by printing and reviewing our study when I feel we have covered what we both find relevant. I will let you reply once more to this and then we can look at Isaiah 56 or whatever you want to. Thanks for your time and putting up with me. God bless! Ricker

Right on bro, let's do it!!!!

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[ricker]

1 Peter 2:9 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Exodus 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Without getting too in depth... The priesthood was to be the spiritual leaders, the ones who demonstrated who God was to the people. The priest, officiating in the temple, was a type of Christ. Just as we are a royal nation and holy priesthood to the world, so the COI were supposed to be also!

Here is some more to chew on...

Isa 42:6-7 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, [and] them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

Thank you Loveaboveall.
I'm not sure 1 Peter 2 is speaking exclusively of the COI under the old covenant, and I am aware per your Exodus text that Israel was to be a holy nation. The preists were indeed a type of Christ. I'm not sure how this relates to evangelizing the Gentiles, as they didn't have much to do with the sancuary services.

The Isaiah text does seem to indicate the COI were to be an example to the rest of the world. Thanks!

I'm sure you know your old testament better than I. In my limited understanding of the O.T it seems to me God discouraged contact with other nations by the COI. Am I wrong with this? Is there any indication of evangelism by the COI? These are honest questions, and probably off the OP. I'm willing to learn.
Thanks! Ricker

 

[Loveaboveall]

Thank you Loveaboveall.
I'm not sure 1 Peter 2 is speaking exclusively of the COI under the old covenant, and I am aware per your Exodus text that Israel was to be a holy nation. The preists were indeed a type of Christ. I'm not sure how this relates to evangelizing the Gentiles, as they didn't have much to do with the sancuary services.

The Isaiah text does seem to indicate the COI were to be an example to the rest of the world. Thanks!

I'm sure you know your old testament better than I. In my limited understanding of the O.T it seems to me God discouraged contact with other nations by the COI. Am I wrong with this? Is there any indication of evangelism by the COI? These are honest questions, and probably off the OP. I'm willing to learn.
Thanks! Ricker

What I meant by contrasting Peter and Exodus is this... Peter is speaking to the chrisitians, he is telling them they are to be a holy nation a royal priesthood of believers who are to demonstrate to the world the grace and love of God. There were to be evangelizers and the title given to them was a holy nation a royal priesthood. The same title that was given to the COI as found in Ex 19. The priesthood was intended to teach the rest of the people about God. If the WHOLE nation was a priesthood then there purpose was to teach the REST of the world about God. Do you see where I am going with this?

As for God discouraging the COI from "mingling" with the gentiles... It was a different world back then. Every culture was driven by worship of their god. I am reminded of the time when the Philistines won a battle against the COI when they had fallen from God's graces and decided that they could recieve a blessing from God by taking the Ark of the Covenant with them. The philistines captured it and what did they do? They brought it back to their own land prancing it around showing everyone that their god was more powerful than the God of the COI. God had this under control and showed them real quick that this was not true but the point is this....

In that day and time, God intended to make the nation of Israel the light of the world, a nation that all other nations would "bow" to in a sense. By this they were to show that the God of heaven was THE one and only God. Notice what is said here in Isa...

60:1-14 Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at [thy] side. Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee. The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall shew forth the praises of the LORD.All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory.Who [are] these [that] fly as a cloud, and as the doves to their windows? Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the LORD thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee. And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee. Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that [men] may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and [that] their kings [may be] brought. For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, [those] nations shall be utterly wasted. The glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir tree, the pine tree, and the box together, to beautify the place of my sanctuary; and I will make the place of my feet glorious. The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.


God's glory, love, and grace was to be manifested through the nation of Israel. Instead, the COI turned to other gods time and again. But now, we are God's holy nation and royal priesthood, we are to take the light of God's glory, love and grace to the world. And we will!

 

[ricker]

In that day and time, God intended to make the nation of Israel the light of the world, a nation that all other nations would "bow" to in a sense. By this they were to show that the God of heaven was THE one and only God. Notice what is said here in Isa...

