Which Day of the Week is the Sabbath? (2)

[Normann]

Ok, maybe he was already keeping Sabbath since he is a Jew. But I will not assume he was for the sake of argument...so then, according to you, it is ok, to Covet, Have other gods, use the Lord's name in vain, and make and bow down to idols am I correct in your understanding of the text? since it doesn't mention them here?

Honestly, I fail to see how the shows what you are trying to say.

Chris

Romans 13:9
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Romans 13:8...he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

James 5:12 ...swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

Acts 5:3 ...why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie...?

Luke 16:13
No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.


There's more!

2 Tim 2:15
IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

 

[Normann]

The 7th day of the weeks IS Saturday! The question is not over which day is right, its about whether we are required in the new Covenant to keep the 7th day Sabbath, which we are not.

How do you know the 7th day is Saturday?

How do you know Saturday is the Sabbath?

Is there scripture for this doctrine?

 

[tall73]

The SDA's have already answered this, because it wsa just 'understood' to be continued. Making a 'just-so' statement.

Thanks for offering our answer, but I think you missed a few points.

We simply said that Jesus kept the command, reformed it from the traditions of the pharisees, and said He did not come to destroy the law. In the same way that He showed the true meaning of adultery to be lust and murder to be hate, He reformed the Sabbath to its meaning of a day for man, a blessing, not a curse as the religious leaders made it.

Paul also kept it. Some say he just preached at the synagogues because of witnessing. Perhaps so. But even then he went to find a place of prayer on the Sabbath when there was no synagogue.

No where do we see a change. We see the 10 commandments upheld by Paul in Romans 7 where he says the law is holy and righteous and good.

We see that the law is written on the heart in the new covenant.

So if Jesus kept and reformed it, Paul kept it, the Bible upholds the law as written on our hearts, how is it that you think an argument from the silence of certain passages overthrows God's law?

Moreover, how do you account for almost all of the churches assembling on that day even 400 years after Jesus if He changed it from the beginning?

 

[tall73]

How do you know the 7th day is Saturday?

How do you know Saturday is the Sabbath?

Is there scripture for this doctrine?

The Sabbath is not Saturday, it is sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. And you quoted yourself the verse that said it was the 7th day and then asked in the same post if there was a verse that said the Sabbath was the 7th day. So needless to say I think you are aware of the verses and wish to not look at them.

 

[oldsage]

The 7th day of the weeks IS Saturday! The question is not over which day is right, its about whether we are required in the new Covenant to keep the 7th day Sabbath, which we are not.

Karenmarie,

You can't tell him that because in order to prove that you have to look at history and he doesn't accept history, just the bible only. He is not sola scriptura like the Reformers were but what I call solo scriptura meaning that you can't look at anything but the bible, everything else like tradition and dictionaries, encyclopedias and such are worthless and can't be used to learn truth. I guess I will need to pencil in the name of the days of the week in the bible.

Chris

 

[oldsage]

9 of the 10 commandments were re-iterated in the NT!! One was NOT! Guess which one? The Sabbath..wonder why?

When you said re-iterated, to you mean mentioned or commanded if commanded can you show the list where they were all commanded, because I see all the commandments mentioned.

Now we see in the NT that no one had problems with keeping Sabbath, they were mad even at Jesus for supposedly breaking it, but Jesus didn't tell them to keep the Sabbath because they were already doing so, but what he did tell them was the proper way to keep it. So, Jesus did mention the Sabbath as a reform. Much like if you were in the kitchen doing the dishes and I walked up to you and told you to do the dishes wouldn't make much sense, but if I walked in there and saw you were doing something incorrectly and showed you the proper way of doing it, that would make more sense. Which is what Jesus did with them.

Chris

 

[oldsage]

Romans 13:9
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Romans 13:8...he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

James 5:12 ...swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

Acts 5:3 ...why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie...?

Luke 16:13
No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.


There's more!

2 Tim 2:15
IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

Romans 13:9
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

wonderful passage, thanks Normann

Chris

 

[tall73]

Gone over this already; look at why Adam was not given the law on the Sabbath, nor Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph etc.

Acutally Adam was there when God rested and sanctified the day, as you are well aware of. And note that nowhere do we see that Adam was told of the commandments. Yet we see that Able knew it was wrong to kill, and Jacob knew it was wrong to steal. How did they know? Again, you are failing to see the point. The commandments at Sinai were in fact new in that they were plainly writtten on stone. They were for slaves who needed clear rules. But man knew from the beginning God's will, it was written in the heart. And it was more than just the 10 commandments. It went to the spirit of the law, which is what the Christian keeps now. God's plan is to restore the law to an internal principle in the heart so that we can walk by His Spirit.

