sabbath keeping

[edwardamo]

Let us not forget that under this present age we are under Grace - Rest - and have entered a new Sabbath where everyday we are to live honoring God by our actions, words, and deeds.

Absolutely--for all of us who have trusted Christ as our Savior, the Sabbath rest is now fulfilled. Far from belittling the Sabbath by not still keeping it as a day of physical rest, we appreciate the true meaning of the Sabbath by recognizing what it pointed forward to. And by living in the spiritual rest of satisfied enjoyment of what Christ has done to save us, rather than trying to spiritually work our way to Him to save ourselves.

[BavarianWheels]

There is no Law EXCEPT THE 10 written by God's own finger.

I'm not sure where you got that bold opinion, but apparently the Lord Jesus didn't agree.

Where and when did Christ deny the finger of God writing the 10?

When He was asked about the greatest commandment in the Law, he quoted one from Deuteronomy and one from Leviticus, neither of which were included in the Decalogue. And if anyone were really interested, I'm sure they could find dozens of other references that prove that lots of other commandments (circumcision, offerings, etc.) are also considered part of the Law. (See Luke 2:23-24 for one.)

The important point here is that the word "Law" can be used in Scripture to mean different things. It is probably most often used to mean the whole OT Law (including all the commands like sacrifices, etc., not just the Decalogue). But it can also be used in regard to God's universal moral standard of righteousness, as in 1 John 3:4 ("Sin is lawlessness"). And although there is a lot of overlap between the 10 Commandments and God's universal moral standard of righteousness, the 10 Commandments are never presented in Scripture as the definition of God's law in this sense of His universal standard of righteousness. (If that were the case, wouldn't you think a few more things might be included, like maybe prohibitions against divorce, incest, and homosexuality?) This being the case, it is a mistake to use the 10 Commandments as proof that God expects all people of all times to keep the Sabbath.

Once again for those (including edwardamo) that don't understand I am ONLY SPEAKING OF THE 10 Commandments. All other "laws" were not written by the finger of God.

And FYI...all those smaller "laws" you wish to add are already included within the 10...as even Christ summed up the 10 in 2 laws. Divorce would be non-existent (for example) if we could all perfectly keep the commandments.

Universal standard of righteousness. Even the Bible says that if we could keep the 10, there would be no need for Christ to come and die.
.
.

[edwardamo]

There is no Law EXCEPT THE 10 written by God's own finger.

I'm not sure where you got that bold opinion, but apparently the Lord Jesus didn't agree.

Where and when did Christ deny the finger of God writing the 10?

OK, I think I see the source of the confusion on this point at least. I took your statement to mean, the 10 Commandments (which were written by the finger of God) are the only (true) Law whereas I think what you were actually saying was, no other Law except for the 10 Commandments were written by the finger of God. Sorry for the misinterpretation--my fault for not thinking more about what you must have meant.

Not that this really clears anything up, of course, as I still see the 10 Commandments as fundamentally belonging to the Old Covenant, whereas you see them as fundamentally the definition of God's universal moral standard, directly applicable to all people at all times. I don't see how their being written by God's finger proves your point in the slightest. (Consider that His finger also wrote a message to Belshazzar in Dan. 5, for example.)

Regarding my view, I've already pointed out that the 10 Commandments are repeatedly called "the tablets of the covenant" in Deut. 9. I would also point out that they include the following phrases:

"I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the Land of Egypt..." - Ex. 20:2
"...that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you." - Ex. 20:12

These are clearly references to Israel's situation at the time of the Old Covenant. If you want to make them apply in the direct sense to Christians today, how do you interpret "the land which the Lord your God is giving you"? He is not giving Christians the land of Israel!

If you say, yes, but we can still apply the promise in an indirect, general sense of blessing, I don't have a problem with that. But in that case, why would you have a problem with the 4th commandment applying in an indirect, general sense of pointing forward to the rest we should all be enjoying in Christ?

One final observation regarding the connection between the 10 Commandments and the Old Covenant: Consider Ex. 19, which describes the scene in which the 10 Commandments were given. In v. 5, God says, "Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples..." The people then proceed to agree to this (v. 8 ), whereupon God has them consecrate themselves, then He descends on Mt. Sinai and speaks... (Ex. 20:1)...the 10 Commandments! (Yes, He spoke them before He wrote them.) He later gave them all sorts of other commandments as well, but the point is, He introduced His covenant with the 10 Commandments. They were a basic summary or constitution, if you will, of the covenant. That is why 2 Cor. 3 can refer to them in a context which contrasts their ministry to that of the New Covenant. And it is why the Bible always speaks of the OT Law as a cohesive whole, never as two independent parts (i.e., one part being the 10 Commandments and the other part being all the rest).