60:1-14 Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at [thy] side. Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee. The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall shew forth the praises of the LORD.All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory.Who [are] these [that] fly as a cloud, and as the doves to their windows? Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the LORD thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee. And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee. Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that [men] may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and [that] their kings [may be] brought. For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, [those] nations shall be utterly wasted. The glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir tree, the pine tree, and the box together, to beautify the place of my sanctuary; and I will make the place of my feet glorious. The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.


God's glory, love, and grace was to be manifested through the nation of Israel. Instead, the COI turned to other gods time and again. But now, we are God's holy nation and royal priesthood, we are to take the light of God's glory, love and grace to the world. And we will!

Thanks for your explanation! I understand your quoted texts better now. It seems that the COI were indeed to be a light or example for the world at this time, albeit a passive one. In Matthew 28 we see more proactive instructions. I had no big theological point to make, I just wanted a better understanding of the topic.
Thanks again and God bless! Ricker

 

[ricker]

Thanks Jim! I understand most of your last post. There are just a couple of things I'd like to clear up before we move on.

We've already hashed over whether the Sabbath was ceremonial or not. Clearly, in this case Christ is not saying that the Sabbath was ceremonial either. As a matter of fact His reference to what David did was to show that man's tradition and rules are not always the same as God's laws.

I don't completely understand this point. Wasn't the consecrated bread only being eaten by priests one of God's laws? Are you saying this was a tradition of man?

There doesn't have to be a command under the new covenant because the same law that was at the heart of the old covenant is also at the heart of the new. When it says that God would put His laws on the inward parts in Jeremiah there was no new covenant in existence yet at all, however the author of Hebrews uses the exact same language/wording in writing the same thing about God's Laws being written on the heart under the new covenant. Logical conclusion is that the ten commandment laws of God that are called holy and good by Paul are the same ones he said would be written on the heart in the book of hebrews.

Without getting to involved with this subject right now, the passage in Jeremiah with it's laws written on our hearts is speaking of the new covenant to come, isn't it? The old covenant was still in effect. I'm sure you don't mean all of the old covenant laws are written on our hearts under the new.

33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

Thanks as usual and God bless you brother! Ricker

 

[Jimlarmore]

Thanks Jim! I understand most of your last post. There are just a couple of things I'd like to clear up before we move on.


I don't completely understand this point. Wasn't the consecrated bread only being eaten by priests one of God's laws? Are you saying this was a tradition of man?

I don't think so, I may be wrong but I don't recall in the scripture that anyone who wasn't a priest that ate the bread was breaking a law or should be killed or put outside the camp as He did for many of the things He said.

Without getting to involved with this subject right now, the passage in Jeremiah with it's laws written on our hearts is speaking of the new covenant to come, isn't it? The old covenant was still in effect. I'm sure you don't mean all of the old covenant laws are written on our hearts under the new.

Let's be up front shall we? The heart of the new and the old covenant's is God's Holy Law the ten commandments. The ceremonial laws were a part of the old covenant as well placed on the side of the ark written by a man are now nailed to the cross. However, the ten that were written on stone by the finger of God and placed inside the ark for permanence were never ceremonial or fulfilled. When Jeremiah wrote these inspired words He didn't say God would plant a new set of laws into their hearts, he said God make "new covenant" with the COI in those days, and would plant His laws into their hearts. Any time we see the word's "God's laws" we can be rest assured the Bible is speaking primarily of the ten commandments.

Thanks as usual and God bless you brother! Ricker

And God bless you too brother,
Jim Larmore

 

[ricker]

I don't think so, I may be wrong but I don't recall in the scripture that anyone who wasn't a priest that ate the bread was breaking a law or should be killed or put outside the camp as He did for many of the things He said.

I did a search on the bread of the Presence and I found you are right as rain. As far as I can tell there is no directive from God as to who can eat the bread, just that it is holy. (Gentiles couldn't touch it, though.)