He didn't sin because He didn't break a law of God for God, but a law made for man. He said so.

So you are now denying the humanity of Christ? I think your Orthodox friends already dealt with that heresy. If Jesus was not a man in your view, then you are a heretic according to your church. If He broke a law He is no Savior. But He did not break a law. And He said that David and the priests were not guilty by their actions. What He broke were the traditions of the people.

Why would you make Jesus a liar to defend your view of the Sabbath? If He said that the priests were not guilty, why do you make them so?

And of course you are also going against Irenaeus, but that is more of an issue for you than for me.

It was made for man. It would be no more a sin than to disobey a law, if parliament said we all have to wear little red hats.

Would it be the same for David or the priests? Of course not. And unless you hadn't noticed, all the commands were made to inform man. This one was also made as a BLESSING to man. The angels don't need to be beaten over the head with stone tablets, they have God's law written in their hearts, just as we can through the new covenant.


Where does He say that? In the same text that you are quoting.

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."

The original is of course from the OT. It was a statement that they were bringing sacrifices, and engaging in their religious festivals, but they oppressed the poor etc. And in this case we see the same repeated. They put their ceremonies about the needs of others. That was not what the Sabbath was for. It was meant as a blessing. It was made FOR man, not just to be a burden.

I already highlighted the little bits you ignored/misunderstood.

Which would be what? You have yet to address any of the linguistic evidence in Ignatius or the Didache. You have yet to say why they are keeping the Sabbath 400 years later, along with Sunday, if Jesus instituted the switch at the beginning. If you are saying you showed me where they spoke about Sunday...Great, that is what I said from the beginning. But you have not shown where they instituted this change in Scripture. And we do in fact see a progression, as even one of your Orthodox friends admitted to sometime back in the thread.


But apart from that, you are dodging the issue. The issue is that you will not deal with all the evidence. Is ignoring evidence the sign of a strong argument or a weak one? I have dealt with all the evidence, and proposed a view that encompasses all of it. You have refused to look at the rest, and keep stating only that which supports your notions. That is not a strong argument.

Pointing out what you think are flaws in another person's argument is easy. What I am asking you for is to say why you think they were assembling on the Sabbath in all the churches 400 years after Christ, according to two church historians, and why 300 years after they endorsed the Sabbath according to the command in the apostolic constitutions. If you cannot do that, then you are indeed hiding your head in the sand.

Yes, I know you've continued to state your view Thanks for doing so again.

You have continued to say I keep saying the same things. Of course I do. When you make reference to my view and then fail to represent what I said accurately (I am not saying you have to agree with it, but you do have to state it accurately if you reference it), then I will clarify. Especially when the thread was just split. So again, this is just a way for you to attack, but not prove anything.

Really? SO now you're arguing that the citations you made, and I made show that they didn't observe the Jewish "Sabbath"?

No, now I am saying what I just said. That the fact that they kept both does show that they were keeping it. And it was only later, and in certain locations that they kept Sunday in place of Sabbath up until the 5th century. Again, you make no effort to address the real argument.

Truism?

hardly. It was in fact demonstrated by my review. I looked at both those that spoke of Sunday, and those that spoke of Sabbath. There were differences in views.

Even if this were true, I've no problem with it, BECAUSE the Sabbath was not for all time, (see above)... hence we (not you) don't eat pork, etc.
<snip>

Even if it were true? You show that you either have not read any of the posts, or you simply refuse to look. You say I am repeating myself. But you continually play stupid in regard to plain statements. You know quite well what the historians said. But I will repeat it again for you in the next post in case you did miss it somehow...after about 5 times.

And you keep saying that the Sabbath was in fact temporary. But you don't show how that was the case.

 

[tall73]

Even if this were true, I've no problem with it, BECAUSE the Sabbath was not for all time, (see above)

Since you still remain uncertain, here is the evidence again.

Sabbath keeping was near universal even in the 5th century




Evidence #1: Church Historian, Socrates Scholasticus, 5th Century
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26015.htm

History book V

Nor is there less variation in regard to religious assemblies. For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this. The Egyptians in the neighborhood of Alexandria, and the inhabitants of Thebais, hold their religious assemblies on the sabbath, but do not participate of the mysteries in the manner usual among Christians in general: for after having eaten and satisfied themselves with food of all kinds, in the evening making their offerings they partake of the mysteries.

