7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believers

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

One rule of thumb that seems to work is a Regulative Principle of worship: "That which is written stands, unless it is written that it is repealed." In other words, whatever God said to do, we must do, unless God (in His word) says otherwise.

Jesus, in this view of things, is NOT viewed as someone who abolishes the divine legislation, but rather as someone who PROPERLY EXPLAINS AND INTERPRETS the divine legislation. Thus, Jesus' doctrine (teaching) is the proper interpretation and application of the revealed will of God. And, as His doctrine is unknown except through the message of the apostles, the "apostles' doctrine" is nothing else than the doctrine of Christ.

So, looking at the new testament writings we see the doctrine of Christ, which contain the proper way to understand the "Torah" or DIVINE INSTRUCTION MANUAL FOR MANKIND.

With this perspective, I see in the new testament scriptures the following basic concepts:

1. The Levitical priesthood has been replaced by the Melchizedek priesthood of Christ.

2. The Levitical offerings have been replaced by prayer and other offerings made through the Spirit.

3. The commandments directing general human behavior (Ten Commandments, judicial ordinances, etc) stand, and I see nothing at all that would serve as a repeal of any kind, in that regards.

Essentially, anything EXPLICITLY DEPENDENT on the Levitical priesthood apparatus, or EXPLICITLY LIMITED to ordinances wholly unique to the Sinaitic covenant, have been either altered or abolished. The rest stand.

[Esaias]

Phone is dying, have to recharge, will be back later.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

First the "613" is a rabbinic statement based in Jewish numerology (different rabbis enumerate them differently but agree on the number for mystical reasons) and a lot of those mitzvot are found in the Talmud not the Bible. Just clarifying because I don't pay any mind to "613 commandments".

Second, your question gets to the heart of most every doctrinal matter. So it's a very good question. It amounts to this: "As a worshipper of God, which instructions in the Bible am I to follow?" Historically, most of Christendom answered that question by postulating the division of law into moral, civil, and ceremonial. Unfortunately, that is neither a Biblical classification scheme nor is it very helpful, as indicated by the fact there has been unending debate as to which category various laws belong.

The Westminster Confession says this:

BESIDE this Law commonly called Moral God was pleased to give the people of Israel as a Church under age Ceremoniall Laws containing severall typicall ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties, all which Ceremoniall Laws are now abrogated under the New Testament.
4

TO them also as a body politick he gave sundry judiciall laws which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now further then the generall equity thereof may require
5

THE Moral Law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience therof, and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it, neither doth Christ in the gospell any way dissolve but much strengthen this obligation.
6

ALTHOUGH true believers be not under the Law as a Covenant of Works to be thereby justified or condemned yet it is of great use to them as well as to others in that as a rule of life informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly discovering also the sinfull pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives, so as examining themselves thereby they may come to further conviction of humiliation for and hatred against sin together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions in that it forbids sin and the threatnings of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them although freed from the curse thereof threatned in the Law. The promises of it in like manner shew them Gods approbation of obedience and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof although not as due to them by the Law as a Covenant of Works so as a mans doing good and refraining from evil because the law encourageth to the one and deterreth from the other is no evidence of his being under the Law and not under Grace.

Again, though, this division of the law into moral, ceremonial, and civil has no basis in Scripture itself.

My understanding and take on all this is as follows:

1. The laws, commandments, statutes, judgments, ordinances etc of God are statements of God's will on whatever subject they speak of.

2. These laws were incorporated within and made the basis of the Covenant God made with Israel, to instruct Israel how to live. They were not wholly dependent on the Covenant, though, but exist by virtue of God's nature and will. Thus, for example, idolatry and murder were sins long before Sinai, and therefore are independent of that Covenant as an obligatory rule of behavior.

3. Included within the Sinaitic covenant were various ordinances peculiar to the Covenant, as the establishing of Levitical priesthood, the various regulations concerning offerings, the various regulations concerning washings etc etc. Also, there was specific legislation made concerning the land of Israel, such as the particular tribal allotments, the identity of the cities of refuge, etc.

4. There are also laws that, while specific to Israel in the land under the Old covenant, nevertheless demonstrate principles, such as laws regarding taking a chiton (cloak) for collateral, carrying a paddle (shovel) to dig latrines outside the camp, etc.

