7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believers

[Esaias]

Tithesmeister, thank you for taking the time to respond. Just a quick question:

If, as you say, the Ten Commandments were given only to Israel, and therefore only applied to Israel, then how does it not follow that nobody but Israelites could be guilty of, say, murder, or adultery, or bearing false witness, etc?

Your understanding seems to say "the Fourth Commandment was only given to Israel, as part of the old covenant. Only Israelites were obligated to those commandments, and besides that covenant has been replaced, so none of those Ten Commandments apply to me." Is that not an accurate restatement of your position?

If so, then why does idolatry, adultery, murder, theft, coveting, bearing false witness, etc, produce guilt in non Israelites, that is, anyone with whom the covenant was not made?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

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.

...


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.

Since you said you do not intend to spend 3-5 days here with us (I guess if we were discussing tithing you would?) let me point out to the readers - what few there may be - that I believe you have confounded the commandment with the covenant. This confounding then forms the entire basis of your line of reasoning.

I would also like to point out that the question you asked, which you say I did not answer, was not "how much of the old covenant applies to us", but rather it was "Of a total of 613? Individual laws or commandments of God contained in the Sinaitic covenant, or Old Covenant, how many do you think are still in effect? " Notice, the question was "how many of the commandments contained within the old covenant are still in effect?" That is, as I have been trying to explain throughout this thread, different than "how much of the old covenant is still in effect".

I have repeatedly pointed out that the commandments, while made a part of the Sinaitic covenant, are not wholly dependent on that covenant for their existence.

Like this: Many (if not almost all) of the components of English Common Law were incorporated into American Common Law in 1776 and after. Thus, the English Common Law formed the basis of much of post Revolutionary American jurisprudence. Nevertheless, those laws still existed in England, because although a part of American jurisprudence, they are not wholly dependent on it. And should America just go away, or repudiate the Common Law (which we pretty much have done, in a lot of ways), the English Common Law itself is unaffected, because those laws in themselves are not wholly dependent on American jurisprudence.

And, I actually DID answer the question:

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.

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]

And lastly, just for free, you are confounding "Jews" with "Israel", as if the two words are synonyms. They are not.

But that's another discussion.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by 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!

Awhile back I started a thread on Genesis and the Law, and in one post said this:

Originally Posted by Esaias

In looking at this subject, a few things come into focus.

1. Genesis provides a back story that culminates in the Exodus. Not merely a bare historical narrative, but it establishes the Covenantal (and thus the "legal") basis for the Sinaitic Covenant. In other words, the Sinaitic Covenant is shown to be a fulfillment of the Covenantal obligations between Abraham and God, established in Genesis. So that Genesis is to the rest of the Law what the Magna Charta, English Common Law, and colonial Declaration of Independence are to the Constitution and federal and state law. Genesis provides the legal foundation upon which the Sinaitic Covenant rests.

2. Genesis shows via historical narrative numerous examples of moral and ethical decisions and consequences. This demonstrates a universal moral code of conduct was known and in place prior to Sinai. This code governed man's relationship to God as well as to his fellow man.

3. All ten of the Ten Commandments are referenced in Genesis.

4. Numerous other laws and legal concepts are found in Genesis as well: clean vs unclean animals, levirate marriage, laws governing warfare, tithing, parental authority, prostitution (including the penalty), and so forth.

5. Considering the Law with its commandments, statutes, judgments, ordinances, etc were given to Israel as an example other nations were to follow (Deut 4:6-8), Genesis provides further support in that it shows pre-Israelites of varied backgrounds recognizing and following the same basic moral-ethical-religious code that was later codified as "The Law" given to Israel.

The idea that the Ten Commandments were temporary instructions unique to Israel under the old covenant, as if they did not express universal, moral obligation, and as if the nations were not to follow the example given to Israel, is, in my opinion, seriously flawed and unbiblical.

[Esaias]

"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."

It makes no sense to suggest the Ten Commandments only applied to landowners and Levites. This would mean any non-Levitical Israelite who happened to not own land was exempt from the obligation to obey any and all of the laws of God, which is clearly absurd.

[Esaias]

"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! . . ."

According to Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8, the new covenant was specifically made with "the House of Israel and the House of Judah". Thus, following Tithesmeister's reasoning, the new covenant is not for him, either, any more than the old covenant is (or was).

[Esaias]

And so, it appears rather plain to me, that most if not all of the antisabbatarian arguments are based wholly upon rather gross misunderstandings of various basic, fundamental Bible facts, violate sanctified common sense, and routinely refute themselves upon the most cursory examinations.

This is the result, again in my opinion, of faulty Bible teaching, handed down from one generation to the next, in which the Old Testament scriptures are treated as not much more than children's Sunday School flannelgraph lessons (David and Goliath being not much more than an ostensibly true fable teaching the moral virtues of courage and that little guys can do big things, too, with God's help, for example). This approach, over time, produces believers will little or no Bible foundation for the doctrines they believe. Instead, they develop a smorgasbord of various beliefs and doctrines, like a patchwork quilt made by a committee of blind men, that does not function as a seamless, solitary, unified DOCTRINE, a unified FAITH (and PRACTICE).

The result is everyone has their own religion they call Christianity. To facilitate financial operations men come together and agree on a few broad points and just "agree to disagree" on the rest. These points of agreement then become "the doctrine" and everything else is relegated to the back burner. So new converts learn the Creed of the denomination and filter everything through that Creed, and never actually become students of the WORD. Instead of being Jesus' disciples, they often wind up being disciples of some movement, clique, denomination, etc.

"The Whole Gospel to the Whole World"? Not really, just a few Articles of Faith and Position Papers and a more-and-more standardized music style and dress code being exported to the world.

[Esaias]

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.

Anybody else?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Anybody else?

Uhhh, I’m not finished. I have more. My time is limited. Be patient.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

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.

Actually i agree with this. The new testament is not based on old testament. The old prepares for new. And we go by what the new days. Because the new says this or that, in agreement with old, we do it.