Let's be up front shall we? The heart of the new and the old covenant's is God's Holy Law the ten commandments. The ceremonial laws were a part of the old covenant as well placed on the side of the ark written by a man are now nailed to the cross. However, the ten that were written on stone by the finger of God and placed inside the ark for permanence were never ceremonial or fulfilled. When Jeremiah wrote these inspired words He didn't say God would plant a new set of laws into their hearts, he said God make "new covenant" with the COI in those days, and would plant His laws into their hearts. Any time we see the word's "God's laws" we can be rest assured the Bible is speaking primarily of the ten commandments.

Are you basically saying that the laws, especially the ten, are the same, only where they are written is different? I just want to be clear on your position. Thanks! Ricker

 

[Jimlarmore]

Are you basically saying that the laws, especially the ten, are the same, only where they are written is different? I just want to be clear on your position. Thanks! Ricker

Based on what I have studied so far in the entirety of the Bible yes. I am convinced that the laws of God spoken of in Hebrews that were to be written on the heart are the same laws of God to be written on the heart spoken of in Jeremiah.

I can go thru several texts to show why I think that if you want. The so called new laws that some of our brother's and sister's claim take the place of the ten are nothing but a summation of the old ten. God is love and the ten commandments are all about God wanting to bless us by giving us directions for our lives. They are nothing more than commanding us to love our creator and our fellow man.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[ricker]

Based on what I have studied so far in the entirety of the Bible yes. I am convinced that the laws of God spoken of in Hebrews that were to be written on the heart are the same laws of God to be written on the heart spoken of in Jeremiah.

I would agree since Jeremiah is prophesying of the new covenant laws. The new covenant was yet to come as he was writing it. Jeremiah does not specify the laws he was prophesying about were the exact same laws he was under at the time.
Could be, but you can't deduct it from this.

I can go thru several texts to show why I think that if you want. The so called new laws that some of our brother's and sister's claim take the place of the ten are nothing but a summation of the old ten. God is love and the ten commandments are all about God wanting to bless us by giving us directions for our lives. They are nothing more than commanding us to love our creator and our fellow man.

It's interesting how some say the "new" law replaces the old, written regulations with all inclusive commandments ministered by the Spirit, while some understand the "new" to be an affirmation, or summation, of the old covenant rules. I can see the logic in either way of thinking, but they can't both be right.
I don't want to get into a full blown discussion of the law, as I am not an antinomian. I believe in following God's law (but of course we never fully can and it won't save us), I'm just searching to see if the specific law of Sabbath observance is still in effect.

God bless you! Ricker

 

[Jimlarmore]

I would agree since Jeremiah is prophesying of the new covenant laws. The new covenant was yet to come as he was writing it. Jeremiah does not specify the laws he was prophesying about were the exact same laws he was under at the time.
Could be, but you can't deduct it from this.

I think you can and here is the reason I say this. In the texts in Jeremiah the Bible does not say I will make a new law for the new covenant. The author of Hebrews used almost the exact same wording that Jeremiah used so what ever law was implied in Jeremiah's time would be the same one the author of Hebrews intimated. The fact that in Jeremiah it says that the law would be written on the heart and mind is significant I think and when the author of Hebrews said the same thing without mentioning a new law either makes the implication as being that the law is the ten commandments.

The ten commandments could never save anyone and the old covenant's way to save folks was not based on keeping the ten commandments either. The old covenant had a salvation by faith factor as well. They look forward in faith to the coming ultimate sacrifice for the remission of sin. The ceremonial aspect of it included over 600 rules and laws that became the torah but those were indeed fulfilled at the cross. In the new covenant we no longer have to take part in the ceremonial aspects of getting our sins forgiven or taken care of.

