Things to consider about the Ten Commandments

[Elder 111]

Originally Posted by Elder 111

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
​

I quoted Matthew's account and showed you the precise Greek term pleroo this inspired author chose to write in his account.
Matthew is trusted to provide an accurate account of what Jesus said.
My post copied Matthew's account verbatim.

And you don't acknowledge what Jesus said and Matthew recorded, in that you chose to make "till all be fulfilled" tiny while you placed your emphasis elsewhere.
Jesus is correct, and you don't acknowledge what He said. His intent was to complete the Law; and none of it will fail to be fulfilled.

Here is what I posted once again:

As you -and others- can see, your complaint about the meaning of the Greek pleroo rendered as 'fulfilled' in Matthew 5:17 has been answered. Several times, in fact. You can't pretend ignorance anymore, and I noticed that you chose to forget your claim that you know is unsupportable, because it is contrary to the Word of God. I'm sure you enjoy this selective memory loss that is featured in most of your posts.

You missed the part where Jesus said that Heaven and earth have to pass first. Explain that!

 

[Elder 111]

Originally Posted by Elder 111 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

This has been refuted so many times even to you its not worth the time to even c&p an answer.

I did not get the date when heaven and earth passed what date was that again?

 

[LarryP2]

Originally Posted by Elder 111

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
​

You missed the part where Jesus said that Heaven and earth have to pass first. Explain that!

I will quote a non proof-texted, respectable commentary at length on the actual meaning of the text, and that way we can elevate this into an intelligent discussion:


Pulpit Commentary

Verse 17- Matthew 6:18. - Having spoken of the ideal character of his disciples (vers. 3-10), and of their need of allowing that character to appear (vers. 11-16), our Lord turns to speak of the position that they should hold towards the religion of the day (ver. 17 - Matthew 6:18), of which the Law was the accepted standard. Verses 17-20. -

