• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why worry about the Ten Commandments, if you are disregarding the Sabbath?

Status
Not open for further replies.

rstrats

Senior Member
Jun 27, 2002
1,889
81
Mid West
✟94,258.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Katarn,

re: "The two greatest events in Christianity happened on Sunday, which I find very weird if Saturday is still so totally important now."

And yet there is not a single scripture that says that the first day of the week is to be an ongoing special day of rest and worship.
 
Upvote 0

cavymom

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2005
1,082
85
55
✟24,175.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The sabbath is for Israelites only:


Exodus 3:12 The Lord said to Moses: 13 "Tell the Israelites: You must observe My Sabbaths, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, so that you will know that I am the Lord who sets you apart. 14 Observe the Sabbath, for it is holy to you. Whoever profanes it must be put to death. If anyone does work on it, that person must be cut off from his people. 15 For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there must be a Sabbath of complete rest, dedicated to the Lord. Anyone who does work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. 16 The Israelites must observe the Sabbath, celebrating it throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign forever between Me and the Israelites, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, but on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed." 18 When He finished speaking with Moses on Mount Sinai, He gave him the two tablets of the testimony, stone tablets inscribed by the finger of God.
We are saved by grace through Jesus:
Hebrews 4:1-10 1 Therefore, while the promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear so that none of you should miss it. 2 For we also have received the good news just as they did; but the message they heard did not benefit them, since they were not united with those who heard it in faith 3 (for we who have believed enter the rest), in keeping with what He has said: So I swore in My anger, they will not enter My rest. And yet His works have been finished since the foundation of the world, 4 for somewhere He has spoken about the seventh day in this way: And on the seventh day God rested from all His works. 5 Again, in that passage He says, They will never enter My rest. 6 Since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news did not enter because of disobedience, 7 again, He specifies a certain day-- today --speaking through David after such a long time, as previously stated: Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts. 8 For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken later about another day. 9 A Sabbath rest remains, therefore, for God's people.10 For the person who has entered His rest has rested from his own works, just as God did from His.

Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is abundant in mercy, because of His great love that He had for us, 5 made us alive with the Messiah even though we were dead in trespasses. By grace you are saved! 6 He also raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavens, in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages He might display the immeasurable riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift-- 9 not from works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are His making, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them.

Speaking of the 10 commandments...
they are a covenant between God and Israel



Exodus 34: 27 The Lord also said to Moses, "Write down these words, for I have made a covenant with you and with Israel based on these words."
28 Moses was there with the Lord 40 days and 40 nights; he did not eat bread or drink water. He wrote down on the tablets the words of the covenant-the Ten Commandments.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,687
6,107
Visit site
✟1,047,692.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I will answer this in segments as time allows. Here is the first

Nightfire said:
I think Paul contradicts your argument:Col. 2:13-14

The "handwriting" is a reference to a statement of debt. This is quite a bit more in line with the immediate context of the passage.

COL 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. 11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

COL 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

in Verse 11 it states that we were circumcised, putting off the sinful nature, and then in verse 12, we were buried with him through faith.

It is referring to the very essential points of the gospel Jesus died to cancel our sin, and we participated in this experience, dying and then living in new life. It echoes Romans 6. Then he goes on to elaborate on that resurrection. He says we were DEAD in our transgressions and sins. Ie, we were under a death sentance because of our record of sins against us. Now it says he cancelled the written code. This is that certificate of debt...the debt he paid with his life. In fact the phrase itself occurs within the context of the last part of verse 13...HE FORGAVE US ALL OUR SINS. Verse 14 continues the parallel thought..ie...how did he forgive us our sins? By paying for them on the cross.

God didn't do away with the law to save us. His law was a revelation of His principles, though in limited, external form. Instead the new covenant is that He wrote the law on the heart. So what was done away with was not the law, but our guilt.

In light of this, if we were to tranlsate the passage anew we might say...

COL 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the certificate of debt, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

The certificate of debt is a symbol for our sins.
-------------------------------

Textual note on the translation of χειρογραφον τοις δογμασιν

Strongs references of the term handwriting of ordinances...

χειρόγραφον
cheirographon
khi-rog'-raf-on
Neuter of a compound of G5495 and G1125; something hand written (“chirograph”), that is, a manuscript (specifically a legal document or bond (figuratively)): - handwriting.

Literally it is simply a combination of the word hand, cheir, and the verb write...grapho.

It at times meant a handwritten form, legal document of bond.


and the second word...

G1378
δόγμα
dogma
dog'-mah
From the base of G1380; a law (civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical): - decree, ordinance.



Thayers defines dogma as decree, statute, ordinance.

So it is a legal form, perhaps of bond.


The New Jerusalem Bible renders it

He has wiped out the record of our debt to the law


NASB,

having canceled out (AH)the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us

Amplified:
4Having cancelled and blotted out and wiped away the handwriting of the note (bond) with its legal decrees and demands

ESV:
by canceling the record of debt


ASV
having blotted out the bond written in ordinances

HCSB
4 He erased the certificate of debt, with its obligations


The following also have similar readings, but tend to be looser translations:

NLT
14He canceled the record that contained the charges against us

CEV
14God wiped out the charges that were against us for disobeying the Law of Moses

The commentators in the NIV Study Bible made a similar assessment in the the meaning of the word...a certificate of debt, but still applied it to the mosaic code.

14. Written code. A business term, meaning a certificate of indebtedness in the debtor's handwritting. Paul uses it as a designation for the mosaic law, with all its regulations, under which everyone is a debtor to God.

If Paul had in mind the Mosaic law he could have quoted the Septuagint reading of that from Deuteronomy:

Deut 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

Deu 31:26 Λαβόντες τὸ βιβλίον τοῦ νόμου τούτου θήσετε αὐτὸ ἐκ πλαγίων τῆς κιβωτοῦ τῆς διαθήκης κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν, καὶ ἔσται ἐκεῖ ἐν σοὶ εἰς μαρτύριον.

Since the early church usually used a Septuagint-like text, we would then expect similarities in the terms if he was referencing the same idea.

In Colossians we see the term χειρόγραφον handwritten document, or handwriting of ordinances

Deuteronomy used the term τὸ βιβλίον τοῦ νόμου, the book of the law. I don't see χειρόγραφον anywhere in the lxx or NT besides here. But if Paul wanted to give the same impression he simply could have said τὸ βιβλίον τοῦ νόμου,the book of the law.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,687
6,107
Visit site
✟1,047,692.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Rom. 7:6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Since Paul next goes into a defense of the law, including the ten commandments, as he specifically mentions the coveting command as an example, I think you should look at the whole passage. Paul did indeed die to the law as

a. a means of salvation
b. the controlling force in his life.

