WHY THE LORD'S DAY IS NOT SATURDAY

[BobRyan]

Whose legal code?

God's legal code. Remember? Ex 20 it is God speaking. (Heb 8:6-12 tells us it is in fact God the Son speaking at Sinai)

So also in Jer 31:31-34
31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. 33 “For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord: “I will put My law within them and write it on their heart; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their wrongdoing, and their sin I will no longer remember.”

So also in Rom 2:
27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a violator of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.

Sabbath has a greater meaning than mere obedience to an ancient law. How did Jesus once refer to the law... "you heard it said of old". That greater meaning predates the law

For all eternity after the cross - in the New Earth "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" Is 66;23
And long BEFORE Sinai AND before SIN and salvation - we have the 7th day made a sanctified holy day Gen 2:1-3 with the Legal code of Ex 20:11 pointing directly to that literal 24 hour day.

Jesus himself has authority over the Sabbath (aka Lord of the Sabbath)

Indeed and in Is 58:13 He calls it "My Holy Day" - "The Holy Day of the LORD"

 

[expos4ever]

He NEVER broke Shabbat. The Perushim SAID He did...do you agree with them that He sinned?????

This is not a fairly posed question. I am (obviously) aware that just because the Pharisees claimed He broke the Sabbath, this does not mean He actually broke the Sabbath. And, of course, you need to concede that just because the Pharisees claimed He broke the Sabbath, this does not mean He didn't actually broke the Sabbath.

Now then, let's say, for the sake of argument, that He did indeed break the Sabbath. Does this mean that Jesus sinned? Not necessarily. As one with authority over the Law, Jesus, as God-in-the-flesh, does have the right to declare the Sabbath no longer applies - would you deny this? And one way of announcing this fact, and a very effective one at that, is to "break" the Law publically.

In any event, I suggest it is clear that Jesus "broke" the Law of Moses a number of times, not least when He clearly challenged the kosher food laws.

 

[BobRyan]

No, it was not answered - you did the old "CF Shuffle". It looks like we will have to do this the hard way. Here is a clear, unambiguous, well-posed question for you:

Do you believe that there are any elements of the Law of Moses that no longer apply? For example, do you believe that the following, from the Law of Moses, remains in force?:

Now when the man with the discharge becomes cleansed from his discharge,

1. biology did not change at the cross if that is what you mean. Human biology is the same today as it was 3000 and even 4000 years ago.

2. Animal sacrifices ended at the cross according to Heb 10:4-12 - because they were given as shadows , predictive laws pointing to Christ's sacrifice. And without the earthly priesthood ended as per Hebrews 7 , and the animal sacrifices and offerings associated with that priesthood since they end at the cross - the ceremonial law has no binding liturgy left for it.

3. Civil laws under a theocracy end with the theocracy.

Moral laws stand forever.

No wonder - almost all Christian denominations agree that all Ten are included in the moral law of God that included in the New Covenant --

[*]The Baptist Confession of Faith section 19
[*]The Westminster Confession of Faith section 19
[*]Voddie Baucham
[*]C.H. Spurgeon
[*]D.L. Moody
[*]Dies Domini by Pope John Paul II
[*]D. James Kennedy

 

[BobRyan]

Now then, let's say, for the sake of argument, that He did indeed break the Sabbath. Does this mean that Jesus sinned?

The NT says "Sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4 NASB, NASB 1955, NKJV, KJV

Heb 4 says
15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things just as we are, yet without sin.

Your question supposes that this Heb 4:15 statement is meaningless since no matter how much Jesus violated His own Commandments it would be ok for God

As one with authority over the Law, Jesus, as God-in-the-flesh, does have the right to declare the Sabbath no longer applies

It would be a contradiction to His own Word that for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship" Is 66:23

In any event, I suggest it is clear that Jesus "broke" the Law of Moses a number of times,

The Gospels do point out a number of cases where His enemies did accuse Him of that.

not least when He clearly challenged the kosher food laws.