(1) With this aim he first states summarily and in nucleus the position that he himself holds towards the Law - a statement which was the more necessary as he had already (ver. 11) claimed to be the object of his disciples' devotion. Verse 17. - Matthew only. Think not. Probably the tendency of his teaching was even already seen to be so different from that of the recognized authorities, that some had in consequence formed this opinion (νομίζ&#969 of him which he now repudiates, and which was near akin to the basis of the charge formulated afterwards against St. Stephen (Acts 6:14). In both cases the tendency of the new teaching (Mark 1:27) to abolish temporary forms was perceived by at least those whose powers of perception were quickened through their opposition. That I am come; Revised Version, that I came (ὅτι η΅λθο&#957. Our Lord, both here and in the next clause, lays stress on his coming as an historic fact. The primary reference is probably to his coming forth from private life (cf. John 1:31). Yet in his own mind there may have been a further allusion to his coming from above (cf. John 8:14; and further, Matthew 10:34). To destroy. The connexion between καταλῦσαι here and λύσῃ ver. 19 (vide note) is lost in the English. The Law or the Prophets. The Phrase,'" the law and the prophets," is sometimes used as practically equivalent to the whole of the Old Testament (Matthew 7:12; John 1:45; Romans 3:21; cf. Matthew 11:13; Matthew 22:40; Acts 24:14),and our Lord means probably much the same here, the "or" distributing the καταλῦσαι (cf. Alford), and being used because of the negative. Such a distribution, however, though it could not have been expressed in an affirmative sentence, has for its background the consciousness of a difference in the nature of these two chief components of the Old Testament. Observe that the third part of the Hebrew Scriptures, "the (Holy) Writings" - of which 'Psalms' (Luke 24:44) form the most characteristic portion - is omitted in this summary reference to the Old Testament. The reason may be either that of the three parts it was used less than the other two as a basis for doctrine and for rule of life, or that it was practically included in the Prophets (Acts 2:30). The essential teaching of the Law may be distinguished from that of the Prophets by saying that, while the Law was the direct revelation of God's will as law for the people's daily life - personal, social, and national - the Prophets (including the historical books and the prophets proper) were rather the indirect revelation of his will for them under the fresh circumstances into which they came; this indirect revelation being seen more especially in God's providential guidance of the nation, and in his explanation of principles of worship, as well as in occasional predictions of the future. It is to his relation to the Prophets in this connexion, as an indirect revelation of God's will under changing circumstances (cf. Weiss) that our Lord here chiefly refers. For he is led to speak of his own relation to them from the bearing that this has on the conduct of his disciples. Many, however (e.g. Chrysostom), consider that he is thinking of his relation to them as containing predictions concerning himself. In answer to this it is not sufficient to say (Meyer, Weiss, Alford) that it was impossible that Messiah could be thought to abrogate the Prophets; for, in fact, to many Jews during his ministry (even if not at this early stage of it), and much more to Jews at the time when the evangelist recorded the words, our Lord must have seemed to contradict the predictions about himself as they were then understood. It is indeed true that the prima facie ground that existed for thinking that our Lord's teaching was opposed, not merely to the religion of the day as dependent on the Law and the Prophets, but also to the predictions of Messiah contained in them, is enough to give a certain plausibility to this interpretation. But that is all. The absence in the context of any hint that he refers to his relation to predictions as such quite forbids our accepting it. It was probably derived solely from a misinterpretation of "fulfil" (vide infra), no regard being paid to the train of thought by which our Lord was led to speak of the subject at all. Our Lord says that he is not come to "destroy" the Prophets as exponents of the will of God. I am not come to destroy; emphasizing his statement by repetition. But to fulfil. By establishing the absolute and final meaning of the Law and the Prophets. Christ came not to abrogate the Law or the Prophets, but to satisfy them - to bring about in his own Person, and ultimately in the persons of his followers, that righteousness of life which, however limited by the historical conditions under which the Divine oracles had been delivered, was the sum and substance of their teaching. The fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets "is the perfect development of their ideal reality out of the positive form, in which the same is historically apprehended and limited" (Meyer). Martensen puts the matter thus: "How can he say that not a tittle shall pass from the Law, since the development of the Church shows us that the ceremonial law, that the whole Mosaic dispensation, has been annihilated by the influences proceeding from Christ? We answer: He has fulfilled the Law, whilst he has released it from the temporary forms in which its eternal validity was confined; he has unfolded its spiritual essence, its inward perfection. Not even a tittle of the ceremonial law has passed away, if we regard the Mosaic Law as a whole; for the ideas which form its basis, as the distinction between the unclean and the clean, are confirmed by Christ, and contained in the law of holiness which he teaches men" ('Christian Ethics: General,' § 125); cf. ver. 18, notes, "till heaven and earth pass," "till all be fulfilled."

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

 

[VictorC]

You did not read the bible very well or you would have seen that Ten Commandments were on two separate tables by themselves.

And you didn't acknowledge where you're reading the contents of the Ten Commandments. You haven't found anything that questions my ability to read the Bible.

We are not discussing how God meets with His people are we?

I guess not, since your appeal has been consistently in the past tense, and you don't seem interested in meeting God today.

Eleen White wrote Hebrews too?!

You quoted Ellen White when you attributed the epistle to the Hebrews to a Pauline authorship. I know that I'm not the first to point out the problems with making such an attribution, as I remember Tall73 pointing it out to you at least a year ago.

Ex. 25: 9 According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.
40 And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount. The original, Hebrews 8:Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

This is unrelated to the previous discussion regarding the covenant from Mount Sinai, which Moses called the Ten Commandments. You aren't making a point here.

My God has been dealing with it for eternity and I am going to stick with Him, He knows what He is talking about.

Do you expect God to deal with you for eternity? From ancient antiquity, God has stated "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever". There comes a time when repentance isn't available for those dedicated with replacing the Gospel with glib comments fabricated with sound-bites divorced from context.

And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
I am a child of the King a seed of Abraham. What about you?

You failed (again) to trace your lineage to those who were given the Sabbath, having replaced such a lineage with an adoption imputed to Abraham, who himself was never given the Sabbath. In essence, you just failed to support at least a half-dozen of your previous posts.

 

[VictorC]

You missed the part where Jesus said that Heaven and earth have to pass first. Explain that!

I did not get the date when heaven and earth passed what date was that again?

You missed what Jesus stated according to Matthew 5:17: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."

