THE TRUE SABBATH

[ashleyconsidering]

I guess my question comes in...

I studied spanish in highschool for 4years and their calendar starts on Monday... what does this mean?

 

[PolyPride]

What does he say? "Don't let anyone judge you". Meaning what? Meaning they weren't sinning and no one should tell them they are...

Hardly! That same fellow also wrote the letter to the Romans (also often "twisted", but consistent - IF and ONLY IF you remember that Paul was a consummate Torah scholar who was trying to make what must have been a VERY subtle set of points, ALREADY taught by his Master:

- the "traditions of men" (of the "elders", the "oral law", etc) are NOT the same as His commandments, even if the "Hypocrites" try to convince you otherwise!

- and you CANNOT "earn salvation" by "keeping the law".

But how do we KNOW what is "sin" (transgression of His commandments, "iniquity", lawlessness)? And, "shall we sin more that grace might abound? God forbid!" (the whole or Romans chapter 6)

Both Paul and Yeshua were making some very clear distinctions -- between what "is Written" (and IS REALLY THEREFORE the "commandment of God", or His "teaching and instruction") and what is CALLED "law" but is really NOTHING BUT THE TRADITION of men! ("teaching as doctrine the commandments of men" - Mark 7:7, and Matt. 15:9)

They (the "Hypocrites" of His land) certainly judged Him for transgressing MAN' "law" -- but NOT YHVH's! (And we were told the "world will hate us" for the very same thing!)

Can it be ANY surprise that Paul might warn us -- just as He did! -- that we would likewise be "judged" for following Him, instead of men?

I don't see the relevancy in your points to Colossians 2:16. In Colossians 2:16, I don't see how Paul was making a distinction between man-made tradition and God's laws since he cited only things that related to God's revealed law in the OT, like the Sabbath, and the New Moon celebration. He even mentions don't let people judge you on what you should eat or drink; he didn't say don't let people judge you according to how the "elders", "scholars", and "Rabbis" told you that you could eat and drink. If anything, his statement would do away with judgements that are based on BOTH OT law and man-made traditions when it comes to those practices listed in vs. 16. I still see Paul was laying out which OT laws are no longer active or applicable for someone under the new covenant as being the most reasonable explanation, thus far. Also, Paul expands on his point in vs. 17 by mentioning the reason why the practices mentioned in vs. 16 were no longer a sin, and your point has little to nothing to do with that.

 

[PolyPride]

I thought for a second there it was time to say, "Well done, Angel - absolutely correct!"

If we are go to by the OT, then it is mentioned that ALL laws of God are "eternal".


Psalm 119:152 152 Long ago I learned from your statutes, that you established them to last forever.

Psalm 119: 160 All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal.

Then I saw that unfortunate qualifier, and the implication goes with it...
...as if those people who wrote that "new" stuff were ignorant of the entire foundation:
(note that he quotes Psalm 51)
...let God be true but every man a liar. As it is Written: "That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged."
Romans 3:4 (read the whole thing, in context)

Those 2 verses only mention that "all" of God's laws are eternal. There is no qualifier or exception that I found in the verses that you mentioned that takes away from that point. My larger point though was that if ALL the LAWS are eternal and those should be followed, which is your reasoning for why we should still follow the Sabbath (correct?), then all of the other Laws should be followed as well since they are also mentioned as being eternal.

The problem that I'm finding is that those who claim that we should keep the laws of the OT because the OT says so, rather than reading the OT in light of the NT...

BACKWARDS!!!

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? (Psalm 11)

God sets the foundations. He can destroy the "old" one and make a "new" one.

A teacher I admire once chastened me with the following wisdom:

"Well, just WHEN then, did Almighty God decide to QUIT LYING?!"