Evidence #2: Church Historian, Sozomen, 5th Century

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26027.htm

The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria.

Evidence #3: Apostolic Constitution , 4th Century

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07...m#P5614_2026032

XXXVI. Have before thine eyes the fear of God, and always remember the ten commandments of God,-to love the one and only Lord God with all thy strength; to give no heed to idols, or any other beings, as being lifeless gods, or irrational beings or daemons. Consider the manifold workmanship of God, which received its beginning through Christ. Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who ceased from His work of creation, but ceased not from His work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of the law, not for idleness of the hands.

And a bit later on:

Be not careless of yourselves, neither deprive your Saviour of His own members, neither divide His body nor disperse His members, neither prefer the occasions of this life to the word of God; but assemble yourselves together every day, morning and evening, singing psalms and praying in the Lord's house: in the morning saying the sixty-second Psalm, and in the evening the hundred and fortieth, but principally on the Sabbath-day. And on the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is the Lord's day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent Him to us, and condescended to let Him suffer, and raised Him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day to hear the saving word concerning the resurrection, on which we pray thrice standing in memory of Him who arose in three days, in which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the Gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy food?

Here we have two statements that most were keeping it, except for those in Rome etc. who for some tradition had stopped, both in the 5th century...400 years after Jesus. Then we have an endorsement, that all should keep the day in the 4th century. So the contention that tradition shows Sunday replacing the Sabbath from the beginning is simply not true. They were both being kept. Sabbath was kept in honor of the command, and Sunday was kept due to the resurrection of Jesus. We do not know at what time this Sunday observance started. But we can be sure if in the 5th century they are still keeping the Sabbath due to the commandment that it was not replaced by Sunday.

Now if folks want to honor Sunday for the resurrection, that is no problem to me. But it is a problem to change God's law.

Now, you said it was temporary. Where is your evidence? Why would it be kept for 400 years after Jesus by almost all of the churches if it were done away with at the resurrection of Jesus?

 

[oldsage]

Thanks for offering our answer, but I think you missed a few points.

We simply said that Jesus kept the command, reformed it from the traditions of the pharisees, and said He did not come to destroy the law...

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them."

it kills me that people read this and then ignore it. Jesus the Creator tells you don't think a certain way, then people go one thinking that way.

Jesus upheld the written law of God over and over again, but throughout His ministry knocked down the traditions of the Jews over and over again. And people still take it wrong.

"Do not think I have come to abolish the law or the prophets"
in other words get this thought out of your mind, don't misundstand me, I am not doing away with the law or the prophets.
I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them
all I am doing is keeping them for you, not getting rid of them, I am coming to accomplish what you are not able to accomplish, I am also coming to do what the prophecies said I am to do.

I can't think any other way than the way the Creator told me to think and He said, He wasn't here to get rid of the law.

Chris

 

[tall73]

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them."

it kills me that people read this and then ignore it. Jesus the Creator tells you don't think a certain way, then people go one thinking that way.

Jesus upheld the written law of God over and over again, but throughout His ministry knocked down the traditions of the Jews over and over again. And people still take it wrong.

"Do not think I have come to abolish the law or the prophets"
in other words get this thought out of your mind, don't misundstand me, I am not doing away with the law or the prophets.
I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them
all I am doing is keeping them for you, not getting rid of them, I am coming to accomplish what you are not able to accomplish, I am also coming to do what the prophecies said I am to do.

I can't think any other way than the way the Creator told me to think and He said, He wasn't here to get rid of the law.

Chris

Quite true. And Jesus showed the spiritual depth of the law.

For all those who keep the spirit of the law, not the letter, does not the spirit go beyond? The 10 commands are the baseline. God said do not murder. But He didn't want us to hate either.

Notice what Paul says about the law being kept spiritually:

Romans 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

Paul recognized that walking in the Spirit is going beyond the letter, to keep the law in the fullest way. It doesn't do away with it.

 

[Cliff2]

We still get down to the fact that no where in the NT can verse be found that says the Sabbath has been changed from the 7th day of the week to the 1st day of the week.

The early Church fathers do not so much concern me as unless it can be shown from the Bible then I am not going to take any notice of what is put up.