He now serves Christ. But in chapter 8 he says that now the righteous requirements of the law are fully met in us who do not walk according to the letter but the spirit. In other words, the law is written on the heart, and he is walking with Christ.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,687
6,107
Visit site
✟1,047,692.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here is my longer explanation of the passage.

Paul undoubtedly changed in his focus from law orientation to Christ orientation. But does this mean he was antinomian? As he would say "by no means!".

Instead Paul was focused on the change that the resurrection brought about in our sinful nature, giving life to our mortal bodies so that we could now live for Christ willingly. At the same time Jesus took away all condemnation. My contention is simply this. The law which condemned Paul, because of his sinful nature, which was external, in tablets of stone, was now in Paul's heart. He was freed from his body of death which was a slave to sin, to serve Christ freely, and was cleansed from past sin so he felt no condemnation.


RO 7:1 Do you not know, brothers--for I am speaking to men who know the law--that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3 So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.

RO 7:4 So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.


v.1-3 Setting the human example of the law's power over a man ceasing after death. The specific application is of the marriage law. The spouse is released after death, and is not an adulterer.

v.4-5 We are no longer wedded to the law but to Christ. Notice that we now belong to Christ. This was key for Paul since in his earlier experience he was completely dedicated to the law, and as for legalistic righteousness was "faultless" according to Philippians. Paul's motivation has radically changed,.as has his understanding of what saved him:


PHP 3:2 Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh-- 4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence.
If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

PHP 3:7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. 10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.


Here in Philippians Paul is saying that

a. We are not considered righteous by circumcision, by race, or even by keeping the law. But in fact, by righteousness that comes from Christ.

b. Notice, Paul is merely saying that it is grace that saves us. He is not arguing against the moral law. He is arguing against being saved by anything but Christ. Once you have broken the law in one point, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be saved by the law. So dependence on it for salvation is pointless. We are not under the law for salvation.

So Paul's focus has radically shifted from legalistic righteousness (confidence in the flesh, in who he was and what he did), to Christ's righteousness. He has been married to Christ instead of the law.


RO 7:4 So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.



By participating in the death of Christ (Romans 6) we were freed from the need to perfectly keep the law for salvation–which the sinful nature made impossible. Without Christ we are only able to bear fruit for death. In other words, we can only disobey. And since our righteousness was just on our own, we were lost. But now Jesus forgave us AND made it possible for us to bear fruit to God. We are released from serving for salvation and now server God in a new way, by the SPIRIT (of God). (keep in mind that even in the OT grace was present, looking forward to Jesus as we look back. But the temptation was always there to earn salvation).

Now what is it that really changed here? As we will see more clearly in chapter 8, what changed is that we now serve God by His Spirit making alive our sinful nature so that we can fully obey. We never could before. And we also have forgiveness for the failures in keeping the law. Jesus is our forgiveness and our power.


RO 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.


v. 7 Paul realizes that the reader might deduce from the earlier statement that the law is sin, or somehow bad. He makes clear that is not his point at all. In fact, the law informed him of what sin was.

NOTE: Paul uses the word law in different ways at times. He speaks of it as a principle or force, and as particular parts of the OT law. we have to tell by the context which he means in each instance.

In this case it is clear that he is speaking at the least of the ten commandments because he makes particular mention of the coveting command. So it is clear that he is saying the law, including the 10 commandments is not sin.

v. 8-9 Sin came in and used the commandment to produce wrong desires. Why is this if the law is not sin? Because the sinful nature is provoked by the law. It sees what it wants, and goes after it. But is the problem the law? Paul doesn't seem to say so. The problem is SIN and the sinful nature.


sin is dead without the law, because the law points out what God's will is. But sin using the law condemns us. Once Paul was aware of what the law said, he was condemned by his breaking of it. He was UNDER THE PENALTY of the law, because he could never keep it.

v.10-12 the law was intended to bring life, but couldn't. Why not? Because of sin.
It was sin that deceived Paul and put him to death through the law. But Paul affirms that the law is HOLY, RIGHTEOUS AND GOOD. It was used by sin to destroy him. The law only condemns because of sin. So the sinful nature, slave to sin, cannot hope to gain salvation. It needs the forgiveness of Christ. But does this mean that the law is no longer good to follow? No, not at all. The problem was never with the law. But now we follow it not because we are under it for salvation, but because we are forgiven and made alive to God because of Jesus.



RO 7:13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.


v. 13 The law is not the cause of our death! Sin needed to be recognized for what it was. Sin has always been the problem, not the law. The commandment was added so that men would see just how destructive sin was. Jesus came to get rid of sin, not the law. He did, however, free us from keeping the law for salvation, because once we had broken it in one point, we could no longer do so.



RO 7:14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.


v. 14-17 Again, a defense of the law. The law is spiritual. But Paul is not. Is the problem with the law, or with Paul? Paul is sold as a slave to SIN. He is powerless to do anything but sin. But he agrees the law is good. So the law is holy, righteous, spiritual, good, not sin, etc. Does it sound as though Paul is against the law? But he is a slave to sin, sold to sin, can't do anything but sin, put to death by sin. What is the problem, the law or Paul? It is Paul. He is a slave to sin.


18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.


v. 18 As opposed to the law, which is good, nothing good lives in Paul's sinful nature.

v. 19-20 Paul is perplexed by why he keeps doing what is wrong. He concludes that it is sin living in him. He has no other option but to do wrong.


RO 7:21 So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?


v. 21 Here we see Paul's alternate use of law. Paul finds the "law" at work, or the principle, the rule etc. that he cannot escape sin. When he wants to do good he can't.

v. 22 Now he clarifies that he delights in God's law in his inner being–he wants to do it. So he is clarifying definitions. But there is a problem. There is yet another "law" or rule in his body, the one that does not let him do God's law. It is warring against God's law in Paul's mind. It is called the law of sin. It is at work in his flesh. So Paul says, who will RESCUE me from this body of death? Paul is in real trouble. He can't keep the law, he is condemned by it because of his sin, he is hopeless, without salvation (in his natural self). But now he sees a new hope.


25 Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!


Jesus is the new hope, as will be seen in chapter 8.