If you are reading anything "new" which inclines you to think that YHVH is a liar, that He 'changes His mind' (violating Malachi 3:6 and even that same "new" book of Hebrews, and a few dozen witnesses more), that He did not "know the end from the Beginning", or that He was kidding in Matthew 5:18 (or 24:35, or Mark 13:31, or Luke 21:33...or that "heaven and earth" passed away somehow and we missed it)
...then re-read it!

1. I never called God a liar. I hope we can tell the difference between a difference of understanding between you and I, and me calling God a liar.

2. Malachi 3:6 just mentions that God can't change. You take that to mean that He can't change His mind but I take that to mean His character. Lets say that God could change His mind then that He can do so without changing His character, and that also wouldn't be a sin. There are also verses where it is indicated that God did change His mind in Exodus 32:9-10-14. He mentions that He was going to destroy Israel and then He doesn't do it. Destroying Israel is one thing and NOT destroying Israel is the exact opposite, and therefore a change in decision. Then there's also that change between a covenant based on "works" to one based on "grace and faith".

When I saw an inconsistency, it finally became obvious to me -- it was MY fault, not His!

If Yeshua had come to "do away with" His own "teaching and instruction" then He could NOT have been the promised Messiah (read Deuteronomy 13!)

Blessings in His Word, all of it, as Written...

According to Hebrews 8:13 the Old Covenant will pass away and some are saying it has, already. If I follow your reasoning, I'm left to conclude that there is really no new covenant but rather a hybrid of the two, which creates all types of inconsistencies.

But again, I'd question, rather than making a big deal out of the Sabbath, why also not question all of the other types of celebrations and set apart days (like the additional Sabbaths )that God required like in Leviticus 23:26-32.

Lev. 23:26-32 26 The LORD said to Moses, 27 "The tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement. Hold a sacred assembly and deny yourselves, [d] and present an offering made to the LORD by fire. 28 Do no work on that day, because it is the Day of Atonement...31 You shall do no work at all. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live. 32 It is a sabbath of rest for you, and you must deny yourselves. From the evening of the ninth day of the month until the following evening you are to observe your sabbath."

Why not practice ALL of the Law and "exactly" as it's mentioned to be practiced?

* PS> For the real nerds, there is a physics analogy here that may help.

When the "new physics" was finally 'discovered' by man, did He do away with His "old laws"?

How about conservation of mass, for example? Once "E=mc2" became an "understanding", did the FACTS change, or just our understanding. Hadn't the "law" really just ALWAYS been that "mass-energy" is what was really being conserved, and we didn't notice?

Well this is just one example, but it's illogical to think that this would apply in every case. If you think scientific understanding is absolute truth, then you may as well start discarding all types of beliefs in the Bible starting with the Creation story, like the 6,000 to 10,000 year old Earth.



God "changes" covenants:
Hebrews 8:7, 13 7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

 

[CecilW]

It occurs to me that the confusion might be coming in through which "sabbath" is being referenced.

In the 10 commandments, the standard of Holiness spoken by God from the mount, He references the weekly Sabbath. It does NOT point forward to Christ, but back to Creation. It does NOT foreshadow Christ. Instead, every time you honor it, you shove in the devil's face that God CREATED the world, and thus owns it.

There are other sabbaths (days of rest and celebration or solemn assembly) that WERE given to the Israelites, and DID point forward to Christ specifically. Passover and the lamb comes to mind. This is a distinction that theologians have recognized for generations.

John, a contemporary of Paul, clearly wrote that sin is transgression of the law. 1Jn3:4 So how do you reconcile this with Paul's statements about not being judged over sabbaths? Easy. Many Jewish Christians were trying to say that new converts had to observe ALL the Jewish stuff, such as the sabbaths involved in the passover, feast of booths, etc. These pointed forward to Christ.

Paul was simply pointing that out and saying that they didn't have to do this. The One to whom they'd pointed had COME. These sabbaths, while still holding value for teaching purposes, no longer were expressions of faith in one to come.

That had nothing to do with the weekly Sabbath, which was in a different category entirely, and pointed in a different direction. Whatever Paul's limitations as a communicator, the one thing of which you can be certain is that he was NOT trying to take a chisel to the tables of stone containing the decalogue.