 

[Nazaroo]

Confusing the Law with the Covenant


Paul adds to the confusion when he uses Jewish idioms to speak to gentiles in the first place, as in using the Greek word 'nomoV', translated 'law'. In Paul's letters this should really be rendered 'Torah'. In any case Paul does not intend either the ancient Greek meaning or the modern civil one. For Paul 'nomoV' can be the covenant, the commandments, the history of Israel, or any combination of these depending upon the emphasis or context.

Even though he uses 'law' everywhere, Paul obviously knows the difference between the covenant with the Jews, and the commandments which are for everyone. How else could he have waived the Sabbath, the circumcision, and the food laws for his gentile church and kept the others? These and these only are the unique marks of the covenant.

Yet these three laws alone are not the covenant either. A covenant is a consenting agreement or contract between parties. Expressions like The Law, The Testimony, The Ten Words, the Stone Tablets, and Mt. Sinai, are all freely used to symbolize the Covenant with Israel. This is precisely what Paul does in (2 Cor.3). The Tablets represent the covenant but they are not themselves the covenant. The covenant itself is the complete verbal agreement between God and Israel, mediated by Moses.

Some try to equate the Covenant with the Ten Commandments, and the Ten Commandments with 'the law' of Paul, in an attempt to show that the Sabbath has been 'nailed to the cross' and wiped out. (pg 174) The other commandments then somehow bounce back by the authority of being restated in the NT, because they are 'true-for-all-time' principles, which are self-evident. The Sabbath falls through the cracks because it is merely revelatory, ceremonial and arbitrary. But this explanation is completely artificial,and has the appearance of a cheap card trick.

In reality the commandments remain because they were never crossed out. There is no secret shuffle. Paul has been misunderstood by Luther, Calvin and some Protestants, and there is no hint of such magical thinking in the rest of the NT.

NT Authority to drop the Sabbath?


The original source of this idea is Heresies Exposed by W.C Irvine, 1921, pg 165. (which we will refute here):

But the summary there shows that the Nine were mentioned in the NT arbitrarily, not to single out and drop the Sabbath. For instance, False Witness and Profanity score 4 appearances each. Other sins are treated equally gravely and just as severely condemned, like drug dealing, 5 times. (Gal.5:20, Rev.9:21,18:23,21:8,22:15, original Greek)

The commandments do not derive their authority from the arbitrary examples and incomplete lists in the NT. For instance, Paul lists five at random, and then says if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' (Rom.13:9) Jesus is equally loose, listing a different five commandments with some overlap. (Lk.18:20) On that basis we might as well keep the Sabbath!

Complete lists of all the commandments would be pointless. We already have the OT. Listing all possible sins would be like listing all the deeds of Jesus. (Jn.21:25) Literally hundreds of commandments are indirectly referred to, as well as new sins not found in the OT. But making endless lists won't help if we don't see the underlying principle of love, (Rom.13:9) or know the guiding rule of how to love, (Lk.6:31) or find the will to do so, (Lk.7:47) and cling to the power that can enable us to. (Jn.15:4)



Recognizing the Eternal


The idea that eternal principles are 'self-evident' is a flop. They are not 'self-evident' to natural man. (1.Cor.2:14) There may be a future time when we will no longer have to teach one another, (Jer.31:34) but we aren't there yet. 'Do not steal' presupposes abstract concepts of ownership defined by other commandments. 'Adultery' requires a marriage culture. 'Do not kill' requires explanation because of other contradictory commandments! Nothing in the first two commandments is self-evident. The test simply fails to distinguish the Sabbath. If anything, 'Do not covet.' is the oddball, since it talks of internal desire, is impossible to keep, and 'self-evident' as to its unreasonableness! (Rom.7:7-8)

But in fact all of the Ten Commandments are either lexically too empty and vague, or too detailed and specific to be 'self-evident' principles in any meaningful sense. They all require the actual context in which they are found: They stand within a body of literature belonging to a living community providing a historical and cultural background complete with many other laws, definitions, applications, examples and oral traditions, without which they would be meaningless.

The commandments receive their authority not because they are 'self-evident', but because they were delivered through the ruin of Egypt, the deliverance of Israel, and the terrifying voice of God in a pillar of fire on mount Sinai.