Ironically, discussions like this are only engaged in in light of being a modality to lay aside 7th day Sabbath observance. No serious Christian would be defending the right or legality under the new covenant to comit murder, lie, steal etc. As a matter of fact there is currently a national resurgence to re-instate the ten commandments to it's rightful status in our land. You have admitted the decalogue is a good moral compas for all mankind and it's just the one in the middle that says "Remember" that you are not sure of. I maintain that either they are all very much intact today or they aren't.


God Bless you brother and have a happy Sabbath if I don't get to address you again today.

Jim Larmore

 

[ricker]

I think you can and here is the reason I say this. In the texts in Jeremiah the Bible does not say I will make a new law for the new covenant. The author of Hebrews used almost the exact same wording that Jeremiah used so what ever law was implied in Jeremiah's time would be the same one the author of Hebrews intimated. The fact that in Jeremiah it says that the law would be written on the heart and mind is significant I think and when the author of Hebrews said the same thing without mentioning a new law either makes the implication as being that the law is the ten commandments.

I thought the writer of Hebrews was quoting Jeremiah. Before doing this he says:

6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

After quoting Jeremiah he says:

13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. 1Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2A tabernacle was set up.........14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

To me this is saying more than the mere writing of the same covenant in a different place. You are right about it not saying the laws are changed, this of course is told earlier in Hebrews 7 :

12For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.

and:

18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

The ten commandments could never save anyone and the old covenant's way to save folks was not based on keeping the ten commandments either. The old covenant had a salvation by faith factor as well. They look forward in faith to the coming ultimate sacrifice for the remission of sin. The ceremonial aspect of it included over 600 rules and laws that became the torah but those were indeed fulfilled at the cross. In the new covenant we no longer have to take part in the ceremonial aspects of getting our sins forgiven or taken care of.

Ironically, discussions like this are only engaged in in light of being a modality to lay aside 7th day Sabbath observance. No serious Christian would be defending the right or legality under the new covenant to comit murder, lie, steal etc. As a matter of fact there is currently a national resurgence to re-instate the ten commandments to it's rightful status in our land. You have admitted the decalogue is a good moral compas for all mankind and it's just the one in the middle that says "Remember" that you are not sure of. I maintain that either they are all very much intact today or they aren't.

You are right about Christianity in general in their wanting to uphold the principals of the ten commandments. The assertion usually is that the Sabbath command was a ceremonial one given to the Israelites as their sign and fulfilled by Christ.

I don't know this for a fact, but I have heard that contracts of the time usually had the "sign" of the contract in the center. This would correlate with the explanation of the Sabbath given in Exodus 31 as the sign given to the Israelites . I'm not saying orthedox Christianity is always right, just trying to help you understand why we/they believe as we/they do.

I hope you are blessed this Sabbath and have a great weekend! I'm going deer hunting with my sons! Ricker

 

[Loveaboveall]

To me this is saying more than the mere writing of the same covenant in a different place. You are right about it not saying the laws are changed, this of course is told earlier in Hebrews 7:

I hope yall don't mind if I jump in the discussion a little more...

Lets think in a more broad sense for a second... Why was there a need for a covenant in the first place? Why did God see fit to call certain people "His people"? What was the point of the old covenant? All of the answers to these questions give us clues of what the old and new are about.

Before the fall Adam and Eve were God's "people". They did not stop being His children when they sinned but it is clear from Gen 3:15 that something had to be done about sin, and God promised a way for them to return to His presence. The way to God was not destroyed with sin because Jesus made a way for us. This was prophesied by God in Gen 3:15.

Sin is the problem, God has provided a way. The covenants are God's promises to us that He will save us. Both covenants were to point people to Jesus. What was faulty with the Old Covenant? Was it God's promises? Or was it the people's promises. The only fault with the old is that the people did not do what they promised. The new is far better, Why? Because in the new what do we promise to do? Nothing, that I can see. God promises to everything in the new, all we have to do is allow God to work in us to do those things He promised.

Back again to the question of why we need God's promises.... We need them because we have sinned, and the penalty is death. This is the heart of the discussion here. We have a sin problem and God has an answer to the sin problem...