Notice that even God made a difference between these 10 and the rest. These 10 He carved in stone with His own finger. He then had Moses place them in the Ark of the Covenant for all time under the Mercy Seat.

So why do Christians join with the devil in trying to chisel out the 4th commandment? Bewilders me.

 

[CecilW]

I studied spanish in highschool for 4years and their calendar starts on Monday... what does this mean?

Lincoln used to ask, How many legs would a dog have if you called his tail a leg?

Answer? 4. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

Same with calling Sunday the 7th day of the week. Since creation, the 7th day has been the day we call Saturday, and has so appeared on calendars. I have a chart in which the name for Saturday is something like Sabbath in some 190 languages if memory serves. I think it is even Sabado in Spanish.

The pop announced in the late 90s, again if memory serves, that Sunday was the 7th day of the week. Bully for him. Saying its so doesn't MAKE it so. And he still celebrates Easter on Sunday, where the Bible clearly says Jesus arose onthe FIRST day of the week.

Botom line? These calendars you are talking about began to appear here and there in the late 50s or early 60s, again if memory serves. I was just learning to avoid soiling my nappies back then, but my pastor dad talked about it. Far as I can tell, it is nothing but a deliberate attemp to confuse things and give the roman tradition the upper hand.

Fact is, there are interesting prophecies in Daniel and Revelation about a power that would speak against God, claiming the power to change "times and laws". The Bible does not speak positively of it.

A good discussion can be found at http://biblelight.net/Madrid-Sunday.htm is interested.

You may have observed that Spanish speaking countries are predominately Catholic. Let me quote from a Catholic catechism, a copy of which is buried somewhere in my thousands of books: "Q: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? A: Had she not this power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; -- she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no scriptural authority."

We can't stop folks from writing up calendars to suit themselves. But calling the dog's tail a leg doesn't make it so, and calling Sunday the 7th day of the week doesn't make THAT so either, my friend!

 

[CecilW]

Just for interest's sake, may I point out that the early church still practiced Sabbath observance along with Biblical Marriage, including what we call PM. Both of these were changed long after the time of Christ at the urging, and with the self-proclaimed authority of the church of Rome! The first civil Sunday law was made in 326 AD. And in 390 Augustine claimed that "we in our time" had made PM a sin, though it was not formerly.

Since both of these institutions, the Sabbath and marriage, have their origins in the Garden of Eden before the fall, and since history shows the devil's unmitigated hatred of both, if we're taking a long hard look at the Bible's teachings vs. traditions of men on one subject (marriage), doesn't it make sense to take a long, hard look at, and discard man's traditions surrounding, the other as well?

 

[PolyPride]

It occurs to me that the confusion might be coming in through which "sabbath" is being referenced.

In the 10 commandments, the standard of Holiness spoken by God from the mount, He references the weekly Sabbath. It does NOT point forward to Christ, but back to Creation. It does NOT foreshadow Christ. Instead, every time you honor it, you shove in the devil's face that God CREATED the world, and thus owns it.

My reasons for worshipping God is not necessarily to show the devil anything. I do it to be obedient, anything else, especially not in Scripture is excess.

There are other sabbaths (days of rest and celebration or solemn assembly) that WERE given to the Israelites, and DID point forward to Christ specifically. Passover and the lamb comes to mind.

Paul also clearly wrote that sin is transgression of the law. So how do you reconcile this with his statements about not being judged over sabbaths? Easy. Many Jewish Christians were trying to say that new converts had to observe all the Jewish stuff, such as the sabbaths involved in the passover, feast of booths, etc. These pointed forward to Christ.

I'm not sure how to reconcile the two, but going back to the OT, how do you reconcile that "ALL" of the laws are to stand forever(e.g. Psalm 119:152,160) with any NT passage that mentions ANY law as not being applicable, anymore?
All of the Sabbaths were part of the Law and to be followed, so if any one of those aren't followed that would be a transgression of the Law.