Which He never did. As Peter reminds us in Acts 10. There is no Gospel of rat sandwiches preached in the Bible - as if it would be good to eat rats, cats, dogs, bats. In Mark 7:6-13 Jesus was condemning man-made tradition He was not talking about eat cats, dogs, bats, rats etc.

 

[pasifika]

There’s always deeper meanings, but we do not receive them by being disobedient to God.

Hebrews 4:11 Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience.

This passage is not giving a pass to break any of God’s commandments, including the Sabbath commandment.

Hi SB, yes the disobedience to His laws reveal in old covenant law..Gal 3:19 ..the law was added because of transgression, "until" the "seed" has come..

Now, we have a better way to fulfill and keep God's commandments not through the Old way of the "letter" but the new way of the "Spirit" (letter leads to death BUT Spirit leads to Life). Romans 7:6, 2 Corinthians 3:6

 

[HIM]

No, it was not answered - you did the old "CF Shuffle". It looks like we will have to do this the hard way. Here is a clear, unambiguous, well-posed question for you:

Do you believe that there are any elements of the Law of Moses that no longer apply? For example, do you believe that the following, from the Law of Moses, remains in force?:

Now when the man with the discharge becomes cleansed from his discharge, then he shall count off for himself seven days for his cleansing; he shall then wash his clothes and bathe his body in [a]running water and will become clean. 14 Then on the eighth day he shall take for himself two turtledoves or two young doves, and come before the Lord to the doorway of the tent of meeting and give them to the priest

I got as far as “no it wasn’t”. Take care

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Hi SB, yes the disobedience to His laws reveal in old covenant law..Gal 3:19 ..the law was added because of transgression, "until" the "seed" has come..

Now, we have a better way to fulfill and keep God’s commandments not through the Old way of the "letter" but the new way of the "Spirit" (letter leads to death BUT Spirit leads to Life). Romans 7:6, 2 Corinthians 3:6

So we can worship other gods now? It wasn’t the Ten Commandments that end at the cross. This is what still reveals sin Romans 7:7 the new convent is about the law of God written in the heart and we keep it by love to God 1 John 5:3.

 

[expos4ever]

2. Animal sacrifices ended at the cross according to Heb 10:4-12 - because they were given as shadows , predictive laws pointing to Christ's sacrifice. And without the earthly priesthood ended as per Hebrews 7 , and the animal sacrifices and offerings associated with that priesthood since they end at the cross - the ceremonial law has no binding liturgy left for it.

Again, you are faced with a contradiction if, repeat if, you also believe that Jesus is referring to a future time - that is a time that has yet to come to pass - when He uttered these words: For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not [g]the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished!

If you believe this and you are correct in interpreting Heb 1-:4-12, then Jesus is mistaken - He clearly believes nothing will pass from the Law until some time that remains in all of our futures.

How do you explain what appears to be an inconsistency in your position?

As you may or may not know, I happen to believe that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said nothing would pass from the Law until "heaven and earth pass away": He was actually using "end of the world" language to refer to what would happen at the cross.

 

[expos4ever]

I got as far as “no it wasn’t”. Take care

Again, please answer the question: Do you believe that there are any elements of the Law of Moses that no longer apply? For example, do you believe that the following, from the Law of Moses, remains in force?:

"No it wasn't" is not, as even a grade 8 student can tell, an answer to the question.

 

[expos4ever]

The NT says "Sin IS transgression of the Law"

You guys continue to misrepresent this text. This is has been pointed out many, many times.

Lest any be misled, the vast majority of translations have something like "sin is lawlessness". And, tellingly, the Young's literal translation has:

Every one who is doing the sin, the lawlessness also he doth do, and the sin is the lawlessness,

You are, of course, cherry-picking. You latch on to one of a tiny minority of translations that have "sin is transgression of the Law" when the reality is that the concept of lawlessness - which is almost certainly the correct translation - does not, of course, require us to understand lawlessness as being specific to the Law of Moses.