[BavarianWheels]

There is no Law EXCEPT THE 10 written by God's own finger.

I'm not sure where you got that bold opinion, but apparently the Lord Jesus didn't agree.

Where and when did Christ deny the finger of God writing the 10?

OK, I think I see the source of the confusion on this point at least. I took your statement to mean, the 10 Commandments (which were written by the finger of God) are the only (true) Law whereas I think what you were actually saying was, no other Law except for the 10 Commandments were written by the finger of God. Sorry for the misinterpretation--my fault for not thinking more about what you must have meant.

Whew...thank you!

Not that this really clears anything up, of course, as I still see the 10 Commandments as fundamentally belonging to the Old Covenant, whereas you see them as fundamentally the definition of God's universal moral standard, directly applicable to all people at all times. I don't see how their being written by God's finger proves your point in the slightest. (Consider that His finger also wrote a message to Belshazzar in Dan. 5, for example.)

I agree...God wrote a message...not His Laws.

Regarding my view, I've already pointed out that the 10 Commandments are repeatedly called "the tablets of the covenant" in Deut. 9. I would also point out that they include the following phrases:

"I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the Land of Egypt..." - Ex. 20:2
"...that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you." - Ex. 20:12

These are clearly references to Israel's situation at the time of the Old Covenant. If you want to make them apply in the direct sense to Christians today, how do you interpret "the land which the Lord your God is giving you"? He is not giving Christians the land of Israel!

Egypt = Slavery to the Law that without Christ is death to everyone.
Land of Israel = the New Jerusalem at/after Christ's second coming.

If you say, yes, but we can still apply the promise in an indirect, general sense of blessing, I don't have a problem with that. But in that case, why would you have a problem with the 4th commandment applying in an indirect, general sense of pointing forward to the rest we should all be enjoying in Christ?

I don't. However indirect application doesn't negate it's full intention and/or purpose...else why would Paul uphold the Law?

One final observation regarding the connection between the 10 Commandments and the Old Covenant: Consider Ex. 19, which describes the scene in which the 10 Commandments were given. In v. 5, God says, "Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples..." The people then proceed to agree to this (v. 8 ), whereupon God has them consecrate themselves, then He descends on Mt. Sinai and speaks... (Ex. 20:1)...the 10 Commandments!

Sure, but as we are told, Abraham was credited as being righteous for his faith...not the law. Salvation was NEVER based on the keeping of the law, rather it was use was pointing to sin.

(Yes, He spoke them before He wrote them.)

I don't understand how this is of importance.

He later gave them all sorts of other commandments as well, but the point is, He introduced His covenant with the 10 Commandments. They were a basic summary or constitution, if you will, of the covenant. That is why 2 Cor. 3 can refer to them in a context which contrasts their ministry to that of the New Covenant. And it is why the Bible always speaks of the OT Law as a cohesive whole, never as two independent parts (i.e., one part being the 10 Commandments and the other part being all the rest).

All the others are not part of the decalogue. I wish these would quit coming up as they have no bearing on my point. That being simply that as Paul tells us to uphold the law, so we should. It is not a means of salvation. It is simply God's Law and He does not change. Christ sums up the law and the prophets in 2 "new" laws...which really were'nt new, but clarifications of the existing.
.
.
.
.

[jenna]

Ed, you say you see the 10 commandments as belonging to the old covenant. What about these verses in the N.T.
Matt.5:19,15:9, 19:7, 22:40. Mark10:19, 12:29. Luke 1:6, 18:20. John 14:21, 15:10. Rom.13:9. 1Cor.7:19. Eph. 2:15. Col.2:22. 1John 2:3,3:22, 3:24, 5:2. 2John6. Rev.12:17, 14:12. All these are part of the N.T. and they still say the 10 commandments need and should be kept. The most serious one of all seems to be Matt. 19:17 "If you will enter into life, keep the commandments". In other words, if we wish to have eternal life, we will keep the commandments. This includes the Sabbath!