Thus the distinction between the 10 commandments and the Law of Moses. The 10 commandments were placed IN the ark, INSIDE the throne of God. The Law of Moses was placed in a different place, Why? Because it serves a different function.

The 10 commandments define righteousness, and on the converse, sin. At the core is love-- both God and Man. You break them and you are condemned under the law. Which brings us to the function of the Law of Moses and the whole sanctuary service. This was God's way of dealing with our sin problem. He devised this system to point the people to Jesus, the savior. They were to do this to deal with their problem of sin.

The new covenant does not do away with the sacrificial system. It doesn't change what the definition of sin is. It is far better because our salvation is realized in what the old pointed to Jesus. Jesus is our sacrifice, High Priest, and mediator. Jesus performs in the heavenly sanctuary what the Priest did in the earthly, for the earthly was only a copy of the heavenly, correct?

I say all of this to point out that there is a definte distinction between the ceremonial law and God's law. Sin is sin, breaking the law of God, this cannot change, for that to happen God would have to change because He is righteousness, which is what the law describes. When we sin we have to deal with it, today we have a perfect High Priest in heaven that offered His blood for our breaking of the law, in the old, the people offered a lamb with an earthly priest officiating in the ceremony both pointing to Jesus.

Briefly, in chapter 7 when it says there was of necessity a change in the law. Which law and why was there a need for a change in it?

 

[Jimlarmore]

To me this is saying more than the mere writing of the same covenant in a different place. You are right about it not saying the laws are changed, this of course is told earlier in Hebrews 7 :

Absolutely, the new covenant is all about Christ and what He did for us. When you really study the old it is all about Christ as well. Everything about the sanctuary was about Christ and His coming death/sacrifice.

You are right about Christianity in general in their wanting to uphold the principals of the ten commandments. The assertion usually is that the Sabbath command was a ceremonial one given to the Israelites as their sign and fulfilled by Christ.

Most of my old baptist friends just use the old excuse that Jesus was resurrected on the first day of the week. Not too many go to the lengths of study as you do. That is why I have a lot of hope for you brother. I studied my way into the Sabbath and you can too. You have already shown you are willing to accept the truth as it is given in the Bible. We just need to work a few more kinks out .

I don't know this for a fact, but I have heard that contracts of the time usually had the "sign" of the contract in the center. This would correlate with the explanation of the Sabbath given in Exodus 31 as the sign given to the Israelites . I'm not saying orthedox Christianity is always right, just trying to help you understand why we/they believe as we/they do.

I hope you are blessed this Sabbath and have a great weekend! I'm going deer hunting with my sons! Ricker

I agree I think that is the case. We adventist's use the Sabbath as a sign of the seal of God as well. I'm not sure this is actually appropriate yet at this point, I am convince it's part of it but it's not the seal of God itself. Anyway, that is a topic for a latter discussion. I hope you enjoy the time you spend with your son's. Be careful out there hunting. There's a lot of nut cases these day's running around with guns in the woods. I no longer kill deer because I have nearly totally given up meat eating but If I did eat meat it would be either fish or venison.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

I hope yall don't mind if I jump in the discussion a little more...

Lets think in a more broad sense for a second... Why was there a need for a covenant in the first place? Why did God see fit to call certain people "His people"? What was the point of the old covenant? All of the answers to these questions give us clues of what the old and new are about.

Before the fall Adam and Eve were God's "people". They did not stop being His children when they sinned but it is clear from Gen 3:15 that something had to be done about sin, and God promised a way for them to return to His presence. The way to God was not destroyed with sin because Jesus made a way for us. This was prophesied by God in Gen 3:15.

Sin is the problem, God has provided a way. The covenants are God's promises to us that He will save us. Both covenants were to point people to Jesus. What was faulty with the Old Covenant? Was it God's promises? Or was it the people's promises. The only fault with the old is that the people did not do what they promised. The new is far better, Why? Because in the new what do we promise to do? Nothing, that I can see. God promises to everything in the new, all we have to do is allow God to work in us to do those things He promised.

