7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believers

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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 The Levitical priesthood has been replaced by the Melchizedek priesthood of Christ.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 The Levitical offerings have been replaced by prayer and other offerings made through the Spirit.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.

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I do not believe the old covenant has simply been modified, it has been superceded by the new covenant.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

I absolutely agree that the old was superseded by the new. That being the case, how can #3 in your list be true? Are we not given enough direction in the NT to operate properly? The new covenant containing many of the same principles/commands as the old covenant shouldn't necessitate the keeping of other aspects of the old covenant that are not present in the new. The old has been done away with, correct?

I don't believe we are to abstain from murder, theft, etc. because they are found in the Ten Commandments. I believe we are to abstain because the new covenant says so.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Ehud

I absolutely agree that the old was superseded by the new. That being the case, how can #3 in your list be true? Are we not given enough direction in the NT to operate properly? The new covenant containing many of the same principles/commands as the old covenant shouldn't necessitate the keeping of other aspects of the old covenant that are not present in the new. The old has been done away with, correct?

I don't believe we are to abstain from murder, theft, etc. because they are found in the Ten Commandments. I believe we are to abstain because the new covenant says so.

Where does the new covenant say so? Or do you mean the new testament scriptures?

A lot of people believe that "what isn't repeated in the new testament is repealed". But this is an error. The old testament scriptures were not repealed or abolished, and replaced by a new Bible called the new testament.

Consider this: Deut 22:5 is nowhere stated or repeated in the new testament. Do we therefore conclude that cross dressing is now acceptable? Ex 22:19, Lev 18:23, Lev 20:15-16, and Deut 27:21 forbid bestiality, but none are repeated in the new testament. Shall we conclude that bestiality is no longer sin?

The new testament does not contain an abolishment of the commandments written in the old testament, nor do they contain a replacement legislation. Rather, the new testament affirms the validity of the commandments written in the old testament. Romans 1 lists a series of sins, but not as "thou shalt nots", as if Paul were handing out new replacement laws. Rather Paul is simply confirming that what the old testament specifies as sin is indeed sin. And Romans 1:32 confirms the continuing validity of the judgments written in the law, that these are capital sins incurring the death penalty.

People confuse the old testament scriptures with the old covenant. Same with the new. According the new testament scriptures, the old testament scriptures are instruction that teaches us what righteousness is and what it looks like (2 Tim 3:15-17).

The covenant is the arrangement God has with His people. The testaments (as divisions of the Bible) are the writings which speak about the covenants.

The new covenant takes the laws of God and writes them in the hearts and minds of believers. What laws? The laws of God, which are recorded throughout the old testament writings.

The old covenant has been replaced by the new covenant but this does not mean the old testament scriptures have been replaced by the new testament scriptures. I mean, why have a whole Bible, if the old testament scriptures have been repealed and contain nothing that outlines our moral obligations?

But, as we can see, that is far from the case. Here's what the new testament scriptures say about the old testament scriptures:

And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? (Mark 12:24)

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matt 4:4)

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

These and others show the new testament approach and opinion concerning the old testament scriptures.

Again, to simplify, there are the various commands of God (which reveal God's will), there is the old covenant (an agreement made with Israel at Sinai, in which the commands of God were incorporated and written on tables of stone and in a book of the law), there is the old testament (the writings made during the period of the old covenant), the new covenant (made by Jesus in which the laws of God were/are written on tables of flesh in the heart and mind by the Spirit), and the new testament scriptures (the writings made after the new covenant went into effect).

The new testament scriptures are the record of the apostles' teaching, which demonstrates the proper interpretation and application of the torah (instruction, or "law") of God.

Note: the term "law" as used in the Bible has various meanings depending on context. It can mean the commands of God, it can mean the five books of Moses, it can mean the entire old testament scriptures, it can mean the whole Bible old and new testaments, it can mean the old Sinaitic covenant, it can mean the Pharisees' doctrine and interpretation of the old testament scriptures or of the commands or of the covenant, it can mean a custom, it can mean the power or rule or dominion of something (anything), etc. Misunderstanding of apostolic doctrine results when we do not keep that in mind.