You say that "certain" Sabbaths, feasts, etc, pointed to Christ but some people also tell me that that applies to ALL of the Sabbaths. I also don't see where the Jews were trying to get people to follow all of the different types of Sabbaths, the feast of booths, etc, so I can't definitively say that that's why Paul wrote Colossians 2:16.

Paul was simply pointing that out and saying that they didn't have to do this. The One to whom they'd pointed had COME. These sabbaths, while still holding value for teaching purposes, no longer were expressions of faith in one to come.

That had nothing to do with the weekly Sabbath, which was in a different category entirely, and pointed in a different direction. Whatever Paul's limitations as a communicator, the one thing of which you can be certain is that he was NOT trying to take a chisel to the tables of stone containing the decalogue.

Notice that even God made a difference between these 10 and the rest. These 10 He carved in stone with His own finger, and Had Moses place in the ark of the covenant for all time under the mercy seat.

So why do Christians join with the devil in trying to chisel out the 4th commandment? Bewilders me.

How did Christ fulfill the other types of Sabbaths or how did they point to Him? Couldn't that response be valid for any type of Sabbath or day of rest?

The difference that I see with the 10 commandments is that they were set in stone and placed in the Ark of Covenant, but that's all I see in difference compared to all of the other commandments, otherwise they ALL of the commandments were to be kept forever.

You also say that we should follow the weekly Sabbath because the 4th commandment (part of the Law) says so, correct? How do you reconcile that with this

Galatians 3:10 10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

Hebrews 8:13 13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

What God has called clean let not man call unclean. I believe this can and should apply to even commands that God has added or has made inactive, whether they be from the 10 commandments or other OT commandments.

 

[Mark C]

Don't have much time, so this will have to be short:

Those 2 verses only mention that "all" of God's laws are eternal. There is no qualifier or exception...
My larger point though was that if ALL the LAWS are eternal and those should be followed, which is your reasoning for why we should still follow the Sabbath (correct?), then all of the other Laws should be followed as well since they are also mentioned as being eternal.

Of course. "If you love Me, keep my commandments."

God sets the foundations. He can destroy the "old" one and make a "new" one.

But He says otherwise. Until He creates a "new heaven and a new earth", He says "not one yod or tiddle" will pass from His torah.


As to the other questions (please re-read the part where I told a personal story of coming to realize that He does not lie; if He says forever, that probably means "forever" (or as long as "heaven and earth" still exist, anyway. ) Mal. 3:6 says "I change not"; I should have used better terminology than does NOT "change His mind", which implies something more transient in current usage. He honors His Word, His covenants, etc, is a better understanding. Agreed; His character does not change, either.

Why not practice ALL of the Law and "exactly" as it's mentioned to be practiced?

Why not indeed. "As for me and my house", we do exactly that. (with the obvious provisos: there is no temple, I'm not a king, a Levite, etc...)

As to the rest, of course - it's not JUST His Sabbaths (note the plural, intended to include ALL of His appointed times. They are a blessing, and have much to teach us. (Which is another thread, of course; I believe and comment frequently about such. I believe He will announce His return at the Feast of Trumpets, or Yom Teruah in the fall, and that the End-time sequence will culminate at the Feast of Sukkot (Tabernacles) which is the prophesied "wedding supper of the Lamb", where the wives (plural; prepared virgins of the parable) will be joined to Him. Unless we actually PRACTICE what He told us to do "forever", how will we recognize those "prophetic shadow pictures" when we see them fulfilled before our eyes?)

 

[Anonymous]

Hi CecilW,

Two things...

... many of those I have seen over the years that practice "keeping the Sabbath" do not practice it according to the Law anyway, so it tends to be a joke. ... my contention is if one believes that the Sabbath is to be practiced, then practice it. Don't act like you practice it.