Back again to the question of why we need God's promises.... We need them because we have sinned, and the penalty is death. This is the heart of the discussion here. We have a sin problem and God has an answer to the sin problem...

Thus the distinction between the 10 commandments and the Law of Moses. The 10 commandments were placed IN the ark, INSIDE the throne of God. The Law of Moses was placed in a different place, Why? Because it serves a different function.

The 10 commandments define righteousness, and on the converse, sin. At the core is love-- both God and Man. You break them and you are condemned under the law. Which brings us to the function of the Law of Moses and the whole sanctuary service. This was God's way of dealing with our sin problem. He devised this system to point the people to Jesus, the savior. They were to do this to deal with their problem of sin.

The new covenant does not do away with the sacrificial system. It doesn't change what the definition of sin is. It is far better because our salvation is realized in what the old pointed to Jesus. Jesus is our sacrifice, High Priest, and mediator. Jesus performs in the heavenly sanctuary what the Priest did in the earthly, for the earthly was only a copy of the heavenly, correct?

I say all of this to point out that there is a definte distinction between the ceremonial law and God's law. Sin is sin, breaking the law of God, this cannot change, for that to happen God would have to change because He is righteousness, which is what the law describes. When we sin we have to deal with it, today we have a perfect High Priest in heaven that offered His blood for our breaking of the law, in the old, the people offered a lamb with an earthly priest officiating in the ceremony both pointing to Jesus.

Briefly, in chapter 7 when it says there was of necessity a change in the law. Which law and why was there a need for a change in it?

Thankyou brother, what a great testimony to the truth. I love the way you articulate.

God Bless You
Jim Larmore

 

[Sophia7]

I don't completely understand this point. Wasn't the consecrated bread only being eaten by priests one of God's laws? Are you saying this was a tradition of man?

I don't think so, I may be wrong but I don't recall in the scripture that anyone who wasn't a priest that ate the bread was breaking a law or should be killed or put outside the camp as He did for many of the things He said.

I did a search on the bread of the Presence and I found you are right as rain. As far as I can tell there is no directive from God as to who can eat the bread, just that it is holy. (Gentiles couldn't touch it, though.)

LEV 24:5 "Take fine flour and bake twelve loaves of bread, using two-tenths of an ephah for each loaf. 6 Set them in two rows, six in each row, on the table of pure gold before the LORD. 7 Along each row put some pure incense as a memorial portion to represent the bread and to be an offering made to the LORD by fire. 8 This bread is to be set out before the LORD regularly, Sabbath after Sabbath, on behalf of the Israelites, as a lasting covenant. 9 It belongs to Aaron and his sons, who are to eat it in a holy place, because it is a most holy part of their regular share of the offerings made to the LORD by fire."
​

The bread of the Presence was reserved for the priests alone. It was holy and shouldn't have been allowed to be used for common purposes.

For context, here is the passage that Jesus was referring to when He talked about David's eating the consecrated bread:

1SA 21:1 David went to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech trembled when he met him, and asked, "Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?"

1SA 21:2 David answered Ahimelech the priest, "The king charged me with a certain matter and said to me, `No one is to know anything about your mission and your instructions.' As for my men, I have told them to meet me at a certain place. 3 Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you can find."

1SA 21:4 But the priest answered David, "I don't have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread here--provided the men have kept themselves from women."

1SA 21:5 David replied, "Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual whenever I set out. The men's things are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!" 6 So the priest gave him the consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence that had been removed from before the LORD and replaced by hot bread on the day it was taken away.
​

Also, Jesus specifically said that it was unlawful for them to eat the bread:

MT 12:3 He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread--which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, `I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
​

Jesus was pretty clear in rebuking the Pharisees for following the traditions of men. I don't think He would have said that what David did was unlawful if it were only a tradition.