7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believers

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

First, I generally agree with you, especially when the emphasis is on the Decalogue.

Not exactly.

1 Timothy 5:17-18 (AV)
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour,
especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
For the scripture saith,
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn.
And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

Deuteronomy 25:4
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

Luke 10:7
And in the same house remain,
eating and drinking such things as they give:
for the labourer is worthy of his hire.
Go not from house to house.

Even around 60 AD, when many Pauline Epistles were written, Luke's Gospel from c. 40 AD (when Theophilus was the most excellent high priest) was viewed as scripture.

Having examined this a bit closer, I see there are generally three understandings of this subject.

1. Paul quoted Luke's Gospel as Scripture, indicating he (Paul) considered it on par with the Pentateuch, Prophets, etc.

2. Paul quoted a common proverb as an interpretative or explanatory or amplifying supplement to the Scriptural citation from Deuteronomy. Jesus also used the same common proverb (as recorded in Luke), and Paul is doing what Jesus did (using a common proverb to illustrate an idea).

3. Paul is quoting a saying of Jesus (as he often does elsewhere) known to the disciples by oral tradition (which is also recorded in Luke).

The question devolves to, "Would the Bereans, seeking to verify Paul's teaching, have looked to his companion Luke's writing as authoritative support for Paul's doctrine and reasoning?"

I think not likely.

Paul was preaching Christian doctrine, which the Bereans were testing against "the Scriptures". To appeal to a Gospel writing as proof or support of the validity of Christian doctrine would be literally begging the question. It would be no different than demanding "Scriptural support" from an Islamist for his doctrine, and then accepting statements from the Koran as authoritatively proving the Islamist teaching "is so" (true and correct).

I think it is far more likely the Bereans would be searching the Law and the Prophets daily, rather than the Gospel, in order to verify Paul's doctrine was in fact in agreement with revealed truth. The touchstone function of the Law and the Prophets is stated in Isaiah 8:20 quite nicely, and I think that principle is likely the guiding principle among the Bereans.

None of this, of course, means Paul himself did not view Luke's Gospel as Scripture. But that doesn't mean the Bereans would, at least not until they were convinced Paul was indeed teaching the Truth.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Having examined this a bit closer...

Brother Esaias, as I continue to read through this thread and try to wrap my mind around it all, could you take a brief moment to describe what was originally meant by the fourth commandment, and what type of good it is that Jesus speaks of as allowable? Does that concept still have any application today? If you have the time, I would very much appreciate it.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Ehud

Brother Esaias, as I continue to read through this thread and try to wrap my mind around it all, could you take a brief moment to describe what was originally meant by the fourth commandment,

The Fourth Commandment says to remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. Do your ordinary work during the other six days, but the seventh day is the Sabbath, and neither you nor your household nor your employees/servants nor your work animals are to do work on that day. Neither are foreigners visiting or dwelling in the land (the commandment has both personal and national policy applications). The reason is because God rested the seventh day (ceased the work of Creation) and hallowed (sanctified, made holy) that day. It is therefore holy, sanctified, separate from the other six days, and ought not to be profaned (treated as ordinary or common).

So the Sabbath exists as a testament to the Creator. Keeping Sabbath is one of the ways by which a person, family, nation etc identifies their God is the Creator, Jehovah, God of the Bible.

and what type of good it is that Jesus speaks of as allowable? Does that concept still have any application today? If you have the time, I would very much appreciate it.

By "what good was allowable" are you asking about certain good works allowed on the Sabbath, according to Jesus?

He explicitly refuted the Talmudic idea that healing was a prohibited "labor". Thus healing (and casting out demons, a type of healing), is certainly allowed. Jesus pointed out everyone leads their ox to water even on the Sabbath, yet are not guilty of anything. The ox cannot water themselves (if they are in a stall or tied up), nor can they make extra provision for food and water on the day before Sabbath, so they require the assistance of men.

Also, He pointed out that everyone agreed that helping an ox out of a pit on the Sabbath was permissable, because it is an act of mercy. The principle thus is that works of mercy are certainly allowable on the Sabbath ("does God careth for oxen?" Well, He does, but humans are more important, so how much more should we help our fellow man?), the Sabbath was never meant or intended to be a burden of heavy bondage. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made as a blessing to benefit man spiritually, physically, economically, psychologically, etc. Man was not made as an object for the purpose of keeping Sabbath regulations, as if Sabbath keeping somehow overrules helping someone in need. The prohibition against work isn't about exertion of effort, necessarily, or complexity of action, but about purpose.

Additionally, Jesus pointed out that, technically speaking, the priests "worked" on the Sabbath, yet were not guilty. Thus, divine service as part of worship does not constitute prohibited work.

As applied today, then, it would not be prohibited to stop and help someone with a flat tire, or feed/water the animals if they can't do it themselves, or to do nursing home visitation, or to help set up the sanctuary being used to have church, or to pray for people, minister the Word to others, etc.

What is prohibited is ordinary avoidable manual labor or "business", as that can and should be taken care of during the week so one can cease or "rest" from their ordinary labours in imitation of God.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The Fourth Commandment says to remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. Do your ordinary work during the other six days, but the seventh day is the Sabbath, and neither you nor your household nor your employees/servants nor your work animals are to do work on that day. Neither are foreigners visiting or dwelling in the land (the commandment has both personal and national policy applications). The reason is because God rested the seventh day (ceased the work of Creation) and hallowed (sanctified, made holy) that day. It is therefore holy, sanctified, separate from the other six days, and ought not to be profaned (treated as ordinary or common).

So the Sabbath exists as a testament to the Creator. Keeping Sabbath is one of the ways by which a person, family, nation etc identifies their God is the Creator, Jehovah, God of the Bible.



By "what good was allowable" are you asking about certain good works allowed on the Sabbath, according to Jesus?

He explicitly refuted the Talmudic idea that healing was a prohibited "labor". Thus healing (and casting out demons, a type of healing), is certainly allowed. Jesus pointed out everyone leads their ox to water even on the Sabbath, yet are not guilty of anything. The ox cannot water themselves (if they are in a stall or tied up), nor can they make extra provision for food and water on the day before Sabbath, so they require the assistance of men.

Also, He pointed out that everyone agreed that helping an ox out of a pit on the Sabbath was permissable, because it is an act of mercy. The principle thus is that works of mercy are certainly allowable on the Sabbath ("does God careth for oxen?" Well, He does, but humans are more important, so how much more should we help our fellow man?), the Sabbath was never meant or intended to be a burden of heavy bondage. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made as a blessing to benefit man spiritually, physically, economically, psychologically, etc. Man was not made as an object for the purpose of keeping Sabbath regulations, as if Sabbath keeping somehow overrules helping someone in need. The prohibition against work isn't about exertion of effort, necessarily, or complexity of action, but about purpose.

Additionally, Jesus pointed out that, technically speaking, the priests "worked" on the Sabbath, yet were not guilty. Thus, divine service as part of worship does not constitute prohibited work.

As applied today, then, it would not be prohibited to stop and help someone with a flat tire, or feed/water the animals if they can't do it themselves, or to do nursing home visitation, or to help set up the sanctuary being used to have church, or to pray for people, minister the Word to others, etc.

What is prohibited is ordinary avoidable manual labor or "business", as that can and should be taken care of during the week so one can cease or "rest" from their ordinary labours in imitation of God.

Thank you, sir; much appreciated!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Ehud

Thank you, sir; much appreciated!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

A summation of Tithesmeister's argument, and its necessary, logical conclusions.

Two more points.

1. Tithesmeister says I am blinded because the veil is over my heart, as exemplified by my asking for an old testament Scripture-based presentation of the antisabbatarian doctrine. His claim however is a misrepresentation of Paul's words. The veil is not over someone's heart simply because they read the old testament. Paul affirmed that ALL SCRIPTURE is profitable for DOCTRINE and INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS. The veil is over that person's heart who rejects that Jesus is Messiah, and who adheres to the old covenant (ie Judaism). That is not at all what I am doing. Promoting the idea that people ought to obey God is not Judaism.

2. Tithesmeister claims I am teaching false doctrine. That is false. I agree with Paul that being under grace does NOT mean we are to sin (Romans 6:15, etc), and I agree with John that sin is transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). Since Sabbath breaking is a transgression of God's law, it is therefore sin, and being under grace does NOT mean we can break the Sabbath. God forbid, as Paul said.

It is however obvious, that Tithesmeister is promoting false doctrine. His doctrine contradicts Paul's. He says one may do what Paul says "God forbid!" to. He falls into the trap Peter warned about, how those who are unstable and unlearned wrest Paul's writings to their own destruction.

Tithesmeister has claimed the Ten Commandments weren't valid outside of Palestine. Yet in Genesis we read of people being guilty of idolatry, murder, coveting, theft, adultery, etc. This shows Tithesmeister clearly has no idea what he is talking about. This lack of basic understanding generates doctrines most unsound, such as his antisabbatarianism.

I earlier pointed out his lack of understanding the difference between Jew and Israel, and between covenant and command, covenant and scriptures, among other things. A person lacking such fundamental understandings is not someone who is qualified to teach on the subject of the law of God and our current new covenant relations to the commandments of God. Any more than a person ignorant of the commutative property of addition would be qualified to teach algebra.

I do not say this to be rude or insulting. I am merely suggesting Tithesmeister needs to go back to school, as it were, and get a solid foundation, before attempting to teach doctrine.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Tithesmeister has claimed the Ten Commandments weren't valid outside of Palestine.

Could you please post where I said this? I don't believe I ever said this.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

A summation of Tithesmeister's argument, and its necessary, logical conclusions.

Why do a summation of my argument? What purpose would that serve? There is only one reason for you to do so. So that you can twist what I said. They can read my argument for themselves. They certainly don't need you to come along and explain something that you obviously don't understand.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1. Tithesmeister says I am blinded because the veil is over my heart, as exemplified by my asking for an old testament Scripture-based presentation of the antisabbatarian doctrine. His claim however is a misrepresentation of Paul's words. The veil is not over someone's heart simply because they read the old testament.

This remark in bold is another misrepresentation. I do study the Old Testament. What you said is use the Old Testament only.

Here is your quote, lest I do to you what you have done to me.

"So, pull out the Old Testament, and using the Old Testament only, demonstrate whether or not the following doctrine is true:"

Copied and pasted. I only added the quotation marks.

I pointed out to you that we are a New Testament church.

You're welcome.

[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".

That is a strawman. There is a law of the Spirit of Life which is distinct from the Law of Moses, and IT IS the law of Moses you are proposing we keep. And the law of the Spirit works with those who understand and pray for the Spirit to empower them to do what the law failed to get man to do. Grace established the law as good and dandy, but also showed how man is unable to keep it. Grace required a sacrifice for sin as much as law did, thereby establishing it. And grace's law of the Spirit does not allow for sin as Galatians 5 clearly shows.

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

Moot, as already explained over and over and over...

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."

We keep sabbath spiritually because Paul clearly said that law's holy days are not to be kept, not because we concocted an idea that we keep it spiritually. The only way to reconcile Paul's words against keeping days and months and years, and his words saying sabbaths were a shadow of the body of Christ that was to come when sabbath was instituted, is to come to this conclusion. You may dismiss that interpretation of Paul's words, but that is irrelevant, and those who do not dismiss it can only are at the conclusion we presented.

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?

You act as though we never stated we base our views about this on Paul's words saying we are not to keep holly days fro the schoolmaster of law.

AND YOU NEVER ANSWERED ME ABOUT THIS YET: SHOW ME ONE PERSON WHO KEPT ANY HOLY DAYS BEFORE MOSES. I ask and ask and you never respond to that. Meanwhile I am responding to all I can have time to do so.