5. The inauguration of the New covenant meant the laws of God would be placed in the hearts and minds of His people. This would secure their obedience to His laws. The New covenant therefore is NOT about not being obligated to obey "those pesky old testament laws" but rather is all about obtaining pardon for not keeping them and power to obey.

6. Yet, it is undeniable that SOME are no longer in force: Levitical priesthood is not a function of the New covenant (rather it is Melchizedekian), the physical temple, animal sacrifices, etc.

The Big Question following from #6 is "What has expired, what has not?"

Many things have not simply expired, but rather been transformed. For example, the earthly temple and its ritual is transformed into the spiritual temple (ecclesia) and its divine service, incense and offerings are now done in the form of prayer, praise, and a life of obedience, and so forth.

Other commands, however, have undergone no change whatsoever except in the location where the law is written. Do no murder, for example, is just as valid now, everywhere, as it was in ancient Israel, in Noah's day, and before. The difference is it is not written on a stone table but in the new heart that God gives us.

So how do we determine what has changed, what has not? That is a primary subject of inquiry for every DISCIPLE (student) of Jesus.

Esaias I agree with so much of what you have said here. I’m hoping that we can rise above trying to prove the other wrong and actually learn something here. I’m using a phone so I’m not able to make this all pretty and answer you point for point, I apologize for that.

To your point about the different classifications of the law, I agree wholeheartedly. It is an attempt to justify a position that is not found in the scripture. It may seem logical but it is nothing more than a guess.

However, you seem to be doing the same with your theory. You quote a principle of study that seems to be extra-biblical. The Bible declares that there are two covenants. You seem to believe that the Old Covenant has been modified and the New Covenant is the result of the modification of the Old. A lot of people believe this. I have believed it myself. However there is a problem. The Bible doesn’t SAY that is the case. It says we have a NEW covenant and the OLD is ready to crumble into dust.

So if we have two covenants and one is for the Jews exclusively (as the Bible says) and the NEW includes the Gentiles (which the OLD excludes) why not just accept that?

I think perhaps what trips people up is that the two covenants look so similar in many ways. As you said, murder is still wrong. Adultery is still wrong. Coveting is wrong. There are many similarities but there are also many differences. Whether you believe there are 613 commandments or not under the Old Covenant, I believe we can agree that there were a lot. Many of these were not recanted or deemed obsolete in the Bible.

Should we be surprised that the two covenants look similar? God is a party to both, after all. But there are many differences and I know we agree on at least one; the NEW is superior to the OLD.

Think about it and let me know what you come up with.

Thanks

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

However, you seem to be doing the same with your theory. You quote a principle of study that seems to be extra-biblical. The Bible declares that there are two covenants. You seem to believe that the Old Covenant has been modified and the New Covenant is the result of the modification of the Old. A lot of people believe this. I have believed it myself. However there is a problem. The Bible doesn’t SAY that is the case. It says we have a NEW covenant and the OLD is ready to crumble into dust.

I do not believe the old covenant has simply been modified, it has been superceded by the new covenant. Your characterization of my belief is not accurate. The new is not a result or product of a modification of the old. It is the replacement of the old.

So if we have two covenants and one is for the Jews exclusively (as the Bible says)

Where does the Bible say the old covenant is "for the Jews exclusively"?

and the NEW includes the Gentiles (which the OLD excludes) why not just accept that?

With whom does the Bible say the new covenant was made? And, where does the Bible "exclude the Gentiles from the old covenant"? (What exactly do you mean by that? Canaanites were excluded, but I don't see where Gentiles were excluded; they could not only follow God's ways but could join the Covenant via conversion. So please clarify what you mean.)

I think perhaps what trips people up is that the two covenants look so similar in many ways. As you said, murder is still wrong. Adultery is still wrong. Coveting is wrong. There are many similarities but there are also many differences. Whether you believe there are 613 commandments or not under the Old Covenant, I believe we can agree that there were a lot. Many of these were not recanted or deemed obsolete in the Bible.

Should we be surprised that the two covenants look similar? God is a party to both, after all. But there are many differences and I know we agree on at least one; the NEW is superior to the OLD.

Think about it and let me know what you come up with.

Thanks

Still not sure what you mean by "not recanted"?

What does Hebrews 8:7-13 mean to you, especially the middle part of verse 10, in the context of this discussion?