[edwardamo]

He later gave them all sorts of other commandments as well, but the point is, He introduced His covenant with the 10 Commandments. They were a basic summary or constitution, if you will, of the covenant. That is why 2 Cor. 3 can refer to them in a context which contrasts their ministry to that of the New Covenant. And it is why the Bible always speaks of the OT Law as a cohesive whole, never as two independent parts (i.e., one part being the 10 Commandments and the other part being all the rest).

All the others are not part of the decalogue. I wish these would quit coming up as they have no bearing on my point. That being simply that as Paul tells us to uphold the law, so we should. It is not a means of salvation. It is simply God's Law and He does not change. Christ sums up the law and the prophets in 2 "new" laws...which really were'nt new, but clarifications of the existing.

I beg to differ...I think this has great bearing on your argument, because you use the fact that Jesus and the apostles held up the Law as evidence for your view that the 10 Commandments are what God expects us to obey today (and hence, that we are still to keep the Sabbath). But you are the one making the assumption that when Jesus and the apostles held up the Law, they are always talking specifically about the 10 Commandments, as you are talking specifically about the 10 Commandments. If this turns out not to be true (i.e., if by "the Law" Jesus and the apostles really meant something other than the 10 Commandments, such as the whole OT Law), then your argument becomes meaningless.

It seems to me that this is in fact the case. Actually, I can't think of any occasion where Scripture clearly uses the term "the Law" to refer specifically to the 10 Commandments. On some occasions it uses "the Law" to mean God's universal standard of righteousness, independent of the 10 Commandments. On other occasions (the majority, I would say), it refers to the whole OT Law, not limited to the 10 Commandments.

Even in this latter sense the Law is still "held up", BTW. For example, when Jesus said not even the smallest stroke or letter of the Law would pass away until all was accomplished (Matt. 5:18), He then proceeded to talk about not just the 10 Commandments but also the commandments regarding divorce, vows, eye-for-eye, and loving your neighbor. So I think He was talking about the whole OT law, and He held it up and declared its glory. It hasn't passed away--the whole thing (including sacrifices, feasts, etc.) is still profitable for doctrine, reproof, instruction, etc. (2 Tim. 3:16). But its direct application has passed away, since we have died to it. Just as we are no longer commanded to literally keep the Sabbath as a day of physical rest, but the Sabbath is still very much a meaningful and profitable part of God's Word, reminding us of the spiritual rest we have in Christ.

[jenna]

Ed, why do you think we are no longer commanded to keep the sabbath as a day of rest? Note that the Sabbath was made by Christ, and was established as a sign between Him and His people FOREVER. Does not forever still include today? Why would Christ create the Sabbath for man, and then say after He died, it would no longer be in effect, since it was merely a spiritual rest? Note that even after He died, the apostles still kept the Sabbath. Would there be any need for this if He did not intend for it to literally be kept forever?

[edwardamo]

Ed, you say you see the 10 commandments as belonging to the old covenant. What about these verses in the N.T.
Matt.5:19,15:9, 19:7, 22:40. Mark10:19, 12:29. Luke 1:6, 18:20. John 14:21, 15:10. Rom.13:9. 1Cor.7:19. Eph. 2:15. Col.2:22. 1John 2:3,3:22, 3:24, 5:2. 2John6. Rev.12:17, 14:12. All these are part of the N.T. and they still say the 10 commandments need and should be kept. The most serious one of all seems to be Matt. 19:17 "If you will enter into life, keep the commandments". In other words, if we wish to have eternal life, we will keep the commandments. This includes the Sabbath!

Where do any of these say they are specifically talking about the 10 Commandments? Or where do any of say they include the Sabbath? Some of them (such as Rom. 13:9) include quotes from some of the 10 Commandments (though strangely enough not the Sabbath), but that is understandable because they are applying commandments that overlap with the clear and unarguable moral standard of God, as revealed by Him even in the conscience of Gentiles (see Rom. 2:14-15). The OT speaks about God's "commandments" even before the 10 Commandments were given (see Gen. 26:5), so it is not right to assume that God's "commandments" always specifically refers to "the 10 Commandments".

Regarding Matt. 19:17-19, you might have noticed that Jesus quoted Lev. 19:18 as a commandment right along with some of the 10 Commandments. So again, I don't think it makes sense to interpret His statement "keep the commandments" as referring specifically to the 10 Commandments. He means to obey God in whatever He tells you to do--i.e., all commandments that He gives you. And since Jesus is God and Jesus then told the man to go sell everything and give to the poor and follow Him, He meant to obey that commandment, too. His point was to convict the man that he wasn't really willing to be obedient in all that God commanded him, and thus could not hope to earn his own salvation.