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Paul is bound to serve God's law, but the sinful nature keeps him a slave to the law of sin. But God changes all of this in chapter 8. This is a summary statement of his problem, right before the solution.


RO 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 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.


v. 1 We are free from the condemnation of our sin because of Christ Jesus. He has changed our whole relation to the law. Before we were condemned because we were under it for salvation. We had no righteousness but our own which was flawed.

v.2 Paul introduces yet another law. Let's summarize:

a. God's law, includes "do not covet"
b. law of sin and death – the rule that Paul discovered that he could not obey
c. The law of the Spirit of Life. The Holy Spirit overcomes the sinful nature.

Jesus set us free from the law of sin and death which was at work in our members. Notice, this was NOT parallel to God's law. It was the rule of sin that kept overcoming him.

v. 3 Jesus' sacrifice did what Paul could never do because of the sinful nature. He took care of Paul's sin problem, removed him from condemnation under the law, and gave him no condemnation. In so doing he also condemned sin–not the law–sin. Sin was always the problem. Not the law. Jesus kept the law, in the Spirit, not just in the letter. Thus he condemned sinful man, but also freed him by His sacrifice.

v. 4 It is those who live by the Spirit of God who TRULY KEEP the law. It's requirements are "fully met" in them. Paul is arguing that it is the one who keeps the Law by the Spirit that truly keeps it. He is not arguing that they don't keep it.

The angels in heaven do not keep the law as simply tablets of stone. It is inside them. The same is promised in the new covenant where the law is written on the mind and heart (Hebrews 8). We keep His commands and they "are not BURDENSOME" as John says. The point being, God has freed us from our sin, freed us from keeping the law for salvation, which we couldn't do. And He has also given us new power to keep the law the way it should always have been kept–from the heart. Paul is saying that in Christ the law is now RE-INTERNALIZED as it was always meant to be. Not tablets that condemn, but the Spirit of Christ living in us that empowers.

So it is true, the external tablets are no longer our focus. In fact, the law itself is not our focus. The focus is on Christ who forgives us, lives in us, and who makes our dead sinful nature alive by His Spirit.

Jesus didn't just come to save us from our PAST sin , but to overcome current sin, to fully live for Him.


RO 8:5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.


v. 5 There is a total difference between Paul in his previous life, with his mind fixated on the law's requirements, his faults, the desires of the flesh, and his later life, focused on Christ and His Spirit.

The Christian's mind is transformed to focus on Christ, seated above. To fix itself on heavenly things. The law in internalized, as it was meant to be. No wonder Paul considered his legalistic righteousness as rubbish.

v. 6-8 Those controlled by the sinful nature, depending on themselves for salvation, on their own effort for righteousness CANNOT PLEASE GOD. They cannot submit to God's law.

RO 8:9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.


v. 9 Those who have the Spirit though are not in the same condition as those who have the sinful nature. They are forgiven first, but they can also submit to God's law, they do please God.

v.10-11 We still have the sinful nature, but the Spirit of God will "also give life to" our "mortal bodies through His Spirit." In other words, God's Spirit has overcome our sinful nature, allowing us to please God.

We are not only forgiven, we are given new power to please God, not for salvation, but for HIM. It is internalized.


RO 8:12 Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation--but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.


v. 12-13 We DO have an obligation to not live according to the sinful nature, but to put to death the misdeeds (sins) of the body. We are still keeping the law, but not in the old way. The focus is not on the law, however, but on Christ who is our forgiveness, and power.

v. 14-17 We have a new outlook, a new Spirit, a new hope. We are no longer condemned by sin and afraid of God. We rejoice that we are sons, who serve out of love.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,687
6,107
Visit site
✟1,047,692.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The "written code, with its regulations", clearly refers to the law from which we have been released, not the covenant or the promises. "...if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law" (Gal. 5:18). Why else would Paul consider it a threat to say: "who lets himself be circumcised ... is obligated to obey the whole law"? (v.3)


a. Written code explained above

b. I notice you have made no effort to further explain the actual passage in Hebrews. It is clear. It was the fault of the promises.

c. Gal 5 goes on to explain obedience through the Spirit. Being free from the external written code does not make the law of no effect. Paul was writing to the Galatians who were turning from grace to legalism. But he still says don't use your freedom as a cover for sin.

d. If the gentiles he was writing to circumcised themselves they would be doing it for legalistic righteousness, which, as he points out , is a dead end. No one can keep the whole law. But if they are thinking to save themselves by their righteous works, they need to keep it all. The council did not require them to become Jews or be circumcised. But the real issue here is the same claim that was made by the Judaizers in Acts 15 that to be SAVED you have to be circumcised etc. Paul said if you do that in or der to be saved, you make Christ of no effect.

We see in his circumcision of Timothy for practical reasons, working among the jews (since he was of mixed background, Jewish and Gentile) that Paul did not always approach the issue the same way. He did here because they were practicing legalism.

What we are suggesting is NOT legalism, but Lordship of Christ, living in your heart.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,687
6,107
Visit site
✟1,047,692.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And what is wrong with being set apart from the Jews? Didn't Jesus himself start that tradition, which was continued by the apostles? Christian persecution was a given before Constantine put a stop to it by making Christianity legitimate. How would distancing themselves from the Jews help their cause?

Jerusalem was in gentile hands before and after the destruction of the Temple - but while Christians could be reasonably tolerated as a sect of Judaism, after the Jewish patronage had been removed, they were persecuted simply as atheists (i.e. not believing in the Roman gods - as we see in Pliny's letter to Emperor Trajan). There is also no "new gentile administration" in the church, since it fled from Jerusalem intact (as God promised it would, and Jesus assures us in Revelations - 90AD).


a. First off, I should have said that the gentile administration took over after the destruction by Hadrian, not the 70 AD one. They fled intact to Pella, as you said, given Jesus' warning in Matthew 24. Eusebius records a Jewish administration before and after 70 AD. Sorry for the mix-up. You are quite right about the information on the flight.