Adventist interpretation of this passage insists on heaven and earth passing away before anything in the Law and the Prophets is fulfilled.
And, that's what you subscribe to.
Now, in case the problem you forced via this faulty interpretation eludes you, let me explain the tenor of your argument:

• Heaven and earth passing away with fervent heat is a prophecy.
• Your interpretation demands that heaven and earth have to pass away before the Prophets can be fulfilled.

Explain the catch-22 situation that you've now cornered yourself with.

 

[LarryP2]

You failed (again) to trace your lineage to those who were given the Sabbath, having replaced such a lineage with an adoption imputed to Abraham, who himself was never given the Sabbath. In essence, you just failed to support at least a half-dozen of your previous posts.

Sabbatarian's hilariously ignore the existence of Ishmael, when they wrongfully-attribute - without any biblical evidence whatsoever - Sabbath keeping to Isaac and Abraham. If Abraham was given the Sabbath, what would stop BOTH Isaac and Ishmael from having the Sabbath?

http://www.guidetosalvation.com/Website/did_gods covenant with abraham include ishmael.htm

Had Abraham been given the Sabbath, I have no doubt billions of Muslims would be clamoring to keep the Sabbath today. With their fulminating hatred and envy of the State of Israel, does anybody believe they would allow Jews to have a special "leg up", if it was something they were entitled to as well? Good grief, they built the Dome of the Rock right on top of the ruins of the Second Temple! Why WOULDN'T Ishmael have kept the Sabbath, if it truly were a special covenant with Abraham? Alternatively, wouldn't Muslims DEMAND the Sabbath, had it truly been given to all mankind? They are incredibly gracious in conceding the Sabbath only to the Jews!

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234926530-why-dont-muslims-observe-the-sabbath/

It is clearly a special sign ONLY for Israel, in order to distinguish them from all nations. Not one Muslim has ever claimed it belongs to them, and in all their pronouncements graciously indicate it is for the Jews only! Since when are Muslims going to leave something valuable and special to only the Jews, if there is a colorable claim for it in their shared ancestry?

Since when has that ever happened?

 

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Elder 111 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
I did not get the date when heaven and earth passed what date was that again?

Christ's ministry for the most part was still under the old covenant and the new covenant was not ratified till his death on the cross. So the fulfillment occurred at the cross and then Jesus chose Paul to preach the glorious good news of the end of the Law and the old covenant. It's been fulfilled and the Law of commandments has withered and died and passed away. Hebrews 8:13

The law of Love is now in effect and written in the heart.

 

[from scratch]

Originally Posted by Elder 111

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
​

You missed the part where Jesus said that Heaven and earth have to pass first. Explain that!

I think you've missed some very key passages such as LK 24:44 and Heb 7:12.

 

[from scratch]

Originally Posted by Elder 111 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
I did not get the date when heaven and earth passed what date was that again?

Try the Passover when the Lamb was slain and rose on the first fruits.

 

[Elder 111]

For VictorC
I found this statement.
Tell me what you think.
Let the subject be made distinct and plain that it is not possible to effect anything in our standing before God or in the gift of God to us through creature merit. Should faith and works purchase the gift of salvation for anyone, then the Creator is under obligation to the creature. Here is an opportunity for falsehood to be accepted as truth. If any man can merit salvation by anything he may do, then he is in the same position as the Catholic to do penance for his sins. Salvation, then, is partly of debt, that may be earned as wages. If man cannot, by any of his good works, merit salvation, then it must be wholly of grace, received by man as a sinner because he receives and believes in Jesus. It is wholly a free gift. Justification by faith is placed beyond controversy. And all this controversy is ended, as soon as the matter is settled that the merits of fallen man in his good works can never procure eternal life for him.-Ellen G. White, Faith and Works, pp. 19, 20.

 

[VictorC]

For VictorC
I found this statement.
Tell me what you think.
Let the subject be made distinct and plain that it is not possible to effect anything in our standing before God or in the gift of God to us through creature merit. Should faith and works purchase the gift of salvation for anyone, then the Creator is under obligation to the creature. Here is an opportunity for falsehood to be accepted as truth. If any man can merit salvation by anything he may do, then he is in the same position as the Catholic to do penance for his sins. Salvation, then, is partly of debt, that may be earned as wages. If man cannot, by any of his good works, merit salvation, then it must be wholly of grace, received by man as a sinner because he receives and believes in Jesus. It is wholly a free gift. Justification by faith is placed beyond controversy. And all this controversy is ended, as soon as the matter is settled that the merits of fallen man in his good works can never procure eternal life for him.-Ellen G. White, Faith and Works, pp. 19, 20.