BTW, I use my phone exclusively. It's a pain.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I do not believe the old covenant has simply been modified, it has been superceded by the new covenant. Your characterization of my belief is not accurate.

I don’t mean to mis-characterize your beliefs, but you are saying that keeping the Sabbath is for us today, but you are picking that out of the old covenant and bringing it forward. Where does the Bible say that keeping the Sabbath is part of the new covenant?

As to your question regarding where in the Bible does it say that the Old Covenant was exclusively for Jews?

Many places. For instance:

Deut.5

[1] And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.
[2] The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
[3] The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

This is one example that is pretty specific concerning the covenant of Sinai.

Originally Posted by Esaias

With whom does the Bible say the new covenant was made? And, where does the Bible "exclude the Gentiles from the old covenant"? (What exactly do you mean by that? Canaanites were excluded, but I don't see where Gentiles were excluded; they could not only follow God's ways but could join the Covenant via conversion. So please clarify what you mean.)

See above. When they converted, they essentially became Jews. As Gentiles they were not included in the covenant.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Still not sure what you mean by "not recanted"?

For example your good ole Texas bbq pork ribs were not legal under Mosaic law. Do you believe it is sinful (even for a Jew) to eat pork, or shrimp, or catfish or oysters?

If not, can you show where the Bible declares that it is okay for Jews to partake of these foods?

Originally Posted by Esaias

What does Hebrews 8:7-13 mean to you, especially the middle part of verse 10, in the context of this discussion?

The new covenant is for the Jews first and also for the Gentiles as prophesied in Malachi. We (as Gentiles) however do not convert to Judaism as they had to in the Old Covenant. There is no partition between Jew and Gentile anymore (Paul). Hebrews is telling the Jews (Hebrews) who were Christians (the church at Jerusalem) that the new covenant was superior and that the Old was about to go away. The Jews at Jerusalem were very reluctant to relinquish the traditions of the law as evidenced in Acts. They were also deeply racist (for lack of a better word) towards the Gentiles because of their traditions and their laws, as evidenced by Paul withstanding Peter to his face when James came and Peter chose to not break bread with the Gentile

Originally Posted by Esaias

BTW, I use my phone exclusively. It's a pain.

I’m with you there. I’ve gotta go.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I don’t mean to mis-characterize your beliefs, but you are saying that keeping the Sabbath is for us today, but you are picking that out of the old covenant and bringing it forward. Where does the Bible say that keeping the Sabbath is part of the new covenant?

Would I be cherry picking if I took the first commandment "out of the old covenant" and said it is for people today? See, this is where the confusion comes in. The laws of God pre existed the Old Covenant*. Those laws were enacted as part of the old covenant. Those laws were not repealed by the ending of the old covenant. Those laws are written in the heart of those who receive the new covenant. Those laws were incorporated WITHIN the old covenant, but as I said - and you appeared to agree - they are not wholly dependent on the old covenant for their existence.

As to your question regarding where in the Bible does it say that the Old Covenant was exclusively for Jews?

Many places. For instance:

Deut.5

[1] And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.
[2] The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
[3] The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

This is one example that is pretty specific concerning the covenant of Sinai.

Did you notice the word "Jews" was mysteriously absent from the passage you cited? I do not think you understand the Biblical difference between "Jews" and ISRAEL.

See above.

The Bible tells us with whom the new covenant was made: Heb 8 says it was made "with the house of Israel and the house of Judah."

When they converted, they essentially became Jews. As Gentiles they were not included in the covenant.

I never said Gentiles were included in the covenant. I asked where they were excluded. Gentiles could serve God and be classed as "righteous" without getting circumcised, OR they could go full bore and get circumcised. They were not simply "excluded" in the sense of not being allowed entrance at all under all circumstances.

For example your good ole Texas bbq pork ribs were not legal under Mosaic law. Do you believe it is sinful (even for a Jew) to eat pork, or shrimp, or catfish or oysters?

Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean animals, Paul said every creature of God is to be received upon condition of its being sanctified (set apart) by two things: prayer, and the word of God (1 Tim 4:5). The word of God sanctifies various animals for human consumption, and excludes certain others (pork, shellfish, spiders, snakes, etc). Therefore the distinction between clean and unclean existed prior to Sinai among gentiles, at Sinai, and after the cross to today.

The new covenant is for the Jews first and also for the Gentiles as prophesied in Malachi.

In Malachi God rebuked the priests for not upholding, teaching, and practicing faithfully God's law, and He promised to purify the people from their disobedience, and told them to remember the law given by Moses with the statutes and judgments (Mal 3:7, Mail 4:4, etc).

We (as Gentiles) however do not convert to Judaism as they had to in the Old Covenant. There is no partition between Jew and Gentile anymore (Paul). Hebrews is telling the Jews (Hebrews) who were Christians (the church at Jerusalem) that the new covenant was superior and that the Old was about to go away. The Jews at Jerusalem were very reluctant to relinquish the traditions of the law as evidenced in Acts.

Agreed.

They were also deeply racist (for lack of a better word) towards the Gentiles because of their traditions and their laws, as evidenced by Paul withstanding Peter to his face when James came and Peter chose to not break bread with the Gentile

Racism is a term invented by Trotsky as a propaganda device to attack and belittle those not willing to submit to pan-Soviet international communism.

There is ZILCH NADA NOTHING in the law of God prohibiting an Israelite under the old covenant from entering a gentile's house or eating with a gentile. Pharisees, however, had numerous Talmudic manmade regulations they called "the law" which prohibited such things, the violation of which they called sin, and obedience to which they expected all Jews to conform. Peter's problem was he submitted to Jewish TALMUDIC LAW which Jesus Himself repeatedly condemned.

Not sure what any of that has to do with Sabbath observance, though.

* (except for those laws clearly enacted as part of the old covenant, such as the rules concerning offerings, the priesthood, etc)

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

We are talking about HOLY DAYS. KEEPING HOLY DAYS. Thinking God wants us to keep a specific day HOLY. This is the issue because the disagreement came form whether or not DAYS to be kept are HOLY DAYS from Law or HOLY DAYS from PAGANISM.

Reach all you want, but that's the issue and you cannot dodge it.

You assert that you can do everything a "keeper" of a day does, but as long as you don't think you are required to do it, or that the day is genuinely holy, then you aren't "keeping" that day.

I have shown repeatedly how absurd that is.

Your dogged insistence on holding on to that indefensible claim is instructive.

Your post, although voluminous, is simply repeating the same errors you have been putting forth from page one of this thread. Errors which I have (repeatedly) addressed. The law genders to bondage, and from this you conclude that a person who obeys the fourth commandment is in bondage. ONCE AGAIN MAY I REMIND YOU that YOUR LINE OF REASONING leads NECESSARILY to the conclusion that a person who literally obeys the first and second (or ANY of the ten commandments) is "in bondage". This in turn necessarily means that bondage = obeying God's commandments, and THEREFORE freedom = BREAKING GOD'S COMMANDMENTS.

"Stop misrepresenting me" you say. "I teach we are to obey God and not sin" you say. But your argumentation against Sabbath keeping follows a very different trajectory.

You are not consistent in your theology, doctrine, and reasoning. You maintain moral obligation to obey God, while simultaneously using arguments against Sabbath keeping that necessarily overthrow moral obligation in general.

And this is what you cannot see. You cannot see the full force of your own argumentation. Part of this is due to a very inconsistent use and understanding of terms, like "law". You change your phraseology often as these discussions develop, indicating you really haven't dug down deep enough into the subject(s) to maintain consistent reasoning on the matter.

Understand, I am not complaining about your "failure to agree with me that you should keep Sabbath." What I am saying is you are in effect "all over the place" and honestly don't have a genuinely coherent strategy or doctrinal approach (line upon line) for your position. I know you don't see that, but think your posts here are iron clad rock solid "Anyone with two brain cells can see what I'm saying" types of argumentation.

But with practically every post, you make crazy statements that just defy common sense, you say things that make me wonder if you are even reading what you are responding to, you repeat claims without demonstration of proof as if mere repetition is all the proof needed, you ignore basic grammar in some texts, you definitely fail to actually address numerous points I make, you wave off things by saying "hoops" or "weak" or "reaching" as if Tourrette's style posts actually have any impact on anything, and you often do not seem to even recognize the difference between pointing out logical inconsistencies in your argument vs making straw man or ad hominem fallacies or intentional misrepresentation of your position.

I notice that you pass by refutations while posting long posts (often in multiple colours, for effect) in what looks like an attempt to simply drown out the objections and bury them and so "prove by volume of words" what you believe. I notice you make some serious mistakes in incredibly simple and fundamental matters, which to me is clear evidence you literally don't know what you're talking about, neither whereof you affirm, in many cases.