Transgressing the unbreakable Covenant


The confusion between Law and Covenant clouds over Israel's continuing obligations, and those of others. Israel could not escape the commandments just by 'breaking' the covenant. Nor can exiles or gentiles escape them by claiming they don't have a covenant. Those outside the covenant God judges, (1 Cor.5:6) - by the same standard! (Rom.2:26) The only things Israel lost were the promised blessings when they transgressed the Covenant.

Actually, to speak of 'covenant-breaking' is misleading. The covenant already covers both obedience and disobedience to the commandments. Israel has no power to break the covenant itself. (Ezek.16:8, 59-62) The covenant provides both punishments and a sacrificial system for forgiveness of personal and national sin. (Num.15:22-29) But this raises the question of how the covenant itself can even be transgressed: Some crimes are so serious that the law requires exile (Num.15:30-31) or even death (Num.15:36) with no option of forgiveness. (Heb.10:28, Mk.3:29, 1st.Jn.5:16!) Yet the crimes of a few do not amount to a national transgression. But when offenses reach an intolerable level, a whole city or nation might be exiled or destroyed. (Gen.18:26-32)

Israel was exiled long before Christ. By transgressing the covenant, they moved out of the blessing and under the curse. (Hos.6:7) Israel was now trapped, for there is no way back under the law. (Rom.8:3) Only God can redeem Israel, by lifting the covenant curse, and only He can save mankind by declaring an amnesty for lawbreakers. (Lk.18:27)

Amnesty and a New Covenant

The old covenant must be renovated; rewritten, and renewed by God. To save all people, the New Covenant must include them. But there are conditions. (Jn.9:41) There is no such thing as absolute freedom. (Rom.6:16-18) The amnesty offered by God clearly entails obedience to the Law. (Ezek.33:14-20,Rom.8:4) Israelites must not rely on the old covenant alone, which has left them under a curse. (Jn.5:39) They must repent and be baptized into an amnesty for sins, and await the promise of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38) Christ redeems us from the curse of the law, (Col.2:14,Gal.3:13) and the Spirit works to keep us from sinning and enable us to do good. (1Pet.1:22) We must not resist the Spirit, (Eph.4:30) but act in love, fulfilling the Law. (Rom.13:10) This opportunity to cooperate with God is the gift which produces true spiritual fruits and good works. (Gal.5:22) Christ does not destroy the Law. (Matt.5:17) The Holy Spirit would not normally lead anyone to break the Law of God, or tempt them to commit crime. (James 1:13)

We can now understand in what sense 'we have been delivered from The Law' (Rom.7:6) Israel is delivered from the curse caused by covenant transgression, and gentiles are saved from criminal punishment, when they accept the terms of the amnesty. This includes a 'cease-fire' on lawbreaking, and a commitment of service to God involving the carrying out of new commands (John 14:21)

New Symbols for Old

But the New Covenant needs new signs and symbols of membership, and those belonging to Israel cannot be appropriated lawfully. Paul drops The Sabbath, circumcision and food laws as entry requirements of the New Covenant. He drops them because they are exclusionary and already belong to someone else, not because they somehow lack 'eternalness'. The new symbols, baptism and Last Supper, and the new sign, 'that we should love one another' (Jn.13:35) had already been given by John and Jesus. Paul merely argued that the old signs and symbols had to be peacefully and quietly abandoned as entry requirements for Gentiles, not forced unlawfully upon other nations. (1.Tim.1:8)

Thus the answer to the puzzle of Paul and the Law is not found in the concept of 'ceremonial' or 'temporary'. Since the Old Covenant was for Israelites, and was being replaced by the New Covenant, Gentiles need not join the old one first. - They can proceed directly to the New Covenant, just as Jews already could and did. Paul did not obliterate the Old Covenant, or redefine 'Israel' as the 'church', nor did he erase the distinction between Jew and Gentile. He simply pointed out their equal footing regarding the New Covenant. For Paul, regardless of its benefits, (Rom.3:1-2) the Old Covenant gave no direct advantage to Jews as to entry into the New Covenant. (Rom.3:9) Both Jew and Gentile were called to repentance and acceptance, and both equally benefited if they did so. (Rom.10:12) If some Jews chose to remain in the Old Covenant, they were free to do so. (Lk.5:31-32,39) If others were willing and able to keep both covenants, they were also free to do so. (Rom.11:7,14:5) Far from negating Old Covenant obligations, Paul actually recognized them repeatedly. (Gal.5:3,Matt.23:23)

The Jewish Christians came to recognize that certain commandments, specifically three, were heavily 'symbolic' of the Old Covenants. They also realized that such symbolism was inappropriate for the New Covenant, and it was impeding the spread of the gospel. They had both the need and the power to regulate the application of these specifically national and tribal laws.