I used your link to the SS lesson, and extracted some snippets that you didn't include:

To the Gentiles, he [Paul] preached Christ as their only hope of salvation, but did not at first have anything definite to say upon the law. But after their hearts were warmed with the presentation of Christ as the gift of God to our world, and what was comprehended in the work of the Redeemer in the costly sacrifice to manifest the love of God to man, in the most eloquent simplicity he showed that love for all mankind—Jew and Gentile—that they might be saved by surrendering their hearts to Him. Thus when, melted and subdued, they gave themselves to the Lord, he presented the law of God as the test of their obedience. This was the manner of his working—adapting his methods to win souls.

If we would have the spirit and power of the third angel’s message, we must present the law and the gospel together, for they go hand in hand.

Then when those who plead for Sunday laws meet you, place these leaflets in their hands. Tell them that you have no discussion over the Sunday question, for you have a plain “Thus saith the Lord” for the keeping of the seventh day.

No man can rightly present the law of God without the gospel, or the gospel without the law. The law is the gospel embodied, and the gospel is the law unfolded. The law is the root, the gospel is the fragrant blossom and fruit which it bears.

The gospel of the New Testament is not the Old Testament standard lowered to meet the sinner and save him in his sins. God requires of all His subjects obedience, entire obedience to all His commandments.

It is the sophistry of Satan that the death of Christ brought in grace to take the place of the law. The death of Jesus did not change, or annul, or lessen in the slightest degree, the law of ten commandments.

I pointed out before that the manner in which Ellen White contradicts herself makes her claim to inspiration more than just suspect. That alone is enough reason to reject her materials.

But when you absorb her direct contradiction to the Gospel of Christ's redemption, you are injecting pure poison into your system. And that what these snippets are!

• Paul plainly told the Gentiles in Galatia to cast off the covenant from Mount Sinai (the Ten Commandments), because those retained by it have no claim to eternal life. Suggesting a direct contradiction to this commandment as a "test of obedience" is directly opposite of what Paul wrote.
• The Gospel is God's redemption as His adopted children, no longer imputed as the children of Israel who alone received the Law. Ellen White denies the Gentiles acceptance before God.
• There will never be a "Sunday Law", any more than there's going to be a third covenant made with people that don't exist. This has been discussed for years from {1SG 201.1} and it proves Ellen White's thesis is a total fabrication from hell.
• You don't have a "thus saith the Lord" to keep the Sabbath (misconstrued as the seventh day). This is a complete lie you repeated from Ellen throughout this and other threads.
• The covenant from Mount Sinai (the Ten Commandments) and the new covenant Gospel of God's redemption are antithetical, as shown in Christ's action denoted in Hebrews 10:9: "He takes away the first that He may establish the second". Ellen White's synthesis of old-covenant "christianity" is a cultic departure from Biblical Christianity.
• The next bullet illustrates Ellen White's soteriology based on compliance with the old covenant. This is opposite of the Gospel.
• The final bullet stopped me, as it would any Christian familiar with Scripture. Ellen White flat out rejects God's redemption and God's acceptance of the Gentiles who never received the Law from Mount Sinai.

So you're confronted with an uninspired false prophet who contradicts herself and contradicts Scripture. She outright lied to deny what Paul presented in his epistles, and she fed you poison. Mixing poison with something that has an initial appearance of orthodoxy makes the gullible more likely to absorb the poison.

That is the essence of Ellen White.

She led you into a theological catch-22 you have no recourse from. This is a sure sign that you're among the gullible she deceived and fed poison to.

You missed what Jesus stated according to Matthew 5:17: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."

