dmatic,
You are to be commended for your zeal in obeying God. If you believe in your heart that He requires you to keep the Sabbath, then you must.
The Ten Commandments, including the keeping of the Sabbath, were given to the Jews, and to them alone. There is no record of a Sabbath requirement before the Law was given to the Jews through Moses. There was no reguirement for the Gentiles to keep the Sabbath during the history from Adam to Christ and they were never chastised for failure to do so.
There was a perfect opporutunty in Paul's letter to the Galatians to have warned those Gentiles to keep the Sabbath:
Galatians 5:13-21 (New King James Version)
13. For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15. But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!
16. I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
19. Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20. idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21. envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
If Sabbath-keeping was required, and a sin if not observed, you would think that it would have been mentioned here or somewhere in the writings to the churches, many of whom were Gentile. After all, it was so important in The Law that willful violation of the Sabbath was worthy of death.
I realize you may feel "piled on" here and be pressed for time to answer.
Luke 16:16 (New King James Version)
16. “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it."
Sabbath Observance: 3 Views
Thank you Soaring Eagle! I'll check out his site when I can find some time, Lord willing. BTW, I saw two Eagles on my way into town this afternoon! One was "soaring" and one was perched atop a tree! Very cool!
Also, Homer wrote:
peace, dmatic
Also, Homer wrote:
Thank you for the comments in your post, and I will try to address them, if that is what you wanted me to do, when I can find some time....(Lord willing) but I don't at all feel piled on....but thanks for your concern! Jesus, actually, did address them for me at Mt. 5:19...what do you think of His warning there?I realize you may feel "piled on" here and be pressed for time to answer.
peace, dmatic
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
OK Steve, I'll try to address some of your conclusions under your "Problems with the first position" section, since I basically hold to it. Namely, that "Christians should observe the Sabbath on (the seventh day) (as God commanded Israel to do.)"
Since the "New" Covenant is being made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah (Jer. 31:31 Heb. 8:8) there is much to say about who these two houses consist of, but generally, they have been misidentified by most. I don't want to tangent down that road presently, but if you feel the need, we can discuss it further later, Lord willing. But, suffice it to say that whereas Isaac was "blind" and was deceived by Jacob pretending to be Esau, so now, the "church" is blind to who is "Israel" and to who is "Judah". As a result, many think they are part of the "New" Covenant but have not understood yet. (But they will!) Thus, Jesus is quoted as saying: "Not every one that saith unto Me 'Lord, Lord', shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?' And I will profess to them, "I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity'. Therefore, whosoeverheareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock..." Mt 7:21-24 (BTW, Homer, if you're reading, this refutes your claim that only "Jews" are privleged to hear Jesus' sayings as to do them! This Whosever is all-inclusive!) (Also, see Mt 28:19-20 where Y'Shua commands that His sayings, commands, be taught to all nations! All over the world!)
So, to the big question....Did Jesus do away with the commandments of His Father? Are those who claim to follow Jesus permitted to disregard His Father's commands to Moses and the children of Israel as well as to all those "strangers" and/or the mixed multitude that had joined themselves to the children of Israel....where God explained that all of them would have the same law. The same law for the "stranger" (those other than the children of Israel) as for those of the physical tribes of Israel?
According to Jesus, himself, we are commanded Not to think that these commandments are being done away with! (Mt. 5:17) Yet, this is exactly what many of those who call themselves "Christians" think! One wonders if these are of the "many who would come in Jesus' name, declaring Him to be the Christ, but deceiving many!"
Iniquity can be defined as having an attitude of lawlessness. Those who "work iniquity" are those who do things that are contrary to the Law of God. Many of these have been deceived with the false teaching that God has done away with His Law and His instructions. They seem to think that since the Law defines sin, God chose to get rid of sin by getting rid of His Law! Interesting. And Maybe God could have chosen to do it that way, but this would suggest, as many do outright, that God's Law is unfair or unrighteous in some way, and impossible to keep!
Did God make a mistake with His Law? Were His commandments unreasonable? Or impossible to keep?
I think not. The problem is not with the commandments, because they are just and holy and fair and spiritual. (Romans 7:12;14) The problem is with us, and was with those whom God covenanted with. Though they promised to do all that God commanded, they did not, and they broke the covenant with God.