This is an incredible affirmation of the authority of Godly men to interpret, define the scope of, and selectively apply the Law (the actual office Moses created for the ancient judges). But now we must measure the limits of that authority and its ramifications, by seeing what exactly happened, and how those individual laws were treated.

 

[Normann]

The SDA's have already answered this, because it wsa just 'understood' to be continued. Making a 'just-so' statement.

Well then, why bother to emntion any commandment, seems they were all just understood? The rich young ruler seemed to express that!


hmmmm?

 

[Montalban]

Well then, why bother to emntion any commandment, seems they were all just understood? The rich young ruler seemed to express that!


hmmmm?

I'm not saying I agree with them, and had hoped that the points you expressed would be thought up by those that read their silly assumption.

 

[Montalban]

Thanks for offering our answer, but I think you missed a few points.

No, you're selective which is why you don't have rabbais, in vestments as stated in law by God, etc

Paul also kept it. Some say he just preached at the synagogues because of witnessing. Perhaps so. But even then he went to find a place of prayer on the Sabbath when there was no synagogue.

So, Paul's 'gradual development' is good, but not of the Sabbath?

 

[Nazaroo]

...To continue my analysis:

How the New Covenant really reached the Gentiles

The New Covenant was given in three very pronounced stages. There is a seed hidden in each stage, however, foreshadowing the next one. Each new stage caused difficulty inside and outside the Christian community. But the third step was by far the most controversial, and it is the crucial step in our discussion of law.

(1) To the Israelites: (Acts.2:5,14, 6:1) Contrary to popular conceptions, the Day of Pentacost did not usher in the Gentiles. The Galilean disciples went forth preaching in all languages to visiting Israelites of all nations. (Acts.2:5,14,22,29,36, 6:1) At this time, salvation was officially announced to the diaspora, the dispersion of exiled Israel. This event had been anxiously awaited from the start of Jesus' ministry. (Jn.7:35,12:20) The 5000+ converts were all Israelites. (Acts.2;41,4:4, note the parallel and symbolism of the 12 baskets, Lk.9:14,17) This was outrageous enough to the self-righteous Judaeans, who thought of themselves alone as the Faithful Remnant of Israel! (Jn.7:48,49) There was also trouble in the Christian community between Judeans and Exiles. (Acts.6:1) Jesus had much to say on this. (Lk.15:11-32) Even Proselytes (prior converts to Judaism) received the Word, and were welcomed, setting the stage for step 2. (Acts.2:10,6:5)

(2) To the Proselytes: (Acts.8:5) When Israel was conquered, Samaria was largely repopulated by foreigners. (2 Kgs.17:24) The Assyrian king ordered them converted to Judaism, (2 Kgs.17:27-28) but the conversion was only partial. (2 Kgs.17:41) The Samaritans scorned the Judaeans and the xenophobic Judaeans never acknowledged this forced adoption. (Neh.4:2,Jn.4:9) Ironically, God used the evil Paul (Saul) to bring in these communities. Paul's persecution of the disciples sent Philip to the Samaritans. (Acts.8:3,4) Yet Jesus Himself had prepared both the Samaritans and His own disciples for this event. (Jn.4:1-42) He used it to underline the false pride of Judah (2 Kgs.17:19, Jn 7:19) and reveal what they would have to accept to enter the New Covenant. (Lk.18:11) Even Ethiopian converts were accepted. (Acts.8:27) The Law itself did not support racism. (Lev.19:34) Anyone could join Israel under the old covenant if they kept the law. (Lev.24:22) None of this raised questions about the law itself. Converts obviously got circumcised, kept the food laws and observed the Sabbath.

(3) To the Gentiles: (Acts.10:35) The idea of Roman Gentiles being accepted into the Christian community was a surprise at first. (Acts.10:34,11:18) But since they had already received the Holy Spirit, Peter could not refuse them baptism, the sign of community membership. (Acts.10:47) It was not clear at the time how to integrate Gentiles into the community, or that any commandments needed to be modified or dropped, even temporarily. (Acts.11:3,15:1) God's acceptance of Gentiles before conversion to Judaism, and the problem of Jewish/Gentile fellowship brought the issues of circumcision and the food laws to the surface. (Acts.11:2,3) The answers were not obvious, but required new revelations, some field experience for Peter and Paul, and a council meeting of the Apostles. (Acts.10:3,10, 15:2)

Responsibilities for Gentile Christians

The following instruction and blessing is part of a formal letter issued by the Jerusalem Council of the Apostles under the authority of the Holy Spirit. It was sent by Peter and James and received by Paul on behalf of the Gentile church. It is meant to tell us what is really required so that Jewish and Gentile Christians can have problem-free fellowship together. Before we become overly concerned about how such instruction might inconvenience us, let's see if we can understand the Spirit of the letter.