The same is true for all mankind--not one of us in our natural flesh really has a heart to do everything God tells us to do, and that includes Jews living under the OT Law as well as Gentiles living under the law of conscience. God doesn't give all mankind throughout all time the same commandments (e.g., He doesn't tell all of us to sell everything we own), but He does tell all mankind to have a heart ready to obey Him in whatever He requires of us, and naturally speaking, we don't. (Until He saves us and gives us such a heart, that is, though even then we still don't follow it perfectly by any stretch of the imagination, obviously.)

The point is, I agree that as Christians we should want to obey all that God has commanded us. I just don't agree that He has commanded us to physically observe the Sabbath. (Just like I don't think He has commanded us to physically observe the Passover sacrifice, circumcision, etc., even though those commandments would have been included, along with the Sabbath, in what He commanded for the Jewish rich young ruler in Matt. 19.)

[edwardamo]

Ed, why do you think we are no longer commanded to keep the sabbath as a day of rest? Note that the Sabbath was made by Christ, and was established as a sign between Him and His people FOREVER. Does not forever still include today?

I understand your point, but I think you have to be careful about how you interpret the word "forever" in the context of the OT. For example, the OT law also mentions that Aaron's descendants were to wear the priestly garments and take part in the offerings "forever" (Ex. 28:41, 29:28, Lev. 7:34, etc.), and yet the Aaronic priesthood clearly was eventually changed (Heb. 7:12).

I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but I remember someone once telling me that the word for "forever" in Hebrew is somewhat loose and has to be interpreted by context. For example, when Deut. 15:17 talks about a person becoming a servant of another "forever", the context clearly means until death, not literally forever. Similarly, I would think the statements about the Sabbath being a sign between God and Israel "forever" could legitimately be interpreted to mean until Israel (as a nation) ceases to be God's people, not literally forever.

Note that even after He died, the apostles still kept the Sabbath.

Um, where does the Bible say that? (I know they still referred to the Sabbath, and often visited the Jewish synagogues when they were in session on the Sabbath in order to preach the Gospel, but I'm not aware of any verse that says the apostles actually kept the Sabbath, in the sense demanded by the 4th Commandment of refraining from work.)

It is true that in the early church many continued to keep the Law of Moses, and that would have included keeping the Sabbath. But the apostles refused to let that practice be considered mandatory. When some insisted, "It is necessary to circumcise them [Gentiles Christians] and instruct them to observe the Law of Moses" (Acts 15:5), the apostles and elders came together to look into the matter and decided to lay upon them "no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication" (Acts 15:28-29). Nothing about keeping the Sabbath here!

[BavarianWheels]

Even in this latter sense the Law is still "held up", BTW. For example, when Jesus said not even the smallest stroke or letter of the Law would pass away until all was accomplished (Matt. 5:18), He then proceeded to talk about not just the 10 Commandments but also the commandments regarding divorce, vows, eye-for-eye, and loving your neighbor.

As already mentioned, these "laws" that you say differ from the 10, are within the 10 as Jesus clarified when He summed up the 10 in 2. I think this is about the third or fourth time I've mentioned this.

I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but I remember someone once telling me that the word for "forever" in Hebrew is somewhat loose and has to be interpreted by context. For example, when Deut. 15:17 talks about a person becoming a servant of another "forever", the context clearly means until death, not literally forever.

Until death doesn't mean forever to you? Let's be real here.
.
.

[edwardamo]

Even in this latter sense the Law is still "held up", BTW. For example, when Jesus said not even the smallest stroke or letter of the Law would pass away until all was accomplished (Matt. 5:18), He then proceeded to talk about not just the 10 Commandments but also the commandments regarding divorce, vows, eye-for-eye, and loving your neighbor.

As already mentioned, these "laws" that you say differ from the 10, are within the 10 as Jesus clarified when He summed up the 10 in 2. I think this is about the third or fourth time I've mentioned this.

Oh, I see your point now--mentioning something multiple times (rather than attempting to actually address the argument) makes it true!

So since you think Jesus was specifically talking about the 10 Commandments here, and not the whole OT Law, do you think He was saying it was OK to break the other parts of the Law in the next verse (5:19)? (Keep in mind that he was speaking to Jews still under the Old Covenant.)