People today are still infected with this stuff....but God is doing something, by putting within those He is covenanting with, His Laws.....on the hearts and minds of those who have ears to hear. Yet, those who stop their ears from listening to His Law, even their prayers are an abomination! (Proverbs) No, God is not going to get rid of his Law! He is going to get rid of sin! Sin is the transgressing of His Law. Still.
No, Jesus commands His followers Not to think that the Law has been done away with! And He does so unambiguously (to borrow one of your terms, Steve) He further declares that not even a jot or a tittle would pass from the Law til heaven and earth pass away and until all of God's Law is being fulfilled! That is, until all are keeping his commands! We can discuss what a jot or a tittle are later, if you so desire....but let us just say that even the enlarged letters of the law, as copied by the scribes from Moses' hand, or the letters made smaller to point to some teaching hidden within the letters, or "punctuation" marks that draw attention to another "hidden" teaching within the Law will NOT pass away until it is all being fulfilled!
The "Law" of God helps us to discern God's will, so that we may be about doing God's will instead of our own. Yet, many still teach that we should not bind His Law upon our necks and meditate upon it every waking hour, as we go about our daily tasks, speaking about it to our children whilst we are in the way with them! May God forbid this false teaching, according to His will! I realize that He has allowed the delusion, even sending a strong one so that those who love not the truth, will believe the lie....but I still pray that His will be done on earth as it is in heaven!
I have but a few minutes left at this computer, so will continue when i have opportunity, Lord willing.
until then, Peace, dmatic
Since the "New" Covenant is being made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah (Jer. 31:31 Heb. 8:8) there is much to say about who these two houses consist of, but generally, they have been misidentified by most. I don't want to tangent down that road presently, but if you feel the need, we can discuss it further later, Lord willing. But, suffice it to say that whereas Isaac was "blind" and was deceived by Jacob pretending to be Esau, so now, the "church" is blind to who is "Israel" and to who is "Judah". As a result, many think they are part of the "New" Covenant but have not understood yet. (But they will!) Thus, Jesus is quoted as saying: "Not every one that saith unto Me 'Lord, Lord', shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?' And I will profess to them, "I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity'. Therefore, whosoeverheareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock..." Mt 7:21-24 (BTW, Homer, if you're reading, this refutes your claim that only "Jews" are privleged to hear Jesus' sayings as to do them! This Whosever is all-inclusive!) (Also, see Mt 28:19-20 where Y'Shua commands that His sayings, commands, be taught to all nations! All over the world!)
So, to the big question....Did Jesus do away with the commandments of His Father? Are those who claim to follow Jesus permitted to disregard His Father's commands to Moses and the children of Israel as well as to all those "strangers" and/or the mixed multitude that had joined themselves to the children of Israel....where God explained that all of them would have the same law. The same law for the "stranger" (those other than the children of Israel) as for those of the physical tribes of Israel?
According to Jesus, himself, we are commanded Not to think that these commandments are being done away with! (Mt. 5:17) Yet, this is exactly what many of those who call themselves "Christians" think! One wonders if these are of the "many who would come in Jesus' name, declaring Him to be the Christ, but deceiving many!"
Iniquity can be defined as having an attitude of lawlessness. Those who "work iniquity" are those who do things that are contrary to the Law of God. Many of these have been deceived with the false teaching that God has done away with His Law and His instructions. They seem to think that since the Law defines sin, God chose to get rid of sin by getting rid of His Law! Interesting. And Maybe God could have chosen to do it that way, but this would suggest, as many do outright, that God's Law is unfair or unrighteous in some way, and impossible to keep!
Did God make a mistake with His Law? Were His commandments unreasonable? Or impossible to keep?
I think not. The problem is not with the commandments, because they are just and holy and fair and spiritual. (Romans 7:12;14) The problem is with us, and was with those whom God covenanted with. Though they promised to do all that God commanded, they did not, and they broke the covenant with God.
People today are still infected with this stuff....but God is doing something, by putting within those He is covenanting with, His Laws.....on the hearts and minds of those who have ears to hear. Yet, those who stop their ears from listening to His Law, even their prayers are an abomination! (Proverbs) No, God is not going to get rid of his Law! He is going to get rid of sin! Sin is the transgressing of His Law. Still.