Eusebius notes the first non-circumcision bishop:

“And thus, when the city had been emptied of the Jewish nation and had suffered the total destruction of its ancient inhabitants, it was colonized by a different race, and the Roman
city which subsequently arose changed its name and was called Aelia, in honor of the emperor Aelius Adrian. And as the Church there was now composed of Gentiles, the first one to assume the government of it after the bishops of the circumcision was Marcus.” Eusebius, HE 4, 6,4,

In regards to the passover, since I still can’t find any primary source reference online to Epiphanius’ material I will just quote a section where it is referenced in Bacchiocchi’s Sabbath to Sunday,

The Bishop makes specific reference to the fifteen Judaeo-Christian
bishops who administered the Church of Jerusalem up to A.D. 135 and who
up to that time had practiced the Quartodeciman Passover since they based
themselves on a document known as the Apostolic Constitutions— diataseis
ton apostolon— where the following rule is given: “you shall not change the
calculation of time, but you shall celebrate it at the same time as your brethren
who came out from the circumcision. With them observe the Passover.”



b. As to why they would separate themselves at a later date, first off it is clear that they were not intially distinct as you say. While Jesus emphasized the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies He did not separate from the Jews. In fact, He told His disciples during His ministry to go ONLY to the Jews. Though He did predict before His assension the evangelizing of the whole world.

Here are a few scriptures to show that they did not separate initially..

Act 18:2 And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them.

They were expelled though Christian because they were indistinguishable from them.

Act 24:5 For we have found this man a plague, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.
Act 24:6 He even tried to profane the temple, but we seized him.

They were treated as a sect of Judaism, just as the Pharisees, etc. were.

Paul himself refers to this:

Act 24:14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets,

Paul identifies himself with the Jews. Since Rome recognized only certain religions there was safety in doing this, but it was also an accurate description. They considered themselves Jews who had seen the fulfillment of their hope, and the inclusion of the gentiles. In fact, they were first called Christians in Antioch, a gentile region. Otherwise they were those who followed the Nazarene sect, or the way.

Rom 11:17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree,
Rom 11:18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.
Rom 11:19 Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."
Rom 11:20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe.
Rom 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
Rom 11:22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.
Rom 11:23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.
Rom 11:24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.


In Paul’s mind, and obviously those in Acts 15, the gentiles were “grafted in” to the vine, while the natural branches were broken off for a time.

History records that the Christians mingled with the Jews in the synagogues until at least 80-90 AD, and perhaps to 135. Some see the curses on the Christians in the synagogue as even later, but the point is the same. They were not initially as distinct. Even in the New Testament we see Paul preaching to jews and gentiles alike for weeks on end, sometimes years, in the synagogue.

However, by the 300's, Epiphanius considered the Nazarenes, who were a remnant of the Jerusalem church and followed basically the same practices, to be heretics for keeping the Sabbath and being circumcised. Obviously there was more than just a healthy differentiation. By his standards all of the apostles would have been heretics. Here is his description:

Only in this respect they differ from the Jews and Christians: with the Jews they do not agree
because of their belief in Christ, with the Christians because they are trained in the Law, in
circumcision, the Sabbath, and the other things."

"By birth they are Jews and they dedicate themselves to the Law and submit to
circumcision."

Now whether you think that gentiles should or should not keep the Sabbath, it is quite extreme to say that these Christians were heretics. Even before this Justin Martyr makes reference to those who followed the Sabbaths etc. and only grudgingly said that he might have fellowship with them, but only if they did not try to press their issues on him.

These show a departure from Judaism that was more than warranted. And of course later comments from Chrysostom etc. show that relations only deteriorated.

Some of the factors for this separation might be:

1. There were anti-Jewish measures from 70 AD on, at first financial, and then later more sever. These contributed to separation of Jews along religious and ethnic lines. .

For more information see here this article. It covers the basic facts quickly, but likely puts too much emphasis on one element. If you can overlook the tone, the historical information is helpful.

It also records the connection between this persecution and the expelling of Christians from the synagogues.

http://www.torahresource.com/English%20Articles/Last%20Fiscus%20Judaicus.pdf


2. Because Hadrian made harsh restrictions on the Jews for a time.

Note this passage from a Jewish encyclopedia:

After the dearly bought victory in 135, Hadrian received for the second time the title of "imperator," as inscriptions show. Now only could he resume the building, on the ruins of Jerusalem, of the city Ælia Capitolina, called after him and dedicated to Jupiter Capitolinus. A series of magnificent edifices that Hadrian erected in Jerusalem are enumerated in a source that gathered its information probably from Julianus Africanus ("Chron. Paschale," ed. Dindorf, i. 474; "J. Q. R." xiv. 748). The temple of Jupiter towered on the site of the ancient Temple, with a statue of Hadrian in the interior (Jerome, Comm. on Isaiah ii. 9). The Jews now passed through a period of bitter persecution; Sabbaths, festivals, the study of the Torah, and circumcision were interdicted, and it seemed as if Hadrian desired to annihilate the Jewish people. His anger fell upon all the Jews of his empire, for he imposed upon them an oppressive poll-tax (Appian, "Syrian War," § 50).

Hadrian also prevented them from even entering the city of Jerusalem.

This more severe persecution lasted about three years. But the effects lasted longer. The tax of his predecessors, and his restrictive measures caused a distinction between Jews and Christians in the eyes of the government. And it seems from the church father literature of the time that it also led to a lot of anti-jewish rhetoric around that time within the church.

3. . Due to the persecutions that they were enduring the Christians began at around the same time as Hadrian’s measures, to address apologies to the emperors to try to defend their position. They also made apologies against the Jews. Since the Jews were becoming reviled throughout the empire for their rebellions, etc. it is no wonder that as they tried to reconcile with the empire they likewise tried to distinguish themselves from the Jews.

4. Hard feelings between the Jews and the Christians existed from Nero’s blaming the Christians for the fire in Rome, which many believe was incited by the Jews, for the persecution since the time of Paul, the eventual expulsion of Christians from the synagogues, etc.

5. Since after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 and 135 the church became predominantly gentile in membership and leadership there was less reminding them of their direct ties to Judaism. And it is significant that the changes in the passover reckoning and in the Sabbath seemed to happen first in Rome. This is where anti-Jewish sentiment was high, and there were the most gentile Christians. We see that the historians say they abandoned Sabbath before others on the basis of tradition, that they fasted on Sabbath when others didn’t ,etc.

While you mention that persecution happened to the Christians, it was not constant. It seemed to go in waves. One of those waves was believed by some Christians to have been spurred by the Jews convincing Nero of their guilt in the fire at Rome.

Back in Palestine, where differences between Christians and Jews were less noticeable there was a real danger of being persecuted along with the jews.

By the time of the councils Christianity was in a position of prominence in the empire, judaism was looked at as the antithesis of Christianity. But this was certainly not the case at first, with the disciples.