Just wanna be sure I understand you, Randy ...

If we don't practice it perfectly, we're a joke? Better not to do it at all, or claim to be doing it, than to do so less than perfectly (whatever that may be)?

How did you turn around "keeping the Sabbath...tends to be a joke" into "we're a joke"?

Second thing, I'd like to see how you keep the Sabbath near the North or South Poles, where the day is a year long (i.e. 6 months of nighttime, 6 months of day...and the evening and the morning were a day a year long).

According to Scripture, if you lived in Alaska where my in-laws live, you'd have to "not kindle a fire" for six months (think frozen to death), and you wouldn't have another Sabbath for 3 more years. You couldn't work for a full year, because that would be disobedient to the Law. It would be interesting to see what you would do.

Anyway, this is all moot, because the Law passed away with the Old Covenant, which was replaced by the New Covenant and its very simple Law: "Love your neighbor as yourself". Even if you wanted to follow the Law, you can only follow about 44% of it today, as the lack of Temple, priests, etc. make complete obedience to the Law impossible. We are not under the Law. We never were. We're all Gentiles, and were never under it.


John for Christ

 

[Anonymous]

Thank you Cecil for reminding me of the diversity of the believers that are on this forum, therefore I will refrain from trying to impose my views on anyone, though it was never my intention to do so, I merely would like to inform others of importance of the observance of the Sabbath according to scripture.

Just want to be specific. The importance of observing the Sabbath was only for ancient Jews under the Law. Neither modern Jews nor Gentiles are under the Law, or need to observe the Sabbath. In fact, Gentiles were NEVER under the Law, so Sabbath observance was never a law for them.


John for Christ

 

[DaPastor]

Thank you Cecil for reminding me of the diversity of the believers that are on this forum, therefore I will refrain from trying to impose my views on anyone, though it was never my intention to do so, I merely would like to inform others of importance of the observance of the Sabbath according to scripture.

Just want to be specific. The importance of observing the Sabbath was only for ancient Jews under the Law. Neither modern Jews nor Gentiles are under the Law, or need to observe the Sabbath. In fact, Gentiles were NEVER under the Law, so Sabbath observance was never a law for them.


John for Christ

Hello John...

Since this topic has many arms, it would be helpful if you would define the term "not being under the Law"? ...and since, the "not being under the Law" is directly related to the concept of being "under grace" that "sin may not abound", please define your definition of "sin"? ...especially, since we know that "all have sinned"! Thanks!

 

[Mark C]

Just want to be specific. The importance of observing the Sabbath was only for ancient Jews under the Law.
John for Christ

Sorry, John, but if you are going to make blanket statements, you should make sure they are correct. The term "under the law", while questionable, is only part of the problem.


Reread the Book of Exodus. Those people who Moses led out of Mitzraim (Egypt) were a "mixed multitude" and were definitely NOT merely "ancient Jews". They consisted of descendants of all twelve tribes of Israel, including the tribe of Judah and those who much later settled the kingdom of Judea, as well as those (like Caleb) who were NOT, but who chose to be "grafted in". And read Romans 11 before you decide that being "grafted in" is not something worth seeking.

If discernment of such details was not important, God would probably not have bothered with them.

 

[Lionking]

Thank you Cecil for reminding me of the diversity of the believers that are on this forum, therefore I will refrain from trying to impose my views on anyone, though it was never my intention to do so, I merely would like to inform others of importance of the observance of the Sabbath according to scripture.

Just want to be specific. The importance of observing the Sabbath was only for ancient Jews under the Law. Neither modern Jews nor Gentiles are under the Law, or need to observe the Sabbath. In fact, Gentiles were NEVER under the Law, so Sabbath observance was never a law for them.


John for Christ

We need to understand who is in fact a Jew. Anyone who believes in Jesus the Christ as the promised messiah, and accepts HIM as LORD and Savior of their lives is a Jew. We are not Jews by race but by faith.