No, Jesus commands His followers Not to think that the Law has been done away with! And He does so unambiguously (to borrow one of your terms, Steve) He further declares that not even a jot or a tittle would pass from the Law til heaven and earth pass away and until all of God's Law is being fulfilled! That is, until all are keeping his commands! We can discuss what a jot or a tittle are later, if you so desire....but let us just say that even the enlarged letters of the law, as copied by the scribes from Moses' hand, or the letters made smaller to point to some teaching hidden within the letters, or "punctuation" marks that draw attention to another "hidden" teaching within the Law will NOT pass away until it is all being fulfilled!
The "Law" of God helps us to discern God's will, so that we may be about doing God's will instead of our own. Yet, many still teach that we should not bind His Law upon our necks and meditate upon it every waking hour, as we go about our daily tasks, speaking about it to our children whilst we are in the way with them! May God forbid this false teaching, according to His will! I realize that He has allowed the delusion, even sending a strong one so that those who love not the truth, will believe the lie....but I still pray that His will be done on earth as it is in heaven!
I have but a few minutes left at this computer, so will continue when i have opportunity, Lord willing.
until then, Peace, dmatic
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
That's wierd. When I puched in Hebrews 8:8 a little smiley face appeared.
If this post does the same thing....I was referring to Hebrews eight, verse eight!
Peace, dmatic
If this post does the same thing....I was referring to Hebrews eight, verse eight!
Peace, dmatic
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
dmatic,
I realize you ran out of time, but you did not address any of my points. I'm sure you will do so as you have opportunity. I would, however, like to address the matter of Jesus' statement in Matthew 5:17-20.
I do not know enough of your views to say whether you believe that we are obligated, at this present time, to offer animal sacrifices. Until I hear otherwise, I will assume that you do consider this to be a present obligation, since this is the only view consistent with what you said above. If not one iota of the law has changed since the giving of it at Sinai, then we certainly cannot omit the many chapters devoted to the offering of bulls and goats for an atoning sacrifice.
For the record, I do not believe that we are required to offer such sacrifices. This is consistent with my views about the ritual laws of Judaism, in general. I will address Matthew 5 presently, but I would first suggest that the imposition of the ritual law upon Christians is precisely the problem that Paul addresses in Galatians. There, the problem was the presence of teachers who insisted upon circumcision (6:13) and the observance of sacred days and festivals (4:10). Paul referred to this teaching as "another gospel," to be anathematized (1:8-9), and says that those who succumb to it have "fallen from grace," are "estranged from Christ," and that "Christ shall profit [them] nothing" (5:2-4). Seeing this trend in them, Paul worried that his labor among them had been all "in vain" (4:11). He referred to this teaching as "a yoke of bondage" (5:1).
Paul did not advocate "lawlessness." But he did say that, while he was free from Jewish legal restrictions, he was nonetheless bound to keep Christ's law (1 Cor.9:20-21).
I do not expect to convince you of anything, since you seem to feel that your position is very loyalty to Christ itself, and that those who follow Paul's teaching have corrupted the gospel. Since Jesus commissioned Paul to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, I have to assume that Paul preached it properly, or else that Jesus was rather irresponsible in choosing such an unreliable man for so great a task.
As for Matthew 5:17-20, it is clear that "the law" of which Jesus spoke included the offering of sacrifices at the altar (see verses 23-24). If you believe that we are still obligated to offer such sacrifices, then one must wonder why God, in His providence, took away every opportunity to do so, by causing the temple and the altar to be abolished.
If we are not required today to offer such sacrifices (as I believe we are not), then the teaching on the law that Jesus gave in this section had special reference to the disciples who were still living under the terms of the covenant that dictated such practices. The New Covenant had not yet been instituted, so faithful Jews (which is what the disciples were expected to be, at that time) still had to keep the whole law, despite the popular perception of the Pharisees that Jesus was anti-Torah.
Jesus did not deny that He had come to do away with these laws. What He said is that He did not come to "destroy" them, but to "fulfill" them. What is the difference—and what is the result of laws being "fulfilled"? You and I have differing opinions about this. You think Jesus is talking about "fulfilling" the requirements of the law—that is, keeping the laws in one's daily life. I believe, rather, that He is talking about "fulfilling" the law in the same sense that He was "fulfilling" the prophets (in the passage, He mentions both, "the law" and "the prophets"—v.17).