 

[DamianWarS]

he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit,

so circumcision is not a physical act of legal code but rather of the heart? That's interesting because circumcision (the physical act) is a signed covenant of flesh for an everlasting covenant between God and his people (Gen 17). Sabbath is also a signed covenant between God and his people (Ex 31:13). Could Sabbath also be something beyond mere legal code? could that also mean that Sabbath as a legal code is nothing, just as circumcision as legal code is nothing (1 Cor 7:19)?

I already know what you're thinking, let's quote the whole of that verse.

1 Cor 7:19
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.

so what is "God's commandment"? What it's not is circumcision, that part is clear, yet circumcision is an explicit commandment of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Galatians can help us understand the context of "God's Commandments"

Gal 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Gal 6:15
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation.

1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 are all addressing the same thing. We can draw the following conclusions from a harmony of these texts

circumcision/uncircumcision
- is nothing (1 Cor 7:19)
- neither has any value (Gal 5:6)
- neither mean anything (Gal 6:15)

This is then constrasted with what does have value, meaning or as the text says "what counts"
- Keeping God’s commands is what counts (1 Cor 7:19)
- The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. (Gal 5:6)
- What counts is the new creation (Gal 6:15)

the former part is addressing the same thing, that circumcision is nothing. Its contrasted conclusion of what has value is also addressing the same thing (if it's not then Paul is at odds with himself)

Keeping God’s commands = faith expressing itself through love = the new creation

The context is not old covenant law, not the old creation. it is faith through Jesus Christ which is the new creation.

the term "new creation" itself parallels the old creation (this should be self evident) The Genesis creation account can be read as a new creation metaphor. Broadly speaking creation starts from a dark void of chaos where light is spoken into, reshaped, and filled so that life can multiply and finally ends in rest. each day has parallels to each other in a chiastic pattern which already is an allusion to beyond the physical. Day 7 contrasts before day 1 with concepts like empty/full, light/darkness, incomplete/complete, unformed/formed, chaos/order, etc... Indeed, day 7 is the antithesis of before day 1, (dare I say it's the answer), and this is by design. This can be viewed as the process of salvation upon our own lives with a goal that ends in rest as God spoke light into the darkness for each and every believer.

God doesn't rest because he is tired which is an anti-god characteristic, he rests because he is finished. Sabbath may mean "cease" as well. And God "ceased" because the creation was complete. For this reason, biblically speaking the number 7 is regarded as a perfect number of completion. And this too is the goal for each of us, the work of Christ, his new creation, is complete which ushers in his rest. For example James 1:4 "Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything". "completion" "perfect" and "mature" these are the words used by James. They are the work complete, Christ's work, a 7th-day rest in man.

Should it be any surprise the creation account is more than its surface components? That light and darkness are metaphors? If you're still gasping it may come to a surprise that this is also biblically revealed to us (I didn't just make it up) that creation is in fact a metaphor for the new creation. (wording like that seems a little obvious).

2 Cor 4:6
For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ.

creation is indeed a salvation metaphor and we can use Paul's words as a heuristic to understand the true meaning of creation. the law is made to echo this message, but the message is not legal code, it's the work of Christ in our lives that when complete we are made whole, his sabbath rest.

2 Corinthians has more to say:
(5:17) Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!

The old what? the old creation of course. So we do not look to the old creation to define what the sabbath is which is the crux of your argument that the 4th and the 7th are bound together. Yet Paul tells us the old creation has gone so where does that leave the 4th commandment? Fear not, they all point to the same thing, which is the new creation and it has a new sabbath. The new should be our focus not the old.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

This is not a fairly posed question. I am (obviously) aware that just because the Pharisees claimed He broke the Sabbath, this does not mean He actually broke the Sabbath. And, of course, you need to concede that just because the Pharisees claimed He broke the Sabbath, this does not mean He didn't actually broke the Sabbath.

Now then, let's say, for the sake of argument, that He did indeed break the Sabbath. Does this mean that Jesus sinned? Not necessarily. As one with authority over the Law, Jesus, as God-in-the-flesh, does have the right to declare the Sabbath no longer applies - would you deny this? And one way of announcing this fact, and a very effective one at that, is to "break" the Law publically.

In any event, I suggest it is clear that Jesus "broke" the Law of Moses a number of times, not least when He clearly challenged the kosher food laws.

It is a fair question since you DID say He INTENTIONALLY broke Shabbat...meaning you think He sinned. WHERE is it clear that He broke the Law? Where did He challenge the kosher food laws????

 

[expos4ever]

Heb 4 says
15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things just as we are, yet without sin.

Your question supposes that this Heb 4:15 statement is meaningless since no matter how much Jesus violated His own Commandments it would be ok for God

Again, if Jesus is really co-equal with the Father, He clearly has the authority to do away with the Law of Moses - He is after all "Lord of the Sabbath", and how can He truly be Lord of it if He does not have at least the possibility of doing away with it?

You are framing this as if Jesus / God does not have the right to do away with the Law. And this serves your agenda quite nicely since you surely must know that if Jesus can, for example, eliminate the Sabbath, this takes away your "you guys are saying Jesus is sinning" argument.

It would be a contradiction to His own Word that for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship" Is 66:23

On a first reading, I agree that Isaiah 66:23 implies the Sabbath is eternal. But even without considering other Biblical texts, and I will get to this presently, it seems at least plausible that "from Sabbath to Sabbath" could be a figure of speech, not intended to be taken literally.

But if you are going to argue that the Sabbath is eternal, you are forced to also accept that the new moon festival is eternal. But it certainly seems that the latter is not:

Therefore, no one is to [p]act as your judge in regard to food and drink, or in respect to a festival or a new moon, or a Sabbath [q]day— 17 things which are only a shadow of what is to come; but the [r]substance [s]belongs to Christ.

So there are real problems with reading Isaiah 66:23 as declaring the eternality of the Sabbath. Yes, it may seem to suggest this on a first examination but, as I have shown, there is a problem. And there are, I believe, quite a few more problems with such a view.

 

[expos4ever]

It is a fair question since you DID say He INTENTIONALLY broke Shabbat...meaning you think He sinned.

No, I do not think He sinned and it seems hard to be believe you do not know this - I have clearly explained how it is possible that Jesus could "break the Sabbath" without sinning since, as God, He has the right to do away with the Sabbath law. And if He does that (do away with the law against work) on the Sabbath, then He is perfectly free to work on the Sabbath without sinning.

You must know that you have completely sidestepped this argument which I have just repeated for a second time. All you have done is re-assert your claim that for me to say Jesus broke the Sabbath means that He sinned.

I am not forced into that position, and I suggest that you know this.

WHERE is it clear that He broke the Law? Where did He challenge the kosher food laws????

Mark 7:15a: There is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him....

We can get into this if you really want to. To save us all some time, though, you should know that I have debated this matter at length over the years and believe I have solid responses to any objections (for example the "its about handwashing" objection which completely falls apart upon analysis. But, if you want to get into it again, we can do that. But, please, to be fair you cannot do what you have done above where you have obviously evaded my argument about how Jesus can do work on the Sabbath without sinning.

 

[BobRyan]

Again, if Jesus is really co-equal with the Father, He clearly has the authority to do away with the Law of Moses

[/QUOTE]

This is a One God Deut 6:4 in Three Persons Matt 28:19 situation. Jesus is fully God as we see in John 1:1
He could say "ooops! I changed my mind -- it is now ok to take God's name in vain. Pay no attention to what I said before on that one".

But instead of presenting a fickle undermine-scripture view of who God is - Jesus says in Matt 5 that He does not abolish His Law.
What is more He makes the statement in scripture that He is 'without sin' not as a meaningless statement - but as a statement of consistency.

On a first reading, I agree that Isaiah 66:23 implies the Sabbath is eternal.

It says that in the New Earth all mankind keeps the Sabbath "From Sabbath to Sabbath". This poses a huge problem for the "Sabbath deleted" and "Sabbath ended" suggestions.

No wonder we have so many non-Bible-Sabbath groups affirming that all TEN of the TEN Commandments continue as the moral law of God. There simply is no good way to delete one.

it seems at least plausible that "from Sabbath to Sabbath" could be a figure of speech, not intended to be taken literally.

But if you are going to argue that the Sabbath is eternal, you are forced to also accept that the new moon festival is eternal.

Which is not a problem since the New Moon Sabbath is not in the TEN - and since in the New Earth there will be TWO creation events for mankind to hold in memorial -- the Gen 2:1-3 creation and then the Rev 21:1-3 creation of the NEW Earth condition.

In the Bible "from year to year" Samuel's mother brought a new set of clothes to him ... At some point in that process she stopped.

But by contrast God is Eternal, His Creative acts stand forever to be remembered, and mankind is not going to vanish into oblivion at any point so we have Sabbath after Sabbath observances for all mankind after the cross in the New Earth.

Therefore, no one is to [p]act as your judge in regard to food and drink, or in respect to a festival or a new moon, or a Sabbath [q]day— 17 things which are only a shadow of what is to come; but the [r]substance [s]belongs to Christ.

1. In Matt 7 "Judge not that you be not judged" was not a pre-cross statement that it is was ok in Matt 7 to take God's name in vain and no one could mention that such a thing is sin.

2. Col 2 makes it clear that it speaks of 'shadow sabbaths' - the annual ones in Lev 23.

So there are real problems with reading Isaiah 66:23 as declaring the eternality of the Sabbath.

So far you have yet to find one since Is 66 clearly identifies the "New Earth" as the point where this just keeps right on going -- rather than getting deleted.

 

[BobRyan]

Whose legal code?

God's legal code. Remember? Ex 20 it is God speaking. (Heb 8:6-12 tells us it is in fact God the Son speaking at Sinai)

So also in Jer 31:31-34
31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. 33 “For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord: “I will put My law within them and write it on their heart; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their wrongdoing, and their sin I will no longer remember.”

So also in Rom 2:
27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a violator of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.

That proves for the New Covenant being applicable to ALL not just literal Jews.

No wonder even the non-Bible-Sabbath Christian denominations are on record as admitting that all TEN of the TEN commandments are included in the moral law of God written on the heart under the NEW Covenant.

so circumcision is not a physical act of legal code but rather of the heart?

No doubt - but Ex 20:11 is legal code. It points directly to Gen 2:1-3 hard-wiring the seven day week at Sinai back to the seven day week in Genesis 1-2 .. literal and accurate.

Could Sabbath also be something beyond mere legal code?

The point you are trying to side-step is that the legal code of EX 20:11 is not bendable and requires that the Gen 2:1-3 statement it points to also be literal in terms of that same 7 day week in Genesis 1-2.

I already know what you're thinking, let's quote the whole of that verse.

1 Cor 7:19
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.

Indeed the text says "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" . There we have a clear contrast between ceremonial law and moral law of God where the "Commandments of God" are in the latter category.

so what is "God's commandment"?

Paul says "Honor your father and mother is the first commandment with a promise" in Eph 6:2 -- that comes straight from the Law of Moses Ex 20:12 and the unit of LAW in which it is found as "the first commandment with a promise" is the TEN at Sinai.

Deut 5:22-23 reminds us that at Sinai God spoke those TEN Words "And added no more". so the TEN -- are IN

In Matt 19 Jesus said "KEEP the Commandments" and HE is then asked "Which ones"? --
Jesus' answer comes directly from the LAW of Moses - from the TEN and from Lev 19:18

What it's not is circumcision, that part is clear, yet circumcision is an explicit commandment of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Paul contrasts ceremonial law with moral law of God in 1 Cor 7:19

Another detail that even the non-Bible-Sabbath Christian denominations confirm - as they also admit that all TEN of the TEN Commandments are included in the Law of God written on the heart under the New Covenant - and applicable to all mankind

 

[BobRyan]

A Sabbath of complete rest, no work. That idea of no work sounds familiar

It should - it is in Ex 20:8-11 and in Is 58:13 and in Lev 23:3

The law cast a shadow of good things that were to come later, such as righteousness without work.