Adventist interpretation of this passage insists on heaven and earth passing away before anything in the Law and the Prophets is fulfilled.
And, that's what you subscribe to.
Now, in case the problem you forced via this faulty interpretation eludes you, let me explain the tenor of your argument:

• Heaven and earth passing away with fervent heat is a prophecy.
• Your interpretation demands that heaven and earth have to pass away before the Prophets can be fulfilled.

Explain the catch-22 situation that you've now cornered yourself with.

You're absolutely buried with no hope of salvation unless you reject the poison and come to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[LarryP2]

And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
I am a child of the King a seed of Abraham. What about you?

The irony of your statement could not be more complete:

Abraham's covenant had NOTHING to do with the Sabbath. There is NO evidence either from the Bible or from history that he kept the Sabbath. As positively outlined in the Mishnah Torah with great specificity, Abraham's covenant is identical to Noah's, with the addition of circumcision. There is NO evidence either from history, the bible or the 7 Noahide Mitzvot that Noah was given the Sabbath either.

There is extraordinarily POWERFUL and STRIKING extrinsic evidence from the behavior of the world's 1 billion Muslims to support this theory. Ishmael was circumcised BEFORE Isaac, thus becoming an heir to Abraham's covenant in all respects. Muslims to this day require circumcision. They did not invent the practice on their own, because there is NOTHING in the Koran that requires circumcision, so their practice of this clearly predates the Koran. Clearly circumcision has been passed down through the millennium and there can be no mistaking that it originated with Ishmael. There can be no plausible alternative theory.

Yet Muslims uncharacteristically and inexplicably SUPPORT Judaism's claim for an absolute monopoly on the Sabbath! There can be NO doubt that had Abraham been given the Sabbath as part of his covenant, Ishmael would have transmitted the Sabbath to his descendants just like he did with circumcision. There can be no doubt that if Muslims had the slightest INKLING that the Sabbath was part of the Abrahamic covenant, they would be loudly clamoring for what is CLEARLY a special sign from God. Muslims do not let such things slide.

In fact, if Muslims thought that the Sabbath had originated with Abraham, not only would they be loudly and boastfully bragging about their special sign from God, given to their ancestor Abraham; they would declare a jihad that called for death for any non-Muslim who practiced Sabbath Keeping. And that certainly would include Jews, since the enmity between Muslims and Jews could not possibly be any stronger.

Any contention the Abrahamic covenant included the Sabbath is laughable and farcical on its face. So by declaring that he is of Abraham's "seed," (NOT "Isaac's" and NOT "Jacobs" and NOT "Judah's"), Elder has joined with the 1 billion Muslims of the world and has renounced any claim to Sabbath Keeping.

 

[Dunbar]

The irony of your statement could not be more complete:

Abraham's covenant had NOTHING to do with the Sabbath. There is NO evidence either from the Bible or from history that he kept the Sabbath. As positively outlined in the Mishnah Torah with great specificity, Abraham's covenant is identical to Noah's, with the addition of circumcision. There is NO evidence either from history, the bible or the 7 Noahide Mitzvot that Noah was given the Sabbath either.

There is extraordinarily POWERFUL and STRIKING extrinsic evidence from the behavior of the world's 1 billion Muslims to support this theory. Ishmael was circumcised BEFORE Isaac, thus becoming an heir to Abraham's covenant in all respects. Muslims to this day require circumcision. They did not invent the practice on their own, because there is NOTHING in the Koran that requires circumcision, so their practice of this clearly predates the Koran. Clearly circumcision has been passed down through the millennium and there can be no mistaking that it originated with Ishmael. There can be no plausible alternative theory.

Yet Muslims uncharacteristically and inexplicably SUPPORT Judaism's claim for an absolute monopoly on the Sabbath! There can be NO doubt that had Abraham been given the Sabbath as part of his covenant, Ishmael would have transmitted the Sabbath to his descendants just like he did with circumcision. There can be no doubt that if Muslims had the slightest INKLING that the Sabbath was part of the Abrahamic covenant, they would be loudly clamoring for what is CLEARLY a special sign from God. Muslims do not let such things slide.

In fact, if Muslims thought that the Sabbath had originated with Abraham, not only would they be loudly and boastfully bragging about their special sign from God, given to their ancestor Abraham; they would declare a jihad that called for death for any non-Muslim who practiced Sabbath Keeping. And that certainly would include Jews, since the enmity between Muslims and Jews could not possibly be any stronger.