You make a claim, I take it apart and demonstrate the problems with your logic, and you respond by just saying I'm "dodging" things? Dear brother, this is not a discussion, much less a debate. It's become a circus going nowhere except circles.

I mean, you have gotten so desperate to defend your position you are reduced to claiming a person can basically keep a pagan holy day but as long as they tell themselves they aren't keeping a holy day, then they aren't! How can I be expected to carry on an intelligent conversation when we've reached such a point?

[Esaias]

The most common error I see made by antisabbatarians is confusion concerning the word law.

They read a scripture that says "you are not under law but grace" or something to that effect and MAKE THE IRRATIONAL JUMP to "keeping the Sabbath is not for those under grace, it's going back under the law."

They cannot see that what they are actually arguing is "under grace we are NOT TO OBEY GOD'S COMMANDMENTS".

Is it going back under law to honour your father and mother? To not bear false witness? To not profane the Lord's name?

When confronted with this, they quickly realize "I can't argue about going under law because obviously my arguments lead to absurdities" so they immediately switch gears and adopt a different approach: "Well, we DO keep Sabbath, just not the day, cause that's carnal worldly ritualism and we're above all that now."

When it is pointed out that a) this means we don't have to obey the other nine commandments LITERALLY AS WRITTEN, and that b) this means Christians shouldn't baptize or take communion or have church at stated regular times (cause "ritual"), they switch to a different approach, often just going back to the first "we're not under law" blah blah blah. If argument A is refuted, they pull out argument B. If that is refuted they pull out C. If that is refuted they go back to A as if that was never even addressed or heard of before, much less refuted. I guess they hope everyone by then will have forgotten that A was addressed and refuted?

And on it goes, round and round.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The most common error I see made by antisabbatarians is confusion concerning the word law.

They read a scripture that says "you are not under law but grace" or something to that effect and MAKE THE IRRATIONAL JUMP to "keeping the Sabbath is not for those under grace, it's going back under the law."

They cannot see that what they are actually arguing is "under grace we are NOT TO OBEY GOD'S COMMANDMENTS".

Is it going back under law to honour your father and mother? To not bear false witness? To not profane the Lord's name?

When confronted with this, they quickly realize "I can't argue about going under law because obviously my arguments lead to absurdities" so they immediately switch gears and adopt a different approach: "Well, we DO keep Sabbath, just not the day, cause that's carnal worldly ritualism and we're above all that now."

When it is pointed out that a) this means we don't have to obey the other nine commandments LITERALLY AS WRITTEN, and that b) this means Christians shouldn't baptize or take communion or have church at stated regular times (cause "ritual"), they switch to a different approach, often just going back to the first "we're not under law" blah blah blah. If argument A is refuted, they pull out argument B. If that is refuted they pull out C. If that is refuted they go back to A as if that was never even addressed or heard of before, much less refuted. I guess they hope everyone by then will have forgotten that A was addressed and refuted?

And on it goes, round and round.

You never responded to my words on gal 4:21-24 which prove the galatians were desiring to be under law which was worded before that as Desiring to be under the Elements of the world. If he's talking about law, Which chapter 3 clearly says he is, and then he mentions days months and years, then what are the days months and years under law?

And for the umpteenth time I'm telling you that we're not breaking any law of the Ten Commandments, but we're actually keeping the Sabbath in a greater way than a day. That's not violating the day. That's keeping what the Sabbath was meant to point toward. the New Testament clearly says we're not to keep days months and years of law, and Sabbath day is a day from the old Covenant, it is keeping law to do the old Covenant version of the Sabbath day. It is not keeping the law to do the new Testament version of the Sabbath. Show me one person one person before Moses in the entire Old Testament who ever kept the Sabbath day. Show me where it is.

[mfblume]

Please show me how Galatians 4: 21's reference to their desire to be under law corresponds to their desire to be under the elements of the world. I hope by now you should realize that the elements the world are indeed law. Verse 21 proves it. Maybe you can come up with a better explanation than I am, cuz you are sharp, if you just admit that the elements of the world are law. Bondage of the elements of the world has to be the same bondage that's in verse 24 where the law, the old Covenant, genders to bondage. Explain that. law according to verses 21 through 24