When Yeshua stepped out of the temple and shook the dust off of HIS sandals and said that their house was left unto them desolate, HE meant to go to the gentiles.

Abraham believed GOD and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, so all those who express faith in GOD and HIS written WORD are the seed of Abraham, therefore we are spiritual Jews.

Lionking.

 

[Lionking]

The gentiles were grafted in just as the mixed multitudes were grafted in. The Exodus was written as an example for us. It would do well to read carefully and understand Hebrews 3 & 4 where Paul sought to give us the meat of GOD'S WORD which he said was for those who are well versed and experienced and of greater understanding. Time to be weened off of the milk.

When you read these two chapters, focus on the "rest" that he was expanding on.

Lionking.

 

[PolyPride]

Has anyone here who advocates for following the Law, as it is written without modifications, ever thought about traveling to Israel and helping to rebuild the Temple so you can offer sacrifices? If not yet, then what's taking you so long?

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Mark C.,

Responses below... Incidentally, are you ever going to answer my questions in the message such as how you will keep Sabbath at the North or South pole???

Sorry, John, but if you are going to make blanket statements, you should make sure they are correct. The term "under the law", while questionable, is only part of the problem.

Yes, I'm well aware that they should be correct. That's why I spoke what was correct there.

In what way is "under the Law" questionable? "hupo nomos" specifically means "under the authority of the Law" in those passages. I'm not certain what you think is questionable about it.

Reread the Book of Exodus. Those people who Moses led out of Mitzraim (Egypt) were a "mixed multitude" and were definitely NOT merely "ancient Jews". They consisted of descendants of all twelve tribes of Israel, including the tribe of Judah and those who much later settled the kingdom of Judea, as well as those (like Caleb) who were NOT, but who chose to be "grafted in". And read Romans 11 before you decide that being "grafted in" is not something worth seeking.

The mixed multitude was included in the children of Israel--those that obeyed the Covenant--and were part of the tribes of Israel. I expected this argument and considered addressing it ahead of time, but left it out because it has no validity. These are people that accepted the Covenant along with the Israelites. They were "strangers among them", but had to be circumcised (a sign of the Covenant) and had to follow the Law. They were Israel by choice, just like the rest of the Israelites by birth. They were not Gentiles, and Gentiles were never expected to obey the Law. Those "mixed multitudes" were Israelites.

I'll state again that the Law was ONLY for the ancient Israelites that were in the Mosaic Covenant, and were never expected to be obeyed by other nations or any of the other Gentiles.

Caleb was of the tribe of Judah, even though his father was a Kenezite. So...either we have to believe that his mother was an Israelite from the tribe of Judah, or that God took those from the mixed multitude and included them as part of the tribes--take your choice, I don't care. Either way, it doesn't affect the point I made.

If discernment of such details was not important, God would probably not have bothered with them.

I agree, but they don't help your argument.


John for Christ

 

[Mark C]

Hi Mark C.,

Responses below... Incidentally, are you ever going to answer my questions in the message such as how you will keep Sabbath at the North or South pole???

I wouldn't have thought that would require a massive effort of intellect, John. Do people there work for six months without sleep, or do they still manage to figure out how to handle a seven day week?

I guess the fact that my family has been able to deal with daylight savings time and the sabbath without trauma gave me hope that others can figure it out for themselves.

'll state again that the Law was ONLY for the ancient Israelites that were in the Mosaic Covenant...

State away. The Word says nothing of the sort (but the prohibition against "adding to" what is Written should be a sufficient caution -- if such things were not 'done away with', of course). How many examples from Scripture do you need to understand that the choice to FOLLOW HIM is voluntary?

"Whosoever will..."

Those "mixed multitudes" were Israelites.

Bravo. The rest is not complicated then, nor is it hidden, nor is it far off.


I am thankful that He has given me the opportunity to be grafted in as well. It is my "reasonable service" to be obedient to Him. Why? Because, if I love Him, and I do, I keep His commands.