For example, "we are not under the law". Does this mean we are not under obligation to obey God's instructions on how we are to live? Since sin is the transgression of the law, this would mean Christians cannot possibly sin no matter what they did! Or does it mean we are no longer under the curse of the old covenant, no longer under the old covenant, and/or no longer under the curse(s) of the commandments which apply to the disobedient (commandment breakers)?

Not being "under the law" doesn't mean we can now transgress the law with impunity, as if the laws of God have been repealed. Which means it doesn't mean we can forget the Sabbath day by not keeping it holy. Sin is still sin, and sin is violation of God's commandments.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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?

I already showed you this numerous times. I pointed out his phrase IS NOT USED FOR GOD'S APPOINTED DAYS in either the old testament or even in contemporary Jewish writings. Other scholars agree, Paul is referring to a pagan astrological calendar. I addressed the fact they were going BACK to their preChristian religious practices which were heathen. YES they were interested in being circumcised, I pointed out they were being influenced by a JEWISH GNOSTIC HERESY which many other scholars AGREE. I pointed out the internal evidence of Paul's words that the heretic teachers were NOT just promoting Sabbath keeping or obeying God's commandments, but were doing something ELSE. I demonstrated how if your understanding is correct Paul's words would HAVE NO WEIGHT AGAINST THE HERESY!!! Because he REMINDS the Galatians a circumcised man is indebted to do THE WHOLE LAW, and the heretics according to Paul were NOT DOING THAT. Which means this is a JEWISH GNOSTIC HERESY, not people trying to obey God's commandments.

BUT you not only rejected that evidence you just waved it away without actually interacting with the evidence. Argumentum ad nauseum (merely repeating your claims), in other words.

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.

No, rather for the umpteenth time you are repeating your assertion WITHOUT PROOF and more importantly WITHOUT DEALING WITH THE POINT BY POINT EXPLICATED REFUTATION I ALREADY GAVE OF THIS SPECIOUS "ARGUMENT".

And I'm not interested in repeating all this YET AGAIN just to have you post one or more 10000 character multi font multi color posts that never actually deal with the data but which just repeat your assertions.

You do NOT keep the Fourth Commandment because it SAYS THE SEVENTH DAY... D A Y ... IS THE SABBATH OF JEHOVAH. It says remember the Sabbath DAY to keep IT holy. Your argument about higher deeper spiritual obedience that does away with obligation to do what it actually says is false, because if it were true IT WOULD MEAN AS LONG AS I LOVE GOD AND THE CHURCH I DONT HAVE TO HONOUR MY LITERAL PARENTS. This - your approach - is EXACTLY and LITERALLY what Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for, coming up with pious spiritual sounding LOOPHOLES to avoid doing what is LITERALLY COMMANDED.

You consistently refuse to actually deal with ANY point made to you. You just wave away objections and repeat claims without proof. When your arguments are refuted you never deal with it, you just say "weak".

Well, all your arguments are weak. So there.

[Esaias]

Brother Blume, you are attempting to say that in Gal 4:9 the Galatians desired to be under bondage to the elements. Then, in Gal 4:21 they are desiring to be under the law. Therefore, you conclude the elements are the law, this is bondage, and not for Christians.

But please notice something:

to them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. (1 Cor 9:21)

If what you say is true, then Paul affirmed he was in bondage to the weak and beggarly elements of the world "under Christ" (as a Christian). This is clearly nonsensical, so the only rational conclusion is your interpretation of Galatians is ERROR.

[Esaias]

Galatians 3

5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

What is the subject matter of discussion here? What is the controversy? What exactly is the point of contention? Is it a contention between those who obey God's commands vs those who, as Christians, have sought to avoid obeying the commands of God? Is that what's going on here? Of course not.

The issue is justification, and the mechanism by which justification is secured. On the one hand is "the law" which is the old covenant. Not the old testament scriptures, not the commandments, statutes, judgments of God written in the old testament scriptures, but the Sinaitic covenant. On the other hand, is "faith". Not the new testament scriptures, not "not keeping those old testament commandments", but FAITH IN JESUS, ie apostolic Christianity, the new covenant.

The Galatians did not receive the Spirit because they were members of the old covenant, nor does the Spirit operate in them and in their assembly because they got circumcised and maintained the requirements of the old covenant. Rather, these things happened because they put their faith in Jesus and submitted to the apostolic teaching and entered the new covenant. What, by the way, is one of the workings of the Spirit in the new covenant?