Any contention the Abrahamic covenant included the Sabbath is laughable and farcical on its face. So by declaring that he is of Abraham's "seed," (NOT "Isaac's" and NOT "Jacobs" and NOT "Judah's"), Elder has joined with the 1 billion Muslims of the world and has renounced any claim to Sabbath Keeping.

So what day did Abraham keep? You just go on and on but never really say anything. The Sabbath goes back to creation before the Jews even came on the scene. The Sabbath predates everything and was always kept. God said that Abraham obeyed my voice kept my commandments, my statutes and my laws (Gen. 26:5). I wonder what laws those were?

 

[VictorC]

So what day did Abraham keep? You just go on and on but never really say anything. The Sabbath goes back to creation before the Jews even came on the scene. The Sabbath predates everything and was always kept. God said that Abraham obeyed my voice kept my commandments, my statutes and my laws (Gen.26:5). I wonder what laws those were?

No, this attribution of the Sabbath to creation is caused by mistaking God's rest with the periodic Sabbath Jesus clearly stated was "made for man". Scripture uniformly attributes the Sabbath's origin to Moses' lifetime.

• The Genesis account doesn't record a rest observed by any human; the seventh day is in absolute terms rather than a repetitive cycle to describe God's rest.
• Exodus 20:11 clearly delineates the seventh day apart from the sabbath, using the same sentence structure found in Deuteronomy 5:15 that lists a single event in the past as the impetus to ordain the periodic sabbath.
• Hebrews 4 calls the seventh day of creation God's "My rest" that remained to be attained by a people who were already observing the sabbath, and Hebrews 4:4 quotes directly from Genesis 2:2 to document God's rest those who had the sabbath had not attained.
• Jesus distinguishes the sabbath apart from God's rest recorded in the Genesis account when He said it was "made for man" in Mark 2:27.
• Moses testifies that the ten commandments were unknown to the generation previous to his own in Deuteronomy 5:2-3, and lists the sabbath as a memorial of deliverance from Egyptian bondage in Deuteronomy 5:15.
• Nehemiah 9:13-14 attributes the origin of the sabbath with Moses.

The Law ordaining the Sabbath didn't come until 430 years after Abraham was accounted righteous for his faith in the promises of God.

 

[Dunbar]

No, this attribution of the Sabbath to creation is caused by mistaking God's rest with the periodic Sabbath Jesus clearly stated was "made for man". Scripture uniformly attributes the Sabbath's origin to Moses' lifetime.

• The Genesis account doesn't record a rest observed by any human; the seventh day is in absolute terms rather than a repetitive cycle to describe God's rest.
• Exodus 20:11 clearly delineates the seventh day apart from the sabbath, using the same sentence structure found in Deuteronomy 5:15 that lists a single event in the past as the impetus to ordain the periodic sabbath.
• Hebrews 4 calls the seventh day of creation God's "My rest" that remained to be attained by a people who were already observing the sabbath, and Hebrews 4:4 quotes directly from Genesis 2:2 to document God's rest those who had the sabbath had not attained.
• Jesus distinguishes the sabbath apart from God's rest recorded in the Genesis account when He said it was "made for man" in Mark 2:27.
• Moses testifies that the ten commandments were unknown to the generation previous to his own in Deuteronomy 5:2-3, and lists the sabbath as a memorial of deliverance from Egyptian bondage in Deuteronomy 5:15.
• Nehemiah 9:13-14 attributes the origin of the sabbath with Moses.

The Law ordaining the Sabbath didn't come until 430 years after Abraham was accounted righteous for his faith in the promises of God.

The bible is silent about a great many things. This is not a license to make wild speculation like the Sabbath and the 7th day being separate. There were special Sabbaths that went with the feasts but the Sabbath of the 7 day cycle has always been in place from creation. The 7th day Sabbath is for mankind not the Jews only.

 

[Sophrosyne]

No, this attribution of the Sabbath to creation is caused by mistaking God's rest with the periodic Sabbath Jesus clearly stated was "made for man". Scripture uniformly attributes the Sabbath's origin to Moses' lifetime.