Christianity had gone from a group of all Jewish adherents, who observed the Torah, converted Jews in massive numbers, but also worshiped the Messiah, to a group that was antagonistic to Jews, to the Torah, etc. They no longer converted Jews in mass numbers as they used to (even for centuries according to history), because Christianity was now something foreign to Judaism.

The Gentiles who at first were grafted in, were now requiring others to become non-Jews to belong to Christianity, and called people such as the first apostles heretics.

While Paul could say that he wished he was cut off from eternal life for the sake of Israel, Chrysostom on the other hand said they were brute beasts to be killed, that their synagogues were places of devils, etc.

I would say something changed from what was original.

While the gentiles were right in not having to keep all the Mosaic restrictions, as Acts 15 upheld (though they were required to keep a few, according to the requirements of foreigners in the Torah), they were not right to reject everything Jewish, or even to call Jewish Christians heretics. Yet the councils did just that, by declaring that you should not rest on Sabbath, should rest on Sunday, etc.

The church grows, and the need for a collected canon and frequent councils become apparent. The council wasn't some state-run institution disconnected from and possibly undermining the church - they represented the church. Leaders were selected by the clear principles set out by the apostles, and they simply exercized their authority (the "keys" Jesus gave to the church).


And if you take this argument seriously then these heirs of the apostles would have considered the original apostles heretics.

However, I dont' want to give the impression that everything the coucils did was wrong. Certainly it was not. But they were shaped by the times as they were, not just by what the apostles received. A council, for the sake of unity might be necessary. But to assume that everything they do is inspired, or right, or according to apostolic tradition is a stretch.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,687
6,107
Visit site
✟1,047,692.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You are apparently viewing this from the perspective that there was some kind of great conspiracy (no doubt reasoning from the present backwards, like the Mormons do to prove the "great apostasy": things are not as we think they should be, therefore there must have been some grand corruption).

I would of course posit that you are arguing that things are as they are, therefore they must have always been that way. What you have must be the original, apostolic faith because it is what the church did. It goes both ways.

But if I am arguing from historical and biblical records, then it is a legitimate debate. And however you describe my view, or I yours it doesn’t change the debate. While you don’t have to agree with my picture, please address the historical facts instead of comparing me to your negative notions about Mormons, who are not even here to defend themselves The history can speak for itself.

The council - like the individual voices that preceded it - pointed out that there were parallel traditions: Christians keeping the sabbath according to Jewish tradition, and keeping the Sunday according to "ancient" Christian tradition. For the sake of unity and clarity, there was a need for further councils like the first one in Jerusalem. There were similar differences regarding the paschal feasts, the observances of moons and days (or not), religious dietary requirements, and even of denominations (Paul/Apollos/Cephas/Christ). These differences already existed in Paul's time, and we can see how he addressed all of them. If he had reservations about gentiles who did not keep the sabbath, or kept both the sunday and the sabbath, it stands to reason that he would have weeded it out at the root - as he did with circumcision - but he didn't.


Except that you have not proven there even were Christians who

a. were not keeping the Sabbath
b. were keeping Sunday.

You have made only one mention of Sunday evidence in the Scriptures, and that is a late night service before Paul leaves with no mention of the resurrection at all.

Meanwhile we see references to Paul preaching in the synagogue to Jews and gentiles, the Christians being hunted by Paul, who went to the synagogues to find them, we see historical evidence that they met in the synagogues, and James himself mentions the preachingof Moses on every Sabbath in Acts 15.

The fact that they didn’t bring up Sabbath observance, but did Circumcision in the council shows that Sabbath observance was not an issue.

Peter (Cephas) was head of the church in Rome, and Apollos (who "watered what Paul planted") was head of the church in Alexandria, where the tradition of keeping the Sunday originated. Paul had no problem with their teachings, and when he did, he corrected them (Gal. 2:11-16). It is significant that there it was the Jews who shied away from the gentile believers or forced them to follow Jewish customs, and they were reprimanded.

Peter died sometime between 64-68 AD according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.. And if we take Clement’s testimony, Paul’s death was around the same time. Since the earliest hint that you have of Sunday observance is likely after 70 A.D., and even that date is disputed, that doesn’t help your case.

It is only logical that the Bible reflects Jewish tradition, and through it establish the foundation of what was to become the Christian tradition. The new covenant Jesus heralded through his resurrection was the catalyst for this change. The New Testament is a record surrounding the acts of Jesus and his first apostles, not a canon of tradition. The Jewish Pascha gave way to the Eucharist without Jesus expressly announcing it "replaced", and under Peter and Paul's direction the intention of circumcision was superceded by baptism (Col. 2:11-12).

There are a few problems here:

a. Jesus did institute the eucharist as we can all see in the Bible. But we nowhere see Sunday instituted. While the Bible is an historical record, the apostles selected material from a much larger amount, as John indicates. But they clearly included what they thought was essential. Sunday appears nowhere.

b. The new covenant is spelled out in several passages, again Sunday is not present.

c. Peter and Paul did not invent baptism, or its initiation in to the faith. The disciples baptized people even during Jesus time as John records, but moreover He told them that they were to baptize into His name in Matthew 28, one of His last great commands.


To observe these changes, we have the history of the church, and there is no evidence of any conspiracy by so-called "gentiles" (as if, after Christ, there could be anything inherently wrong with being a gentile) to use Christianity as a convenient anti-semitic platfrom. That is a recent invention, and a convenient one, seeing that the Bible is 90% Jewish. It seems more likely that this trend is simply a continuation of the Judaizing influences that have always been part of the church. Paul was critical of this tendency, and explicitly includes the old sabbath observance as a stumbling block in Gal. 4:9-11 (also Col. 2:16 - cf.
’‘

a. no one alleged a conspiracy. That is your straw man. It is the events of history that shaped them. I am not blaming the church fathers. But neither am I admitting that they had the original faith. And no one said there is anything wrong with being a gentile. But certainly they made it to be something wrong with being a Jew in the councils.

Col 2 was already addressed in an earlier post. So I will address the other.

A. Paul’s issue was with their legalism, being saved by human effort instead of Christ.

B. The days spoken of in Galatians are likely not the Sabbath or feasts.

First of all, you ommitted verse 8. It is a key verse.


Gal 4:8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods.

Here he states that they were enslaved to things that are not gods. Then he goes on to say they are turning BACK TO THEM. They obviously were not keeping the Jewish days before they were even Christian.