Ezekiel 11
19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: 20 that they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God. 21 But as for them whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their way upon their own heads, saith the Lord GOD.

Ezekiel 36
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Those who are of the law, or "of the works of the law", are not those who obey the commandments of God. No, they are those who seek justification by adherence to the terms of the old covenant (including circumcision and Levitical sin offerings). They are under "the curse" because the old covenant pronounces that anyone who fails to keep all the commands and ordinances of God AS THE TERMS OF JUSTIFICATION are cursed. The law is not of faith because the terms of justification under law is based on one's obedience to the commands of God, whereas the terms of justification under "faith", that is, the new covenant, is faith in Jesus.

But this does not at all mean that faith in Jesus results in not obeying the commands of God:

Romans 6

15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. 19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

Obeying God's commandments is NOT legalism, nor is it being or going under the law. It is instead the work of the Spirit by faith in Jesus as a result of entering the new covenant. Sabbath keeping is not a mechanism for being justified, it is a symptom of being justified by the grace of God!

[Esaias]

Which demonstrates that ANY INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT that results in you NOT obeying God's commandments, is very likely to be error and quite possibly a damnable heresy.

"What about circumcision? That's commanded by God!" Yes, but for who and for what purpose? It is NOT commanded for gentiles, for the purpose of being justified. Thus Paul very consistently taught that gentiles have no need to be circumcised, and that Jews have no need to be UNcircumcised. Are you a gentile? Then there is no demand, under EITHER covenant, for you to be circumcised, UNLESS you choose to enter the OLD covenant and find your righteousness that way. Which very properly means you will have fallen from grace and Christ is doing you no good.

THAT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CHRISTIANS OUGHT TO OBEY GOD'S COMMANDMENTS.

"The Sabbath was for Jews, like circumcision, so as a gentile it's not for me."

Jesus said the Sabbath was made "for man", not just Jews (Mark 2:27). There were no Jews on the seventh day of Creation when the Sabbath was instituted. God prophesied through Isaiah all nations, all flesh, would observe the Sabbath (Isaiah 66:23). Israel was told to REMEMBER the Sabbath day to keep it holy, because it signifies Jehovah is the Creator. They are told to remember something already in effect, not something newly created.

[Esaias]

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

Let's be noble like the Bereans, and receive the message with all readiness of mind, and search the Scriptures to see if Sabbath keeping is to be done away with by the New Covenant, shall we?

What Scriptures did the Bereans have, to search through, to verify that the things they were being told was correct? The only Scriptures they had were what we call the Old Testament.

So, pull out the Old Testament, and using the Old Testament only, demonstrate whether or not the following doctrine is true: The Scriptures teach that God's people would no longer keep the Sabbath (the seventh day) holy, the seventh day Sabbath will be done away with, replaced, or altered, or that the Sabbath was never meant to be obeyed by abstaining from ordinary work on the seventh day of the week but is to be obeyed by merely being a Christian without regard to any day of the week.

Show your work.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Where does the...

Thank you very much for the response. I appreciate it.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

Let's be noble like the Bereans, and receive the message with all readiness of mind, and search the Scriptures to see if Sabbath keeping is to be done away with by the New Covenant, shall we?

What Scriptures did the Bereans have, to search through, to verify that the things they were being told was correct? The only Scriptures they had were what we call the Old Testament.

So, pull out the Old Testament, and using the Old Testament only, demonstrate whether or not the following doctrine is true: The Scriptures teach that God's people would no longer keep the Sabbath (the seventh day) holy, the seventh day Sabbath will be done away with, replaced, or altered, or that the Sabbath was never meant to be obeyed by abstaining from ordinary work on the seventh day of the week but is to be obeyed by merely being a Christian without regard to any day of the week.

Show your work.

Esaias,

You want me to show my work. I like that. So I'm going to show my work, but first allow me to get some generalities out of the way.

First, I have respect for you and your knowledge of the Bible and your willingness to teach. Secondly, I am not going to spend three to five days arguing with you about whether you are right or I am right. At some point you just have to let it go.

And third . . . I believe that you and Bro. Blume are both wrong to some extent. I'm going to state my case, and then I may not be able to spend much time on it for a few days. I'll try to make it a clear as possible.