• The Genesis account doesn't record a rest observed by any human; the seventh day is in absolute terms rather than a repetitive cycle to describe God's rest.
• Exodus 20:11 clearly delineates the seventh day apart from the sabbath, using the same sentence structure found in Deuteronomy 5:15 that lists a single event in the past as the impetus to ordain the periodic sabbath.
• Hebrews 4 calls the seventh day of creation God's "My rest" that remained to be attained by a people who were already observing the sabbath, and Hebrews 4:4 quotes directly from Genesis 2:2 to document God's rest those who had the sabbath had not attained.
• Jesus distinguishes the sabbath apart from God's rest recorded in the Genesis account when He said it was "made for man" in Mark 2:27.
• Moses testifies that the ten commandments were unknown to the generation previous to his own in Deuteronomy 5:2-3, and lists the sabbath as a memorial of deliverance from Egyptian bondage in Deuteronomy 5:15.
• Nehemiah 9:13-14 attributes the origin of the sabbath with Moses.

The Law ordaining the Sabbath didn't come until 430 years after Abraham was accounted righteous for his faith in the promises of God.

They also tend to forget that before the Sabbath was commanded in the Desert in the 10 commandments they were told to gather 2 days of manna before the Sabbath as they wouldn't already know to do so. Why would people who knew to keep the Sabbath have to be told to keep it? We don't see them being taught to keep it by people already keeping it we have to contend NOBODY was keeping a sabbath at that time.

 

[VictorC]

The bible is silent about a great many things. This is not a license to make wild speculation like the Sabbath and the 7th day being separate. There were special Sabbaths that went with the feasts but the Sabbath of the 7 day cycle has always been in place from creation. The 7th day Sabbath is for mankind not the Jews only.

This is a topic the Bible isn't silent about, and you aren't given a license to speculate. In this latest post, you're in direct contradiction with Exodus 31 limiting the jurisdiction of the Sabbath to the children of Israel:

12 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 13 “Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. 14 You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. 16 Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’”​

The Sabbath was in the exclusive domain of the children of Israel. That doesn't include the Gentile nations, nor does it include those imputed as the children of God in His adoption.

Scripture testifies to the origin of the Sabbath, and consistently distinguishes it apart from God's rest on the seventh day in absolute terms, as opposed to a periodic cycle.

 

[VictorC]

They also tend to forget that before the Sabbath was commanded in the Desert in the 10 commandments they were told to gather 2 days of manna before the Sabbath as they wouldn't already know to do so. Why would people who knew to keep the Sabbath have to be told to keep it? We don't see them being taught to keep it by people already keeping it we have to contend NOBODY was keeping a sabbath at that time.

And I agree with you.

 

[Dunbar]

This is a topic the Bible isn't silent about, and you aren't given a license to speculate. In this latest post, you're in direct contradiction with Exodus 31 limiting the jurisdiction of the Sabbath to the children of Israel:

12 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 13 “Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. 14 You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. 16 Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’”
​

The Sabbath was in the exclusive domain of the children of Israel. That doesn't include the Gentile nations, nor does it include those imputed as the children of God in His adoption.

Scripture testifies to the origin of the Sabbath, and consistently distinguishes it apart from God's rest on the seventh day in absolute terms, as opposed to a periodic cycle.

God did not have jurisdiction over the Gentile nations in the old testament. Satan did because he is the ruler of this world of sin. God chose Abraham out of the world to make a nation he could call after his own name. He gave them his laws and statutes and commandments so they would be a peculiar people to him. I'm sure he would have liked for all the world to keep the Sabbath but they were too busy worshipping idols and hated God. It was a bad time, very barbaric.

 

[Dunbar]

They also tend to forget that before the Sabbath was commanded in the Desert in the 10 commandments they were told to gather 2 days of manna before the Sabbath as they wouldn't already know to do so. Why would people who knew to keep the Sabbath have to be told to keep it? We don't see them being taught to keep it by people already keeping it we have to contend NOBODY was keeping a sabbath at that time.

We live under the new covenant today and Jesus said that he is Lord of the Sabbath and the Sabbath is for mankind not just the Jews. It is for everyone. So debating the merits of an obsolete covenant is pretty pointless.