'For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us,

to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:

that you abstain from things offered to idols,

from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.

if you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.' (Acts.15:28-29)

(A) The letter is not a return to the legalism of the Pharisees. (Acts.15:5-11) Circumcision has been deliberately dropped, and Paul has won his case against the extremists. Nor does it mark a split between the Jerusalem church and the Gentile church. The unity and goodwill here is remarkable, and Paul has the hearts of his fellow Israelite Christians. The letter has the joyful consent of the Apostles, elders and the whole Jewish church! (Acts.15:22)

(B) The letter is not some kind of compromise between Judaism and Christianity. The Apostles and elders met to exchange all the facts, and gain unity of understanding over God's acceptance of Gentiles into the Way. But only a few extremists were actually compromised. Although designed to create peace, the letter is not whimsical or arbitrary. It was carefully composed and it still provides practical guidelines for Gentile Christian conduct today:

(1) Avoid Idolatry through food: (Exod.20:1-6) By explaining the obligation of the 1st Commandment in very practical terms, the letter shows how Christians can keep themselves unstained by the world, (James 1:27), maintain their fellowship with Jewish Christians, and take a stand against idolatry. (1st.Cor.10:14-33)

(2) Eat no Blood: (Gen.9:4) Next we have an appropriate reminder to Gentiles that all mankind is already living under a covenant with God, the covenant of Noah, with its own obligations and symbols. (Gen.9:1-17) Although many nations have lost knowledge of this covenant, even as Israel occasionally lost knowledge of hers, (2.Chr.34:14-33), it is still in effect. It extends to the end of this age, and its symbol, the rainbow, confirms it to this day. Again a practical rule is given to help Gentiles: Abstain from eating animals which have been strangled, and hence improperly killed, and in which the blood obviously remains.

(3) Abstain from sexual immorality: (1.Cor.10:8-9, 1.Thess.4:3) Again, a sensible instruction, finding complete agreement from Paul.

In sum, the letter is not some disguised form of 'legalism' or 'Judaizing'. Its spirit reflects sound biblical teaching and the united wisdom of the early church. It's very terseness shows that the council of Apostles and elders entrusted Paul both to deliver the letter, and to personally explain more fully the details of their position, which he later did. (Gal.2:9-10)

Paul’s View of Himself on the Law

After all the controversy from the book of Acts until the present, we might expect to find Paul proposing some sweeping reforms or radical changes in the Law, or at least in its interpretation. Yet when we actually search Paul's letters, we are instead struck by several remarkable things:

1. Paul's repeated denial that he had preached any kind of lawlessness. (Rom.3:8,Gal.6:7etc.)

2. His stated belief in the justness of God and of His Law. (Col.3:25,Rom.10:5,etc.)

3. Paul's claim that the OT is the inspired Word of God. (2nd Tim.3:16,Rom.3:2,15:4 etc)

4. His many appeals to the Law and the Prophets for his authority. (Rom.3:21,etc.)

5. His frequent approval of both specific commandments and the general Law (Rom.13:9 etc.)

6. His clear condemnation of both specific and general sins. (1.Cor.6:9-10, Gal.5:19-21)

7. His insistence that Christians can, do and must obey the Law. (Rom.8:4,Eph.5:1-5)

8. The only specific laws that he appears to have qualified, waived, or adopted lenient views toward, are either specifically Jewish, or else involve tribal customs or health and cleanliness issues. (Sabbath, circumcision, food laws)

The Jewish Case against Paul

We don't want to minimize the importance of these laws. But we feel compelled to remark that if we were looking for evidence to convict Paul of preaching lawlessness, our total case would be pretty flimsy. The non-Christian Pharisees could hardly accuse him of failing to circumcise Gentiles, (as the Christian ones did in Acts.15:5) and he actually did circumcise Timothy, whose mother was Jewish, as required by law. (Acts.16:1-3) Since they were under Roman occupation, he could hardly be expected to enforce the Sabbath among Gentiles either. At best, they might accuse Paul of ritual uncleaness, for eating with Gentiles. (Acts.11:3) But this wouldn't even merit a scolding, let alone a Sanhedrin council or a stoning. And Paul remedied any questions of impurity while in Jerusalem by taking a 7 day Nazarite vow of purity and paying the offering! (Acts.21:26/Num.6) These are hardly the actions of someone renouncing OT law. Paul, as a master of the law himself, could have easily defended himself along these lines before any reasonable inquiry.