The way Jesus fulfilled the prophets, I believe, was to be and do everything that the prophets predicted that He would be and do. Similarly, the ceremonial laws were prophetic. They "foreshadowed" realities that Christ inaugurated. The Passover symbolically anticipated Christ's death and our deliverance (1 Cor.5:7); the high priest, on the Day of Atonement, symbolically represented Christ's entrance into the holy of holies in heaven (Heb.9); the laws rendering some animals "unclean" represented the "uncleanness" of sinners—especially the Gentiles (Acts 10:14-15); etc. All these laws, like the prophecies, looked forward to Christ, and He was their fulfillment.
As a result, though the law has not been "destroyed", it has attained its destiny (just as a boy is not destroyed when he becomes a man, but has reached the maturity that his childhood anticipated). This fulfilling of the law's intended goal, by Christ, means that the ritual laws have fulfilled their purpose, and their services are no longer needed (Col.2:16-17). "Of necessity, there is a change of the law" (Heb.7:12).
Your theology does not recognize the existence of any such "change of the law." You base your religious life upon an interpretation of Matthew 5:17-20 that was relevant before that change took place, and the change came without your acknowledging it.
You said I should check the accuracy of my source on Hebrews 8:13. My source is the verse itself. If you mean I should check my translation against the Greek original, I have done so. There is no problem with the translation. When Christ announced the New Covenant (says the writer of Hebrews) He thereby announced the obsolescence of the Old Covenant.
I realize you ran out of time, but you did not address any of my points. I'm sure you will do so as you have opportunity. I would, however, like to address the matter of Jesus' statement in Matthew 5:17-20.
I do not know enough of your views to say whether you believe that we are obligated, at this present time, to offer animal sacrifices. Until I hear otherwise, I will assume that you do consider this to be a present obligation, since this is the only view consistent with what you said above. If not one iota of the law has changed since the giving of it at Sinai, then we certainly cannot omit the many chapters devoted to the offering of bulls and goats for an atoning sacrifice.
For the record, I do not believe that we are required to offer such sacrifices. This is consistent with my views about the ritual laws of Judaism, in general. I will address Matthew 5 presently, but I would first suggest that the imposition of the ritual law upon Christians is precisely the problem that Paul addresses in Galatians. There, the problem was the presence of teachers who insisted upon circumcision (6:13) and the observance of sacred days and festivals (4:10). Paul referred to this teaching as "another gospel," to be anathematized (1:8-9), and says that those who succumb to it have "fallen from grace," are "estranged from Christ," and that "Christ shall profit [them] nothing" (5:2-4). Seeing this trend in them, Paul worried that his labor among them had been all "in vain" (4:11). He referred to this teaching as "a yoke of bondage" (5:1).
Paul did not advocate "lawlessness." But he did say that, while he was free from Jewish legal restrictions, he was nonetheless bound to keep Christ's law (1 Cor.9:20-21).
I do not expect to convince you of anything, since you seem to feel that your position is very loyalty to Christ itself, and that those who follow Paul's teaching have corrupted the gospel. Since Jesus commissioned Paul to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, I have to assume that Paul preached it properly, or else that Jesus was rather irresponsible in choosing such an unreliable man for so great a task.
As for Matthew 5:17-20, it is clear that "the law" of which Jesus spoke included the offering of sacrifices at the altar (see verses 23-24). If you believe that we are still obligated to offer such sacrifices, then one must wonder why God, in His providence, took away every opportunity to do so, by causing the temple and the altar to be abolished.
If we are not required today to offer such sacrifices (as I believe we are not), then the teaching on the law that Jesus gave in this section had special reference to the disciples who were still living under the terms of the covenant that dictated such practices. The New Covenant had not yet been instituted, so faithful Jews (which is what the disciples were expected to be, at that time) still had to keep the whole law, despite the popular perception of the Pharisees that Jesus was anti-Torah.
Jesus did not deny that He had come to do away with these laws. What He said is that He did not come to "destroy" them, but to "fulfill" them. What is the difference—and what is the result of laws being "fulfilled"? You and I have differing opinions about this. You think Jesus is talking about "fulfilling" the requirements of the law—that is, keeping the laws in one's daily life. I believe, rather, that He is talking about "fulfilling" the law in the same sense that He was "fulfilling" the prophets (in the passage, He mentions both, "the law" and "the prophets"—v.17).