Gal 4:9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?

Gal 4:10 You observe days and months and seasons and years!
Gal 4:11 I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.

Here he says that they are turning back to the elementary principles of the world. There are indications here, in Romans and in Col that they were blending human philosophy, pagan elements and Jewish rites into a form of legalism. In Col he warns them not to depend on human philosophy and worsihop of angels etc,. In Romans he mentions days, but he also mentions food requirements which were not Jewish, such as abstinence from all meat
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,687
6,107
Visit site
✟1,047,692.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sabbath was original to the Jews, and continued by those Jews who became Christians. They "remembered the sabbath day" (of the old creation) by celebrating God's rest on the seventh day of creation. The seventh day of the week is a copy, a shadow of the day of creation - not in itself meaningful. Christians who believe enter the reality of that rest - present tense (Heb. 4:3). The second-century fathers show that the vast majority of Christians met on Sunday and did not keep the Sabbath (110AD). They give no clues that would suggest that Sunday was a recent innovation.

Sabbath was not original to the Jews but instituted by God. Even the command uses the text in Genesis as a BASIS for the command. God was seen as making it holy in Genesis.

It was also given “for man” as a blessing to them. And was to be spent in time with God, taking our “joy in the Lord” Isaiah 58.

The rest in Hebrews was covered at length already.

The second century fathers do NOT say that the vast majority met on Sunday and did not keep Sabbath. What we see is that the vast majority of comments by fathers say that Sunday was kept, and some say that Sabbath wasn’t. In fact their comments are mixed on the facts and the reasons for them. This would not be the case if it was original.

Barnabas makes reference to some of his observations as quite novel. And the very fact that we see all of these men writing to endorse Sunday and oppose Sabbath tells you what? That no one was keeping it? Hardly. You don’t fix what doesn’t need fixing.

Moreover, the documents that survived are those that were in line with church teaching. As with most heresies we know what they taught (or were reported to) by the records of the “orthodox.” So it should not surprise us that the documents that survive often support Sunday. But even then they are far from universal in rejecting Sabbath.

While I quite agree that by the end of the second century at least Sunday observance was widespread, we see no references to Sunday being observed until the didache, around 70 AD at and some think much later.

And the historical documents are far from saying that Sabbath was not kept by the majority of Christians . Just the opposite in fact. I posted the comments to that effect in my last response:



Sozomen, 5th century http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26027.htm
The people of Constantinople, almost everywhere,emble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria.

Socrates Scholasticus, History book 5, 5th century http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26015.htm
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.

Socrates again, book 6 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.htm
The Arians, as we have said, held their meetings without the city. As often therefore as the festal days occurred—I mean Saturday[1] and Lord’s day—in each week, on which assemblies are usually held in the churches, they congregated within the city gates about the public squares, and sang responsive verses adapted to the Arian heresy (Socrates' Ecclesiastical History, Book 6, Chapter 8, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume 3, p. 144)

Add to these the documents that speak favorably of Sabbath observance, or the ones that condemn groups for Sabbath keeping, and we see that Sabbath was far from an isolated phenomenon even into the 5th century.

For that matter the Coptics keep it to this day, again a testimony to the state of the church before their rejection at the council. And churches in India did as well until recent centuries.

The picture painted by those quotes that were saved by the church are contradicted in their own histories, and in the few documents that remain.
 
Upvote 0

shadowmoses

Active Member
Jan 6, 2006
368
7
36
✟23,032.00
Faith
Christian
It's simple there is ten commandments.

If you have full faith in god,you will follow them all without doubt as jesus did.

However this discussion is about the ten commandments and the sabbath day.

I'll draw these facts out jesus kept his fathers commandments,including the sabbath day which god gave to us.

The roman catholic church changed the day to sunday.

Now what does those 2 paragraphs say .Out of the authority of the roman church the sabbath day was changed to sunday,since when does the church have authority over god and jesus?

Is it a fact to say that you can keep every day the sabbath day.That is a good question and is understandable.But we learn from the bible to go by the example of jesus and his apostles.They kept one day holy.

The 4th commandment,has direct linkage to the lines in genesis where god ordains the sabbath day out of working six days and resting on the 7th.Say the sabbath shall be kept on every day but god doesn't command that.He commands one day holy.

Think about this if god told you to jump of a cliff would you;yes you would.God told abraham to kill his son isaac,he was prepared to without question.God gave us the 4th commandment,which jesus kept on saturday ,so did his apostles,so did early christianity,so should we.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,687
6,107
Visit site
✟1,047,692.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sunday worship is a consequence of the new covenant. Therefore it is not and can never be simple a "moved Sabbath", as if Jesus made no difference. Before Jesus' resurrection, there are many indications of Him and his followers doing something on the sabbath, after his resurrection (and He was on earth for almost 5 weeks afterwards) there are none. Instead, there are numerous indications of Him and his followers doing things on the first day of the week, and you suppose this is somehow insiginificant, or circumstantial at best? Why make a point of mentioning a meeting on the first day of the week if that day was like any other, or if the significant assembly was in fact the day before, as it was for the Jews (synagogue simply means "assembly")?

First of all, you are quite right that there were many mentions of them doing things on the Sabbath.

But it is not at all true that the Sabbath is not mentioned afterwards. I have already cited the texts numerous times that indicate their assembly in synagogues, James reference to the day, etc.

But moreover, the events on Sundays also have a perfectly good reason.

1. Resurrection - Wave Sheaf

2. Pentecost-that should be obvious, pentecost.

3. The meeting before Paul left. Paul was leaving.

The fact remains there is no inclusion of Sunday in any of the discussions of the NT. The main two Sunday events have Jewish understandings attatched to them, and the disciples make no other understanding known.

And yes, when Luke mentions the timeline of Paul’s journey and includes an evening meal where a miracle happened, citing it as the first day (not resurrection day or any other thing), then I think it circumstantial at best. And it is the only reference to worship on that day.

The reason for mentioning it is that a man was raised from the dead. That seems significant.

And just because you think it is impossible does not make it so. With God, all things are possible, and changing our perspective from an earthly reality, where certain days and weeks have physical significance, to a heavenly reality, where we find (present tense) our true rest, is exactly what Jesus came to do. It's not in the gospel, it is the gospel.

a. So you admit it is not in there?
b. Then the councils were themselves a heresy because they attached significance to a day, and suggested resting.
c. If it was not in there, and the disciples did not do it, then I don't want it. I want what the original church did.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,687
6,107
Visit site
✟1,047,692.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Katarn said:
As has been said so many times, we are not bound by the legalisticness in the law. Christ came and fulfilled the Law and it is in Him the required obedience to the Law is achieved in Him. So, in Christ, we do keep this commandment legalistically. We use our freedom from the Law to worship Christ and remember that He rose from the dead [on Sunday] and that the Holy Spirit came down from heaven [on Sunday]. The two greatest events in Christianity happened on Sunday, which I find very weird if Saturday is still so totally important now.

I think I would put the crucifixion in the top two. But notice this pattern:

- Jesus died on Passover, a Jewish feast.
- Jesus rose from the dead on Nisan 16, the first fruits, a Jewish feast.
- The Spirit was poured out on Pentecost, again a Jewish feast.

No where do the apostles say that sunday is included in the new covenant. Nowhere did they attach the significance you have to the day Sunday because of those events, in all of the NT.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,687
6,107
Visit site
✟1,047,692.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
cavymom said:
The sabbath is for Israelites only:



We are saved by grace through Jesus:


Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is abundant in mercy, because of His great love that He had for us, 5 made us alive with the Messiah even though we were dead in trespasses. By grace you are saved! 6 He also raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavens, in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages He might display the immeasurable riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift-- 9 not from works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are His making, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them.

Speaking of the 10 commandments...
they are a covenant between God and Israel




a. The sabbath being for jews I addresse here:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=22818013&postcount=343

b. We are saved by grace. Not all Sabbatarians would agree with that, but most would. So it is not an issue of grace or works. The law does not save you.

c. The 10 commandments are not the covenant. The covenant is the agreement between the people. See this post: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=22903665&postcount=523

Moreover the new covenant, as quoted in Hebrews was also to Israel. I am afraid the gentiles are "grafted in" And the new covenant says the law is written on the heart.
 
Upvote 0

cavymom

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2005
1,082
85
55
✟24,175.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
tall73 said:
c. The 10 commandments are not the covenant. The covenant is the agreement between the people. See this post: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=22903665&postcount=523


The 10 commandments ARE a covenant... GOD said so


Exodus 34

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]34:27 The Lord also said to Moses, "Write down these words, for I have made a covenant with you and with Israel based on these words." [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]34:28 Moses was there with the Lord 40 days and 40 nights; he did not eat bread or drink water. He wrote down on the tablets the words of the covenant-the Ten Commandments.[/FONT]

.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,687
6,107
Visit site
✟1,047,692.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
cavymom said:
The 10 commandments ARE a covenant... GOD said so


Exodus 34

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]34:27 The Lord also said to Moses, "Write down these words, for I have made a covenant with you and with Israel based on these words." [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]34:28 Moses was there with the Lord 40 days and 40 nights; he did not eat bread or drink water. He wrote down on the tablets the words of the covenant-the Ten Commandments.[/FONT]

.

Yes, now look at the context again.
Exo 34:27 And the LORD said to Moses, "Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."
Exo 34:28 So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

What is a covenant? It is an agreement on both sides. The ten commandments are the law that the people agreed to. They are the words of the covenant. They are God's terms. So they are at the heart of the covenant. But the actual covenant is the agreement between God and the people. That is why in the NT when it refers to the old covenant it speaks of BAD PROMISES. God doesn't make bad promises. People do. That is why it says He found fault with the people.


Heb 8:6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
Heb 8:8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
Heb 8:9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more."
Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.


Now the text makes clear that the promises of the people were faulty. Therefore God makes a new covenant because they did not keep the old one. They did not uphold their promises.

Note also that it says that the old covenant was FAULTY. Is something that God gives by His own hand faulty? I don't think so. Which is why He says it is the promises, not the law that are the problem. The law is still written in the heart in the new covenant.
 
Upvote 0

Katarn

... an agent in the Army of Love.
Mar 7, 2006
104
6
The Great Southland of the Holy Spirit.
✟22,775.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Labor
rstrats said:
And yet there is not a single scripture that says that the first day of the week is to be an ongoing special day of rest and worship.

I never said Sunday was "an ongoing special day of rest and worship" - you are making this up and I'll assume that you did not mean to. What I was saying is that if the Sabbath is still so important, then why didn't these two events occur on that day? There is no [intended] implication that Sunday is the "proper" or "correct" day to worship - as I don't believe that God is a legalistic nerd that you make Him out to be since Christ fulfilled the Law and set us free from it. Worship is worship, whether its done on Monday, Tuesday, Saturday, Sunday, it doesn't matter to God - the main thing is that He is being glorified through our praise.

To me from my understanding of Scripture, I am able to worship on any day because of how Jesus fulfilled the Law - which many Sabbath keepers and SDAs seem to find it rather difficult to understand this important point of the Gospel message. The whole New Testament makes this clear; I often wonder why SDAs and the other Sabbath keepers stay in the foreshadowed Old Testament rather than live in the revealed light of the New Testament.

We worship on Sunday because we remember the Lord's resurrection that saves us, not some ancient religious command that has no revelance to us today with us being set free from the Law (it is in Christ that the required obedience to the Law, including keep the Sabbath on that set day, is accomplished) and bound by grace.

BTW, others have quoted Scriptures that support the meeting together of believers on a Sunday in remeberance of the Lord's resurrection and defeat of death. The early Apostles did it, are you saying that they too are wrong in what they taught and that you are right [in being legalistic with the Sabbath]?
 
Upvote 0

cavymom

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2005
1,082
85
55
✟24,175.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
tall73 said:
Yes, now look at the context again.


What is a covenant? It is an agreement on both sides. The ten commandments are the law that the people agreed to. They are the words of the covenant. They are God's terms. So they are at the heart of the covenant. But the actual covenant is the agreement between God and the people. That is why in the NT when it refers to the old covenant it speaks of BAD PROMISES. God doesn't make bad promises. People do. That is why it says He found fault with the people.





Now the text makes clear that the promises of the people were faulty. Therefore God makes a new covenant because they did not keep the old one. They did not uphold their promises.

Note also that it says that the old covenant was FAULTY. Is something that God gives by His own hand faulty? I don't think so. Which is why He says it is the promises, not the law that are the problem. The law is still written in the heart in the new covenant.

The covenant was faulty because the PEOPLE were faulty


Hebrews 8: 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, no opportunity would have been sought for a second one. 8 But finding fault with His people,


So God says the days are coming when there will be a new covenant ... with the House of Israel

He says: "Look, the days are coming," says the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day I took them by their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.


Why the new covenant? Because they disregarded the old covenant that was given to Moses (the covenant of the ten commandments)

Because they did not continue in My covenant, I disregarded them," says the Lord. 10 "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days," says the Lord: "I will put My laws into their minds, and I will write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they will be My people.

Now God tells us when will this new covenant come? It will come in the last days when ALL nations of the earth come against Isreal. When you see, as we see nowadays, all the nations coming against Israel to make war then.... God pours His Spirit over the House of Israel.


Zechariah 12:1 An Oracle
The word of the Lord concerning Israel.
A declaration of the Lord,
who stretched out the heavens,
laid the foundation of the earth,
and formed the spirit of man within him.

2 "Look, I will make Jerusalem a cup that causes staggering for the peoples who surround the city. The siege against Jerusalem will also involve Judah. 3 On that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who try to lift it will injure themselves severely when all the nations of the earth gather against her. 4 On that day"-the Lord's declaration-"I will strike every horse with panic and its rider with madness. I will keep a watchful eye on the house of Judah but strike all the horses of the nations with blindness. 5 Then [each of] the leaders of Judah will think to himself: The residents of Jerusalem are my strength through the Lord of Hosts, their God. 6 On that day I will make the leaders of Judah like a firepot in a woodpile, like a flaming torch among sheaves; they will consume all the peoples around them on the right and the left, while Jerusalem continues to be inhabited on its site, in Jerusalem. 7 The Lord will save the tents of Judah first, so that the glory of David's house and the glory of Jerusalem's residents may not be greater than that of Judah. 8 On that day the Lord will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the one who is weakest among them will be like David on that day, and the house of David will be like God, like the Angel of the Lord, before them.
9 On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 "Then I will pour out a spirit of grace and prayer on the house of David and the residents of Jerusalem, and they will look at Me whom they pierced. They will mourn for Him as one mourns for an only child and weep bitterly for Him as one weeps for a firstborn.

When God pours His Spirit over the House of Isreal they will see that Jesus is Lord...
therefore they will come into the new covenant!
1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I am informing you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,687
6,107
Visit site
✟1,047,692.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
cavymom said:
The covenant was faulty because the PEOPLE were faulty


Quite agreed. And the covenant was the agreement. Hence it says it was founded on bad promises.

So God says the days are coming when there will be a new covenant ... with the House of Israel


I think you are missing a salient point. The new covenant was being quoted from the Old Teatament where it was predicted in advance. (See Jeremiah 31:31) Hebrews said that the new covenant was ushered in by Jesus. He is the new High Priest of the new covenant. It is not a future event today. It was started in Jesus day.

Why the new covenant? Because they disregarded the old covenant that was given to Moses (the covenant of the ten commandments)


They did disregard the ten commandments. But you seem to be missing the definition of a covenant. A covenant is a promise. Just as God made a covenant with Abraham, and a covenant with David, and a covenant with Noah, etc.

The agreement the people made was to KEEP the ten commandments. They didn't do it. Therefore He found fault with them and their agreement.

Now God tells us when will this new covenant come? It will come in the last days when ALL nations of the earth come against Isreal. When you see, as we see nowadays, all the nations coming against Israel to make war then.... God pours His Spirit over the House of Israel.


That does not appear to be the application that the author of Hebrews makes.

This passage spells out the nature of the covenant, the timing of it, the thing that sealed it etc.

Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
Heb 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
Heb 9:13 For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh,
Heb 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
Heb 9:15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.
Heb 9:16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.
Heb 9:17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.
Heb 9:18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

Heb 9:19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,
Heb 9:20 saying, "This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you."
Heb 9:21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship.
Heb 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Heb 9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,
Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of him
self.

Jesus is the High Priest of the new covenant, which was ushered in by His death.






 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,687
6,107
Visit site
✟1,047,692.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Worship is worship, whether its done on Monday, Tuesday, Saturday, Sunday, it doesn't matter to God - the main thing is that He is being glorified through our praise.

To me from my understanding of Scripture, I am able to worship on any day because of how Jesus fulfilled the Law - which many Sabbath keepers and SDAs seem to find it rather difficult to understand this important point of the Gospel message. The whole New Testament makes this clear; I often wonder why SDAs and the other Sabbath keepers stay in the foreshadowed Old Testament rather than live in the revealed light of the New Testament.

We worship on Sunday because we remember the Lord's resurrection that saves us, not some ancient religious command that has no revelance to us today with us being set free from the Law (it is in Christ that the required obedience to the Law, including keep the Sabbath on that set day, is accomplished) and bound by grace.

BTW, others have quoted Scriptures that support the meeting together of believers on a Sunday in remeberance of the Lord's resurrection and defeat of death. The early Apostles did it, are you saying that they too are wrong in what they taught and that you are right [in being legalistic with the Sabbath]?


And if you have scriptures to cite please do so. We have already looked at numerous ones. And if you have evidence that the early apostles kept it, present that. It is not forthcoming so far. Right now we are somewhere between 70-100 AD (Didache) for the first definite reference of Sunday keeping. And even then Sunday is not mentioned, but the phrase"The Lord's Day." And strangely enough, the term Lord's day doesn't appear in the greek. They supply a substantive for day., and appear to remove the word kuriou. While there is (though quite a bit later) evidence of the phrase being used without the substantive, there is no evidence that I am aware of that allows for removing a word and replacing it with another. . Here is the actual Greek phrase:

Κατὰ κυριακὴν δὲ κυρίου συναχθέντες



Now, to again address your original point, they days you mentioned were Jewish feasts that foretold events in the Christian era. So it is not at all surprising that these events happend on that day.
 
Upvote 0

rstrats

Senior Member
Jun 27, 2002
1,889
81
Mid West
✟94,258.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Katarn,

re: " I never said Sunday was ‘an ongoing special day of rest and worship’ - you are making this up and I'll assume that you did not mean to."

Sorry for misinterpreting you. When you wrote: "We use our freedom from the Law to worship Christ and remember that He rose from the dead [on Sunday] and that the Holy Spirit came down from heaven [on Sunday]" I assumed that you were making Sunday a special day for worship.

re: "BTW, others have quoted Scriptures that support the meeting together of believers on a Sunday in remembrance of the Lord's resurrection..."

I am not aware of any scripture that says that anyone met on Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.