When we actually examine the hysterical reaction to Paul in the temple, however, we discover that the riot is not about morality at all! (Acts.21:27-22:23) Their outrage was due to Paul's teaching on circumcision, and perhaps Jewish festivals. (eg.Gal.5:2-6,Col.2:16-17). "they have been told that you teach the Israelites of the diaspora that they shouldn't circumcise their children, nor keep the customs..." (Acts.21:21) This is of course an unfair misconstrual of Paul, since he only had authority over Gentiles, and wrote primarily to them. (Gal.2:9!) Paul's own view of the motives of his accusers was that either they were cowards, hiding their Christianity to please the Jewish authorities, or else they were Judaean spies loyal to Temple Judaism. (Gal.6:12,13) This is why he did not answer the charges directly, but took the opportunity to testify of the Way. (Acts.22:1-22)



Summary of the Law under the New Covenant

The Law of God, meaning the commandments, remain valid and all people are required to obey them. The Old Covenant is unworkable due to the gravity and size of Israel's sin.

Jesus during His ministry suspends the curse of the Law on the following basis: Legitimate authority from God has been rejected, (Lk.20:2-8) nobody is wise enough to interpret the Law, (Jn.3:10) nor able to judge rightly, (Jn.9:3) nor qualified to carry out the sentence. (Jn 8:1-11) Jesus claimed the authority to forgive sins, (Mk.2:10) but He did not do so on an arbitrary basis. He was fulfilling God's promise of redemption under the conditions God had already laid out. (Ezek.33:14-20 = Luke 19:8! - Ex.22:1)

God lifts the curse of the Law with a one-time amnesty of forgiveness for past sins. The amnesty is available only through the New Covenant. (Jn.10:7) God does not restore autonomy or the kingdom to Israel at this time. (Acts.1:6) Israelites and Christians have to accept foreign occupation and rule. (Lk.20:22-25) The Aaronic Priesthood no longer has authority to govern over Israel or enforce the Law. (Heb.7:12) Instead, all members of the New Covenant are their own priests and judges under one new High Priest, Jesus the Christ. (1.Cor.11:31-32, Heb.8:1,9:11) In fact, the laws of sacrifice, and the laws of redemption (Ex.13, Lev.6, 25:47) also remain valid, because they are the very laws Jesus fulfills to free us!

We need not think the correct interpretation of Paul is artificial just because we have to work hard to get to it. Even scripture testifies that Paul's letters contain 'things hard to understand'! (2Pet3:16) It is even harder for modern English readers because of translational bias, and the foreign idioms.

 

[Cliff2]

Summary of the Law under the New Covenant

The Law of God, meaning the commandments, remain valid and all people are required to obey them.
(Nazaroo)

Correct.

 

[Nazaroo]

Let me add a link to my other thread, which has a bearing here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2378362-paul-and-the-law-solid-foundations.html

(Paul and the Law: under the Sotoerology Section on this website).

 

[tall73]

No, you're selective which is why you don't have rabbais, in vestments as stated in law by God, etc

You contended that the nt didn't endorse Sabbath keeping. So I showed that Jesus kept and reformed it, and Paul kept it, and both endorsed the 10 commandment law, as written on the heart. Then you change the discussion to why we don't have vestments. I have already addressed that by citing Hebrews which shows that Jesus was the real sacrifice. Why continue to offer sacrifices if you have the real one?

The Sabbath on the other hand was given at creation before sin, and was part of the 10 commandment law. If it came before sin, it cannot be part of the sacrificial service which was not instituted until after sin.

Paul also kept it. Some say he just preached at the synagogues because of witnessing. Perhaps so. But even then he went to find a place of prayer on the Sabbath when there was no synagogue.

So, Paul's 'gradual development' is good, but not of the Sabbath?

Paul keeping the Sabbath is a development? Hardly. It was the same law that Jesus said He would not destroy.