Also, why should we believe that in this particular verse "the Law" means the 10 Commandments, when most places in the NT it clearly refers to the whole OT Law? Do you just pick and choose what it means according to your own private whim? (I don't say that to ridicule, but because that is basically what you've accused people of my view of doing, so I'm pointing out that your accusation points equally back to you.)

[edwardamo]

BTW, one other quick point about "the Law" in the NT referring to the whole OT Law, not just the 10 Commandments:

In Matt. 22:40, after referring back to the 2 commandments to love God and your neighbor, Jesus said on these two hang "all the Law and the Prophets". This phrase "the Law and the Prophets" is a general phrase describing the whole OT, with "the Law" being the 1st five books and "the Prophets" being the rest. (Actually, the rest could also be divided into the historic books and the Prophets, but they were often just called "the Prophets" for short.) Therefore He was clearly not thinking specifically of the 10 Commandments here, though the 10 Commandments were of course included. But all the ceremonial laws (sacrifices, dietary, circumcision, etc.) were also included, because God had commanded them under the Old Covenant, and for the Jews who were living at that time, loving God would include keeping all those commandments--so they all hung on the two.

A similar point can be made about the places where Jesus said He came not to abolish but to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Matt. 5:17). He wasn't talking specifically about the 10 Commandments, but really about the whole OT. Therefore neither of these verse say absolutely anything about whether the 10 Commandments as a unit (and specifically, the commandment about the Sabbath) is intended to be kept by us today. (If that's what they were saying, then logically you would have to take them to be saying that the sacrifices are also still intended to be kept today--but since that is not true, we have to acknowledge the possibility that the commandment about the Sabbath could also be fulfilled in a similar way that does not require our physically keeping it today.)

[Kurieuo]

I find Jeremiah 31 something hard to escape for those still trying to live under the older (and weaker) covenant God made with Israel:

• 31"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
  32not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.
  33"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
  34"They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

It must be hard keeping the Sabbath and all those other laws 100%. I admit my weaknesses so I see my only chance is to take the new covenant Christ brought:

• 1Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
  2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
  3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh (Romans 8 )

Good luck to you guys though.

[BavarianWheels]

• 1Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
  2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
  3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh (Romans 8 )

Good luck to you guys though.

By this is it your interpretation that to follow the law is sin and death? It's not like anyone could ever keep it perfectly anyway...what good was it?

The Law could not save...because no one could keep it. It was weak because of the flesh being sinful to the core that it was impossible. That's why Abraham was credited righteous...not because of the law, but because of the promise.

Christ was sent as an offering for sin because the law demands it (God demands perfect submission) but the sinful nature cannot abide in God perfectly. Christ can/does/did for us. He condemned sin...not what pointed at sin. There is nothing contrary about following the Law and salvation...in fact, Jesus was nailed to the cross because of the Sabbath as the NT reveals. Jesus did everything seemingly contrary to the Jewish leaders interpretation of keeping the Sabbath...claimed to be God and was crucified for it.

edwardamo...working on replying to you...
.
.

[Kurieuo]

• 1Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
  2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
  3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh (Romans 8 )

Good luck to you guys though.

By this is it your interpretation that to follow the law is sin and death? It's not like anyone could ever keep it perfectly anyway...what good was it?

By this it is not my interpretation but Scripture itself. The Law is not something we are obligated to fulfill thanks be to Christ. If anyone says otherwise (as I know SDA's consider the Sabbath to be obligatory along with staying away from particular foods) then they are wrong. If one intends to be saved by keeping the law then yes, such a way is frivolous and will only lead to sin and death.

Christ was sent as an offering for sin because the law demands it (God demands perfect submission) but the sinful nature cannot abide in God perfectly. Christ can/does/did for us. He condemned sin...not what pointed at sin. There is nothing contrary about following the Law and salvation...in fact, Jesus was nailed to the cross because of the Sabbath as the NT reveals. Jesus did everything seemingly contrary to the Jewish leaders interpretation of keeping the Sabbath...claimed to be God and was crucified for it.

There is nothing contrary about following the Law and salvation because the Law has no impact upon salvation. If you can accept this point, and you just prefer to keep the Law nonetheless because you see it as a good thing to do rather than obligatory, then fine. It is better for your own conscience before God that you keep such things.