Some Laws are shadows as Heb 10 reminds us in the case of animal sacrifices - but "do not take God's name in vain" is not a shadow and still stands -- as does the Sabbath for all eternity even in the New Earth Is 66:23

 

[BobRyan]

The NT says "Sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4 , NKJV, KJV, AKJV, CJB, CEV, KJ21, BRG, Phillips, GNV...

Heb 4 says
15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things just as we are, yet without sin.

Your question supposes that this Heb 4:15 statement is meaningless since no matter how much Jesus violated His own Commandments it would be ok for God

You guys continue to misrepresent this text. This is has been pointed out many, many times.

Lest any be misled, the vast majority of translations have something like "sin is lawlessness". And, tellingly, the Young's literal translation has:

Every one who is doing the sin, the lawlessness also he doth do, and the sin is the lawlessness,

Ahh so you suggest that NASB is not accurate. Lots of luck with that.
You also suggest that lawlessness is not transgression of the law -- lots of luck with that.

You have free will and can suggest whatever you wish - but the text is pretty clear.

 

[pasifika]

Thanks for asking Starting with Exodus 31:15 in the NASB, since it's a good literal translation:

Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 31:15 - New American Standard Bible

For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a Sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.

www.biblegateway.com

A Sabbath of complete rest, no work. That idea of no work sounds familiar, where else did I hear something like that?

In Romans 4:5,

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 4:5 - New American Standard Bible

But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

www.biblegateway.com

We are credited with righteousness even when we do not work.

Then looking at Hebrews 10:1,

Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 10:1 - New American Standard Bible

One Sacrifice of Christ Is Sufficient - For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the form of those things itself, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually every year, make those who approach perfect.

www.biblegateway.com

The law cast a shadow of good things that were to come later, such as righteousness without work.
________________

Now, I don't want to be stringing together isolated verses to form a teaching. I'm just using the above references to support 3 ideas I think everyone already agrees with:

The law says no work on the Sabbath.

We obtain righteousness with no work.

The law has a shadow.

So... was the Sabbath a shadow of obtaining righteousness by not working? It looks to me like it is. Further comments and questions always welcome

Appreciated @Leaf473, I didn't see this concept of explaining the Sabbath as a day of complete rest in achieving Righteousness by not working. This really ties in to Hebrews 4 with another day called "today" means. This is a bit deep understanding to grasp. Thank you.

So, if you don't mind, I have couple of questions;

1) So since we credited righteousness through faith without our works (Romans 4:5) then is faith also is something we have without our works?

2) So who does the work in achieving Righteousness for us if we are not working?

Thank you again.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

No, I do not think He sinned and it seems hard to be believe you do not know this - I have clearly explained how it is possible that Jesus could "break the Sabbath" without sinning since, as God, He has the right to do away with the Sabbath law. And if He does that (do away with the law against work) on the Sabbath, then He is perfectly free to work on the Sabbath without sinning.

You must know that you have completely sidestepped this argument which I have just repeated for a second time. All you have done is re-assert your claim that for me to say Jesus broke the Sabbath means that He sinned.

I am not forced into that position, and I suggest that you know this.

Mark 7:15a: There is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him....

We can get into this if you really want to. To save us all some time, though, you should know that I have debated this matter at length over the years and believe I have solid responses to any objections (for example the "its about handwashing" objection which completely falls apart upon analysis. But, if you want to get into it again, we can do that. But, please, to be fair you cannot do what you have done above where you have obviously evaded my argument about how Jesus can do work on the Sabbath without sinning.

That is the definition of sin, "sin is the transgression of the law". Sin is lawlessness, anomia, without law. You said He INTENTIONALLY broke it. If so, then He should have agreed with His accusers. You are saying that He can break His own laws. is that the way you think He taught people to follow His example?? Mark has nothing to do with breaking Kosher laws. It is about eating with unwashed hands, that is the context of the passage. You can debate it all you want, but that does not change the context of the passage...