The question that everyone should consider is: To what extent does the Old Covenant apply to me? I asked that question of you, if you recall. You said it was a good question. You said something like, "It goes to the heart of most doctrine". What you didn't do is answer the question.

It was not an idle question. I believe that it is crucial to the subject at hand. I think it would be good for every Christian to ask himself this question, if for no other reason than it requires thought. So let me answer this question for myself.

First let me address why I believe you and Bro. Blume are both at least partially wrong. You both begin with an assumption that the ten commandments are for us today. You believe they all are for us today, while Brother Blume believes they are all for us today, with the exception of the keeping of the Sabbath Day.

Then I come along and I believe that NONE of the ten commandments are for us today!! Imagine that!

I intend to support my conclusion with scripture (show my work). It won't be in fifty words or less, so be patient.

[Tithesmeister]

The Old Covenant

So let's go back to the roots of the old covenant. Just to clarify, I am referring to the Sinaitic covenant. The covenant was a "deal" between God and the Israelites. Some of the fundamental elements (I know that phrase is redundant) of the covenant were these;

1. The parties of the covenant, or agreement.

As I stated earlier, the agreement was between God and the Israelites.

2. The Land

Part of the covenant was that God would give them land. The promised land. This land is referred to many times in scripture as the land that I have given thee. So the land was part of the covenant.

3. The law.

Now as you have pointed out Esaias, the term "LAW" means different things to different people. I want to carefully clarify that "the law" as I will use it means the Mosaic law that was given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai. It REALLY was God's law, but we sometimes refer to it as Moses law because God gave it to him. This law includes the ten commandments, as well as the other laws that were delivered to Moses.

4. Time:

Another fundamental aspect of the old covenant is that it was only to endure for a limited time. The Israelites did not keep their part of the bargain, so God replaced it with another NEW COVENANT that was superior. In the words of Esaias the OLD COVENANT was superseded by the NEW.

Now I will post scripture to prove that the Old Covenant (and more specifically, the keeping of the Sabbath) was not for me.

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.

Now if you'll take notice of the words that I have highlighted, Moses says that God made the covenant with Israel, specifically the ones that were alive the day that he spoke to them. He doesn't mention Gentiles and he doesn't mention Christians, nor does he mention me, or (come to think of it, Esaias or Brother Blume).

Moses even goes so far as to specifically EXCLUDE their fathers from the covenant. There goes the theory that the law of this covenant applies to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel).

I once believed that the ten commandments were mine to follow. The problem is that the Bible doesn't say so. It was for the Israelites. I am NOT an Israelite! . . .

and I suspect that Esaias and Bro. Blume aren't Israelites any more than I am.

Let's move onto the land. God agreed to give them the promised land. I do not own any land in Israel. I don't know for sure, but I highly suspect that Esaias and Brother Blume don't own any more land in Israel than I do. If any of the rest of you believe that the Old Covenant applies to you, I would suggest that you check to see if you own any land in Israel. It is a foolproof way to know if you are a party to the Old Covenant. If you (or your family) don't own any land, AND you are NOT a Levite, then you weren't in on the deal (covenant) either. No land? No covenant. Isn't that pretty simple?

3. If you are not an Israelite and you don't own land in Israel, and you're not a Levite (the Levites didn't get land) then the law did not apply to you. If you believe that it has since mysteriously begun to apply to you, perhaps you should read the above again. Or show me in the Bible where the old covenant began to apply to you, and go get your land, because that was God's part of the deal. ANNNND God always keeps his end of the deal.

4. Time

Once more I will post scripture to support that the coupon is expired on the Old Covenant, even if you are a Jew.

Hebrews 8

[8] For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
[13] In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


So about two thousand years ago, God made a new covenant with the Jews, and His OTHER OLD COVENANT with the JEWS (not Gentiles) was about to vanish away. So I'm going to say, based on these conditions, that the Old Covenant was never offered to me. I wasn't offered the deal, I didn't get my portion of the promised land, the law didn't apply to me (the only time I have been accused of burnt offerings is when I'm grilling) and the coupon expired two thousand years ago.

Annnndd the commandment to keep the sabbath did not apply to Abraham . . .

or Isaac . . .

or Jacob . . .

or me . . .

or Esaias . . .

Or Brother Blume.

And it no longer applies to the Jews!