The way Jesus fulfilled the prophets, I believe, was to be and do everything that the prophets predicted that He would be and do. Similarly, the ceremonial laws were prophetic. They "foreshadowed" realities that Christ inaugurated. The Passover symbolically anticipated Christ's death and our deliverance (1 Cor.5:7); the high priest, on the Day of Atonement, symbolically represented Christ's entrance into the holy of holies in heaven (Heb.9); the laws rendering some animals "unclean" represented the "uncleanness" of sinners—especially the Gentiles (Acts 10:14-15); etc. All these laws, like the prophecies, looked forward to Christ, and He was their fulfillment.
As a result, though the law has not been "destroyed", it has attained its destiny (just as a boy is not destroyed when he becomes a man, but has reached the maturity that his childhood anticipated). This fulfilling of the law's intended goal, by Christ, means that the ritual laws have fulfilled their purpose, and their services are no longer needed (Col.2:16-17). "Of necessity, there is a change of the law" (Heb.7:12).
Your theology does not recognize the existence of any such "change of the law." You base your religious life upon an interpretation of Matthew 5:17-20 that was relevant before that change took place, and the change came without your acknowledging it.
You said I should check the accuracy of my source on Hebrews 8:13. My source is the verse itself. If you mean I should check my translation against the Greek original, I have done so. There is no problem with the translation. When Christ announced the New Covenant (says the writer of Hebrews) He thereby announced the obsolescence of the Old Covenant.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Tue Jan 01, 2008 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Dmatic wrote to me:
I asked these questions to see whether you and your church are serious about carrying out God's instructions as they were given to Moses.
As for me, I do not believe these are God's instructions for the church. But since you have stated that you believe that His instructions for Israel continue forever, then are not these instructions meant for today? Is it unreasonable, then, to ask whether you excommunicate the Sabbath breaker? Or put to death those who profane the Sabbath?
I really want to know whether you believe these instructions should still be carried out. If not, then why should they be an exception?
Dmatic, you appear to be side-stepping the issue. If I had wanted to indicate disagreement with God's instructions, I would have started a thread with that purpose in mind.Your questions numbers 4 and 5 are a bit disturbing to me because they seem to imply that God is unjust to so instruct us. You asked:
4. Do you believe that anyone in your church who is caught working on the Sabbath should be excommunicated?
Exodus 31:14b whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
5. Do you believe that capital punishment ought to be administered to anyone in your church who regards the Sabbath as an ordinary day ?
Exodus 31:14a You shall keep the sabbath, because it is holy for you; every one who profanes it shall be put to death.
It is apparent that you disagree with God's instructions here. Have I discerned your implication correctly?
I asked these questions to see whether you and your church are serious about carrying out God's instructions as they were given to Moses.
As for me, I do not believe these are God's instructions for the church. But since you have stated that you believe that His instructions for Israel continue forever, then are not these instructions meant for today? Is it unreasonable, then, to ask whether you excommunicate the Sabbath breaker? Or put to death those who profane the Sabbath?
I really want to know whether you believe these instructions should still be carried out. If not, then why should they be an exception?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
Therefore it is the commands of Christ and his apostles that apply in the New Covenant and he never did say "Blessed are you who keep the Sabbath", nor did he keep it himself.
Actually Steve, your last sentence is a false accusation. Jesus never did sin. Jesus always kept His Father's commands, and was the perfect Lamb of God...SPOTLESS!
dmatic, if it's a false accusation then you'll have to take it up with John the Apostle because he said it in his own words.
John 5.17 "But he answered them , My Father is working until now and I myself am working"
5.18 "For this reason the jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he not only was breaking the Sabbath , but also was calling God his own Father making himself equal with God."
So it is John himself who simply says that Jesus "was breaking the Sabbath" as opposed to saying that they thought Jesus was breaking the Sabbath.
Actually Steve, your last sentence is a false accusation. Jesus never did sin. Jesus always kept His Father's commands, and was the perfect Lamb of God...SPOTLESS!
dmatic, if it's a false accusation then you'll have to take it up with John the Apostle because he said it in his own words.
John 5.17 "But he answered them , My Father is working until now and I myself am working"
5.18 "For this reason the jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he not only was breaking the Sabbath , but also was calling God his own Father making himself equal with God."
So it is John himself who simply says that Jesus "was breaking the Sabbath" as opposed to saying that they thought Jesus was breaking the Sabbath.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: