- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostAdrian Warnock Interviews...Me!
- Next Post »A La Carte (02/06)
Call The Sabbath A Delight
- 02/05/06
- 245
I recently heard someone say “I follow all 9 of the 10 commandments.” It is true, isn’t it, that we continue to regard each of the other 9 commandments as being integral to the Christian life, but have disregarded the fourth. A few years ago I read an article written by an unbeliever and published in a major newspaper where she questioned how Christians could simply disregard this commandment. Her conclusion was that it was mere disobedience - that Christians disregarded the commandment simply because following it would conflict with our lifestyles. Was she on to something, or did she merely misunderstand the relationship of the Old Testament to the New - a very common problem with believers and unbelievers alike?
Call The Sabbath A Delight is the first book I have read dedicated entirely to the subject of Sabbath observance in the post Old Testament era. I have read bits and pieces of information regarding why we should or should not continue to honor the fourth commandment, but never a book-length treatment. This particular book is published by Banner of Truth which should give a pretty good indication of which side the author will take. He represents the view that I was raised with. I was raised in a Presbyterian home and attended Reformed schools and churches and was continually admonished to keep the Sabbath holy. I spent one year of my life in Scotland and there we were taught that we were not even to play with friends on Sunday, but were instead to read our Bibles and study our Catechisms. While the author, Walter Chandry, may not be that strict, he clearly believes that Christians have abandoned a practice which we need to rediscover out of obedience to God.
A common argument against observing the Sabbath in our time is that Christ did away with the moral Law when He died for us. Underlying this observation is a belief or assumption that the Sabbath was somehow a burdensome obligation for God’s people, but nothing could be farther from the truth. The Sabbath was a creation ordinance, for even in a perfect world God rested on the seventh day and declared it as being set apart to Him. So when we examine this issue we need to do so free from a bias that the Sabbath was an obligation. On the contrary it was a wonderful privilege, given by a loving God. Any harm that befell the day was the fault of sinful humans who are adept at turning anything wonderful into something burdensome.
The author covers the following topics:
- The Commandment is Holy
- The Commandment is Spiritual
- The Commandment is Good
- Does the NT Teach the 4th Commandment?
- Sabbath Observance: Mosaic and Christian
- Motives for Sabbath-Keeping
- Which Day of the Week in the Sabbath?
- Difficult Cases of Conscience
I will leave you to read his arguments on your own if the topic interests you. His conclusion is that the Sabbath, as a creation ordinance, continues to this day so that God requires that we continue to honor it even today. “No age has ever more intensely needed Sabbath-keeping than ours. Attempts to scrap God’s moral law and to replace it with institutions and schemes of human invention are miserably failing. Sabbath-keeping in isolation is not an answer to all man’s ills. Yet, this law is intimately related to all others and has a necessary connection with the other branches of God’s moral code. Where even small segments of mankind have succeeded in implementing a joyful observance of the Sabbath, they have reaped enormous benefit. It is time for us, too, to call the Sabbath a delight and to return unto the Lord.”
While his arguments are compelling, I am not sure that they are strong enough to convict the evangelical who has never even considered that the Sabbath may extend to our day. His argument is valuable, though, for it represents the view held by many Presbyterian and Reformed believers. Their belief is one which many, if not the majority, of Christians held until recent times.
As for me, I admit with some shame that I do not honor the Sabbath as I used to. I refrain from working and try to set the day apart, but certainly do not treat the day in a way which would make my Presbyterian friends proud. Do I believe that the church would benefit from returning to honoring the Sabbath? I certainly do. But do I truly believe this is an obligation? That is where I am not quite so sure. I struggle with this issue and intend to keep reading about it, studying both perspectives.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (245)
Andrew,
Acts chapter 2 says that the early church was meeting daily.
You wrote:”Any other midweek service is an additional opportunity for worship and fellowship, but ought never to subvert worship on the Lord’s Day with the saints.”
Where does it say that in Scripture? Romans 14 says that it is perfectly acceptable to not regard one day above another.
Jeremy
Greetings Jeremy,
Please read Romans 14 again. This time look at the basic context that surrounds verse 5. Paul is not speaking about corporate worship, rather about feasts and festivals. Paul is addressing the problems that resulted from the Gentile inclusion especially with regards to the Jewish dietary customs regarding what is clean and unclean.
Peace,Andrew
Andrew,
I still ask, in response to this quote of yours…
“Any other midweek service is an additional opportunity for worship and fellowship, but ought never to subvert worship on the Lord’s Day with the saints.”
Where does it say that in Scripture?
Jeremy
Greetings,
This has been an interesting discussion. Boy does it take time to read all these comments.
There are many in this post who have argued that there is no instruction nor elaboration of the 4th commandment in the NT and therefore it is to be done away with. This seems to be more an argument from silence.
When Jesus did teach on the decalogue as someone else pointed out, He corrected his listeners understanding of each, by expanding it to include more than just the physical actions. Did He not do this as well with the Sabbath? He continuously corrected the abuses and misunderstandings regarding the Sabbath. Of course, one could pose the question, “Why did He not just come out and say it is no longer needed instead of correcting and elaborating on the proper understanding of what the Sabbath is suppose to be?”
Is it not possible that a reason why the NT might be more silent on this subject is that their listeners may in fact understand the idea of Sabbath, hence the reverse argument from silence (i.e. no need for correction or admonishment). In other words, Jesus nor the apostles ever denounced the practice of the Sabbath, should then the command still be intact as the others?
I saw many instantces of some stating that the Sabbath is a ceremonial command and not a moral. Yet, the reason for the Sabbath is based on Genesis 2:2 according to Exodus 20:11. I believe it was Brian that asked why if someone observes the Sabbath that they do not observe the passover? It lies in the fact that the Sabbath day is based on the activity of God during creation, not of the exodus from Egypt.
Others pointed out that the “evening and morning” expression is not listed and therefore does not mention God stopping. This does seem to be a fairly weak argument.
1) It is the only day that is marked prior to God’s activity for that day, therefore no need for such demarcation. In fact, the term “seventh day” apprears three times in this passage which seems to signify importance, none of the other days are repeated as such.
2)It could have easily been said, “God rested, it was evening and morning the seventh day.” The writer did not do this to emphasis the importance of what did transpired on that day. God blessed it. Hmmm, isn’t intersting that of all the days of creation, only the seventh day was blessed by God. God did bless Adam and Eve, but not the day they were created. Why did He bless this day if it was nothin’ special?
3)The use of day here is the same as in Exodus in understanding a 24 hr. period of time. So just because the writer does not go to the eighth day which would be weird, does not mean that there was not a physical end to that day of rest.
One person if memory serves correctly stated that work came after the Fall. This is a false premise since God did have Adam name all the animals and put him in the garden to keep it and cultivate it which seems to imply work (Gen 2:15).
My 2 cents worth.
Respectfully,PuritanD
Romans 7:6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
Not to act as some sort of referee, but after 106 posts on this topic, I think it has been rode into the ground. There comes a point in which this type of venue no longer serves the truth. Perhaps it would be best to link to articles, etc. as a sort of resource list. I appreciate those who have done so already.
Whatever else we can say about this issue, we can certainly say that it is not as simple as some would like to make it. Christians struggle on both sides of this issue. Still, we should attempt to arrive at truth.
Most people I have come across, who are not simply “antinomian” and who stand against a regulatory Sabbath command in the New Covenant have read and interacted thoroughly with the Sabbatarian position.
There are also many Sabbatarian’s who have thoughtfully considered the claims of those who believe Christ to be the fulfillment and end of the regualatory Sabbath command. My experience has been that most Sabbatarians have not truly and honestly considered the arguments of the ‘fulfillment’ group.
This is in no way meant as a put down to my Sabbatarian brothers. It is meant as an encouragement to independantly consider the claims of those who believe Christ to be the great and glorious rest of which the Sabbath was a foreshadowing.
PuritanD,
You say that perhaps the NT believers understood the Sabbath and therefore they didn’t need to discuss it. How could a Gentile believer possibly automatically understand that he was supposed to keep the Sabbath day holy, rest, and do no work? The Gentiles were definitely not used to keeping the Sabbath. You would certainly expect more instruction on that than on telling people not to murder, etc.
But the fact is that the NT is not silent on the Sabbath. In Gal. 4:10-11, Paul does talk to the Gentiles about keeping days, months, seasons and years according to the Law, and he is angry that they are doing it! He does denounce it. Now, the years corresponds to years like the Jubilee, etc.; seasons is the seasonal feasts, months is the new moon, and days is the weekly Sabbath—there is no other option left!
Similarly, in Col 2. he writes that no one should judge you about feast days (yearly festivals/sabbaths), new moons (monthly), and Sabbaths (weeky)—because these were all simply shadows pointing forward to Christ, who is the Substance.
Also, in Heb. 4, the writer addresses the question of the Sabbath and he says that the day is now TODAY that we enter into God’s Rest, and that the Sabbath which remains for the people of God is not the keeping of 1 day out of 7, but is resting TODAY and every day in Christ’s finished work of salvation for us.
There is one other reason why it cannot be called an argument from silence. That is because the NT tells us that the Old Covenant is obsolete and that we are under a New Covenant. Well, a covenant only includes that which it specifically states, and not things from a previous covenant which it does not state.
Also, the Sabbath is based on the Exodus—see Deut. 5.
God’s rest was not a Sabbath—He simply ceased creating the world. That’s all it says He “rested” from (John 5, Jesus says that God has always been working and not keeping Sabbath). So if He was “resting” from the work of Creation—did He start creating again the next week? NO! It was not a 1 day rest—it was an eternal rest. He CEASED creating on the 7th day. And He did not start again on Sunday or Monday or any other day.
Jeremy
I thought I might ask a few questions in regards to this lively discussion:
Someone said, “Christ Himself said that all Ten could be summed up in two commandments: 1) love God (1-4), and 2) love your neighbor (5-6).” Then they proceeded to say that the law is not needed because now we see the law of love. I might remind you that when the law was given it was based on love. Remember, Deuteronomy 6? You are to LOVE the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. It seems sort of amorphic to me to just say love God and love your neighbor if those things cannot be defined. However, I think Christ did define them. Was He bringing a different law in Matthew 5-7 or was He simply bringing people back to the original intent? Point is: Can we define love for God? Can we define love for our neighbor? Of course. The Spirit of God enables the children of God to obey God. If men were called to repent, what were they called to repent of? Sin. How do men know what sin is? Paul said that he would not have known sin, except by the law. Therefore, if someone is called to repentance and that repentance is from sin and towards God, how is it verified?
Also, Paul closes Romans 3 after speaking about the fact that all are sinners and condemned by the Law, he asks, “Do we then make void the law through faith? CERTAINLY NOT! On the Contrary, we esteem the Law.”
Someone also said that Jesus “worked” on the Sabbath. I know MacArthur says that Jesus “broke” the Sabbath. However, I would simply point out the difference in His work. His work was not for sustenance. His work was not for His own personal gain. Here is the big difference I see with the position Dr. MacArthur holds and that of Dr. Chantry. I have never heard one good thing concerning the command regarding the Sabbath from Dr. MacArthur. All of his commentaries contain what the established religious leadership had developed, not what Scripture spoke of in regards to setting aside one day in seven. Dr. Chantry’s view simply goes back to what the Sabbath was and does not try to erect the straw man that the Pharisees erected. Jesus constantly tore that down.
As far as Galatians is concerned, is Paul not clearly addressing the idea that one must have faith AND keep the Law to attain justification? I haven’t heard those comments here. I have simply heard sincere believers who claim to have faith, who simply want to be obedient, not to attain justification. They simply are looking to demonstrate their love for God and for their fellow man. If all the talk of works plays into this I might want to pose this question as well: Was Moses justified? Was David justified? What about Isaiah? Ezekiel? Jeremiah? Daniel? Were they justified by faith in Christ or by the works of the Law? Clearly, just like anyone in the New Testament they were justified by faith, not works and all because of God’s grace. Yet, did they flinch against ANY of the commandments? I don’t recall there being any problem with doing that.
Do I believe Christ fulfilled the Law? Absolutely. If He didn’t we are all in serious trouble, because we are still in our sins. However, I believe He fulfilled the commandments regarding adultery, stealing, murder, lying, coveting and the others, but I still desire to obey those commands because He first loved me and I love Him in return. His love was demonstrated. I believe mine is as well.
One final thing, and I don’t really expect to hear much of it, but how many of you regard the command found in Acts 15:20 as valid, “we write to them (Gentiles) to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.” I am primarily concerned with abstaining from things strangled and from blood. I am extremely curious, since this is New Testament and given by apostolic authority to the Gentiles, how many of you will have those rare steaks or eat animals which have been strangled or partake of blood? Is this also done away with, or is it addressed elsewhere?
By the way, my comments are not meant to be argumenative or condescending. I know that sometimes gets lost in written dialogue. I genuinely bring these up for discussion.
One final thing. I didn’t hear Andrew’s response yet to Jeremy, nor did I hear Jeremy actually deal with the context of Romans 14. I never have thought you could use Romans 14 as a serious argument concerning the fourth commandment.
In Romans 14, Paul is discussing the fact that some people think they can eat anything, even “unclean” meats, while others only eat vegetables. He didn’t say one has faith that he may eat all things on certain days—just period. This has nothing to do with days—he didn’t mention days until verse 5. Then he brings up the topic of holy days and says that some people observe certain days, and some regard every day alike. At this point, if the Sabbath commandment was binding, he would have said, “Let everyone be convinced that he should keep Sunday as a holy Sabbath of rest unto the Lord” or “Let everyone be convinced that he should keep one day out of seven…”
But he doesn’t say that. He says that it is fine to regard every day alike.
I understand that you can believe in justification by faith and law-keeping. But why did Paul not tell the Galatians to be justified by faith but keep the Law out of love for God? He tells them not to keep days (4:10), he tells them to walk in the Spirit—not keep the Law.
He says to cast out the Law covenant from Sinai (4:30).
He says that if we are led by the Spirit we are not under the Law. He makes it very clear in Romans 7, that not only are we not SAVED by the Law—we have been released from the Law so that we now SERVE in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code (the Law). (Verse 6.)
He says that it is adultery to try to be married to Christ and the Law!
We our supposed to walk by the Spirit—the Law arouses our sinful passions and we bear fruit for death if we put ourselves under the Law (Rom 7:5).
IN ORDER to bear fruit for God we had to die to the Law (7:4) and be released from the Law and serve in the new way of the Spirit (7:6).
The Law was added to increase sin (Rom 5:20).
Galatians 3 also makes it so clear that the Law had not always been—it was added 430 years after Abraham it says. And it was only UNTIL the Seed (Christ) should come.
We are now under the Law of Messiah and walk by the Spirit.
Jeremy
Oh, Tim, to answer your question about Acts 15—Paul says that it is ok to eat meat offered to idols, and in that context says that we should eat anything sold in the meat market (1 Cor. 10). So he’s talking about Gentile meat markets. So the meat would be non-kosher, meaning they didn’t get the blood out.
Some of the things they told the Gentiles in Acts 15 were so that they would not offend the Jews.
Jeremy
As more proof that Paul did not want the Galatians to keep the Law for ANY purpose—he wrote explicitly in chapter 5 that they should NOT get circumcised.
“Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.” (verses 2-3)
Circumcision was the entrance sign to the covenant. He most certainly did not want them keeping the “remembrance sign” of the Old Covenant—the Sabbath!
We are supposed partake of the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of HIM. That is the New Covenant sign.
Jeremy
Jeremy,
thanks for the comments.
You said, “Oh, Tim, to answer your question about Acts 15—Paul says that it is ok to eat meat offered to idols, and in that context says that we should eat anything sold in the meat market (1 Cor. 10). So he’s talking about Gentile meat markets. So the meat would be non-kosher, meaning they didn’t get the blood out.
Some of the things they told the Gentiles in Acts 15 were so that they would not offend the Jews.”
Isn’t that a huge leap there? I mean the Jerusalem Council includes things not to offend Jews? Come on. This is right along side partaking of things polluted by idols and sexual immorality. Were those there simply to not offend Jews? Ok, let’s take some of the reasoning above in some of the quotes. For instance, if it is before the Law, we can conclude that it is not a part of the Old Covenant, right. Therefore, since the Old Covenant contained the command to abstain from blood, there was also the allowing of eating meat that came before Moses to abstain from blood. Remember Genesis 9:3-4?
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
This was when meat was made available to Noah and those after the flood, though it is likely that many of those destroyed in the Flood partook of meat and blood.
You made a good point about Paul’s discussion of meat, possibly in regards to the “pollution by idols”, but didn’t you draw out of that the idea concerning blood?
Lastly, I have never pointed towards circumcision. Is anyone on this blog saying that circumcision is part of morality today? I understand you were only using it to speak in regards to the Law, but again, maybe you can address Romans 3:31.
Finally, I might ask this question: Jeremy, do you sin? If you sin, by what standard are you judging whether it is sin? Maybe that question will help me understand where you are coming from. I am in total agreement with you that we do not look to the Law for justification. The Law’s purpose was never for that and still isn’t. Christ alone can justify. You seem to indicate the Law has no purpose now whatsoever and I am trying to understand how you would view the above question.
Many Sabbatarians, particularly those within the Seventh-day Adventist church, have misused the Law to support Sabbath-keeping and enjoin it on non-Sabbatarian Christians. That said, the reaction of some former Adventists, as displayed in the comments on this blog, creates a false dichotomy between observance of the Sabbath and following Jesus. These folks who have left Adventism seem determined to claim Jesus as their support, drawing a line in the sand between those who have Jesus (non-Sabbatarians) and those who don’t (Sabbatarians). This error is just as misguided as the error of clinging to the Sabbath as a salvation issue.
As an example of this, here are two quotes from Colleen’s comments above:
Post 74:”The Sabbath was that kind of shadow of the perfect and complete rest we find in Jesus. Although we can leave the shadow and embrace Jesus, becoming one with Him and experiencing the water and bread of life, many of us have spent years trying to both be in Him and in the shadow.
We can’t do both. As long as we’re in the shadow, we’re trying to find that promised blessing without giving up everything—including the shadow—in favor of the Real Thing. When we’re in Christ and trusting Him completely to be all we need for moralilty and holiness and salvation, the shadow is obsolete.
Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath because He Is the Sabbath Rest toward which the Sabbath pointed. Jesus embodies Sabbath rest.”
Post 96:”Doug, I agree that the Sabbath is wonderful for you. I LOVED the Sabbath as an Adventist. The Sabbath, though, was never as intimate and personal as the presence of Jesus that I have experienced since I decided to risk giving up everything and entrusting myself entirely to Jesus. I had no idea how much my holding onto the shadow kept me from living in the reality of Him.”
The conclusions drawn by Colleen are not supported by Scripture. Nowhere in the Bible do we find that Sabbath observance is mutually exclusive with following Jesus. Ironically, this mentality is not unlike the mentality of many Adventists who draw a line in the sand from the other side of the debate.
What I’m suggesting is that Romans 14 cuts both ways, and anti-Sabbatarian arguments are refuted in just the same way as the Sabbatarian ones. The arrogant, self-assured statements from both sides are clearly exposed as error. If we want to remain solidly rooted in Scripture, we are to embrace our Christian bretheren regardless of the day they choose to gather together. The endless debates on the Sabbath would be completely unneccessary if more people understood this.
When I see statements as posted above, it’s apparent that none of us has a perfect theology or understanding of Truth. The triumphalistic attitude displayed by those on both sides of this debate is really just two sides of the same obnoxious coin.
Greg
Greg,
All that the ‘anti-sabbatarians’ are claiming is the truth of Rom. 14. They are simply claiming that the Lord Jesus Christ has left us free from the obligation to keep the Sabbath that was incumbant upon Old cov. people. It is the Sabbatarians who are claiming that we are not free under the Lordship of Christ to either keep or not keep.
I don’t think anyone here on this post has been saying it is morally wrong to keep the Sabbath on a personal level. But the Sabbatarians, as I understand the argument and debate, are not just those who keep the Sabbath, but who maintain that others must as well. Surely you can see a difference here.
Greg,
Also, what does teh Sabbath have to do with gettign together with other Christians? I understand that the great majority of church history demonstrates that it has been the practice of most Christians to get together on the first day of the week.
Obviously thereare pious and good reasons for doing that. But do not equate this discussion of Sabbath keeping with the command to not forsake the gathering of yourselves together. no one is questioning that. These are not the same command.
CT
Tim,
The epistles of Paul very clearly show that the issue of meats offered to idols is not a moral issue—but that one should abstain from them if he is weak in the faith or if it will be offensive to his brother. Right there, Paul makes it clear that not everything on the Acts 15 list is sin in itself.
You’re right that the issue of blood is from before the Mosaic covenant. But the sacrificing of animals (even divided into clean and unclean—not for food, but for sacrifices) to God also pre-dates the Mosaic covenant. The context in 1 Cor. 10 is about idols—but it can also deal with the issues of unclean meats and blood. If I am told by Paul to eat anything that is sold in the (Gentile) meat market—then I am going to be eating meat offered to idols, unclean meats, and meats with blood in them.
And in the same chapter, if I am told that if an unbeliever invites me and I wish to go, that I should eat anything that is set before me—that would have to include non-kosher meats.
I am curious—do you only eat kosher-certified meats, Tim? How could we be allowed to eat the “unclean” meats such as pork, if we could only eat kosher (blood-drained) meats? There is no such thing as kosher pork. :) (BTW, even strict kosher meats do have some blood in them.)
I do not believe that the Law has no purpose. It can still be used “lawfully” Paul says. It can still be used to point people to Jesus. It is a shadow of Him. It can be used to prove that He is the Messiah. It speaks beautifully of Jesus, and has glorious pictures of Him. Without the Law, we can not see Jesus as the fulfillment of it.
You ask how I judge whether something is sin. For starters, anything said to be wrong in the Law of Christ (New Covenant) is sin, and whatever it says to do that we do not do, is sin. In addition, anything the Spirit convicts me of as wrong and I do it, that is sin. Likewise, anything the Spirit convicts me of to do and I do not do it, is sin. Also, whatever is not from faith is sin. Also, if we know to do good, and do not do it, that is sin.
Jeremy
Tim, Jeremy, et. all. I’m not ducking out of the discussion, but am busy finishing my preperations for two sermons tommorrow, as well as an inquirer’s class. I’ll return to the discussion on Monday, Lord willing.
Have a wonderful Lord’s Day tommorrow!
Tim,
What is the difference between the 10th commandment, of the ‘10’ and say, the 8th commandment? I am going somewhere with this . . .
Also, regarding the Acts 15 jerusalem council, and accepting an early date for Galatians, it seems pretty clear that the issue was not just offense to jewish Christians, but also, the safety of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem in connection with Peter’s fear fo the circumcision party and the delegation from James. (Witherington’s commentary ‘Grace in Galatia’ is very good here.) It is not a stretch, as I see it, to read all four prohibitions of the Jerusalem coucil as referring to pagan practices concerning worship (cf. 1 Cor.), meat market, etc. All things pertaining, especially in Gentile lands, to the uncleanliness and idolatry within the temple.
So, like you I see it difficult to remove all theological or moral reference here whatsoever. And as such, I understand it to coincide with Paul’s teaching to theThessolonians and the corinthians regarding their association with pagan temples. For example, it is ok to eat food that has been sacrificed to idols privately in your own home, but it is not ok to do so in the pagan temple, where such ‘porneia’ was practiced along with the actual sacrifices to idols, etc. It is clear teh James’ concern is primarily one of witness. (15:21 - Moses is read in every city on the Sabbath)
Finally, it will be difficult to identify in a 1=1 equation the commands given in the letter fo the JC and any specific OT passage. Scholars are pretty much in agreement that there are no known parallels to a selection of these 4 commands from teh Law of Moses which are made to be binding on Gentiles.
CT
Chad,
Thanks for the question, though I am not sure what to say. What is the difference between 8 and 10? Do you mean that one specifically deals with the intents of the heart, while the other deals with the outward expression of those intentions? That can also be related to number 6, 7, and 9. Is that what you mean? If so, I recall a study of the 10 commandments and if the argument would be this is what Jesus was doing was getting at the heart, I would agree, but is that different than what the OT taught? The OT taught that at the root of all violations of the 10, was the heart.
Looking forward to where this leads:)
Jeremy,
I in no way am promoting kosher foods. What I am saying it spoken specifically towards the eating of blood, not pork or things of that nature.
Tim,
What I mean is that the difference between the 10th commandment, and say the 8th, etc. is that it explicitly deals with the heart. Now, you keep saying that the 8th commandment prohibits hatred in all forms directed at people. Yet nowhere in the 10 commandments is this stated. You want to make them say that because you have already committed to the view that the 10 comandments must be the unchanging moral law of God. Therefore, if anyone (esp. Christ) later mentions any of these commandments in context of moral law, that person must be simply expounding on the meaning which was already understood to be contained within the 10 commandments themselves.
I am giong to try to show you that this is not the case, and that such a view is untenable.
Allow me some room as I make my case.
This may take a few posts.
1) Let’s look at the relationship fo the 10 commandments to the rest of the Old Cov. I say that they are foundational, and that the other laws are explanations, clarifications, and expansions upon the principles and laws laid down in the 10. Sort of like a constitution. All other laws are built upon, or have their legality within the confines of, the 10 commandments. This is important, to understand.
None of the commands of Moses violates the 10 commandments. God did not command one thing on Mt. Sinai and another with Moses in the tent of meeting. The 10 comm. are the foundation of the O.C. Paul says in 2 Cor. 3 that they are essentially tied in with the O.C. Also, in the OT we find Exod. 34:28 says, “So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.”
In Deut. 9:9, 11 we read “When I went up the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant that the Lord made with you, I remained on the mountain forty days and forty nights. I neither ate bread nor drank water … And at the end of forty days and forty nights the Lord gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant.” Again in Deut. 9:15, “So I turned and came down from the mountain, and the mountain was burning with fire. And the two tablets of the covenant were in my two hands.”
Also, something that is rather obvious, but which slips by most people, is that the ark is the ‘ark of the covenant’, meaning not that it is the ark associated with the Mosaic cov. but rather it is the ark which contains the covenant. The word ark means chest, or coffin, or container. And what was in the ark but the ten commandments. These were the foundational laws of the covenant.
So the 10 commandments are essentially tied to the Mosaic Covenant.
Nowhere does Moses claim that these are eternal truths. They may be eternal moral laws, but Moses does not describe them as such. Moses essentially describes them as the tables of the covenant between he and Israel.
Most people tend to think of the Ten commandments as being mentioned in the Old Cov. as though they were just part of it. But essentially, we are instructed to think of the 10 comm. as being essentially the O.C.
Can you agree thus far?
CT
ok, I can follow your thinking and I am listening to what you said, but I think the exposition or as you said other laws that were based on the 10 do actually deal with the heart, not just the actions.
Tim,
OK. I am not saying that the other laws necessarily do not deal with matters of the heart. In fact, some of the laws later mentioned by Moses clearly refer to matters of the heart. ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart …” So certainly some of these later commands deal with the heart. What I am saying is that those later commands are not the ‘ten commandments’. They either find their basis and foundation in the ten, such as I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other God before me, or they find their legality from those ten commandments, meaning that they do not contradict the ten commands of the covenant.
But surely we can agree that the ten commandments do not read, “Thou shalt not offer unto God a blemished sacrifice.” My point is that the ten commandments themselves do not say that. That is not what was written on the tablets of stone. You have to go to the rest of the law of the covenant to find out what God means, exactly, by “you shall have no other gods before me.”
2) Now to the second point of argument. For this I will use the Sabbath as our example. I do this not for any particularly germane reason, but simply because it is a clear example. What we find in the O.C. is a litany of rules and regulations regarding the keeping of the Sabbath.
All of these are explanations of what God means by saying, “keep the Sabbath” We learn that in the law of the Cov., or the 10 commandments, that would mean ceasing from almost all work on the Sabbath. It would mean preparing meals on Friday to provide for rest on Sunday. It would mean no fires, it would mean not leaving the house for ordinary reasons, a rest from all of that. ‘A holy convocation in all your dwellings.’ A day of rest unto God. men who disregarded it and gathered on the Sabbath were to be put to death.All of these things are laws regarding the keeping of the Sabbath. They are explaining and clarifying and defining what was said in the 4th commandment. They are part of the same covenant. They fill up what it means to keep the Sabbath as part of the O.C. Without these clarifications it may not be clear to the people just how he wanted them to keep it, at least when it came to the particulars.
Conversely, to demonstrate the legality of all other commands, that they do not violate the 10 commandments, we could site God’s commands to kill the inhabitants of the land when Israel invades. This is not a violation of the command not to murder. It is also not a violation of the command to take a life for a life. Here, the command is not to murder, but the later commands are not a violation of the foundational covenant. In fact, they actually support it and enforce it.
I am not necessarily advancing the argument here, but merely showing how my first point works.
Can you agree with this as well? I want us to be clear on what we are talking about.
CT
Chad,
Can you explain what you mean when you say “they actually support it and enforce it”?
I said in the last post, “It would mean preparing meals on Friday to provide for rest on Sunday.”
Obviously this should read, ” … rest on Saturday.”
Rather embarassing.
CT
Tim,
I just mean that the command to rid the land of its possessors is meant to facilitate pure worship unto God, as the texts make clear. And that the command to take an eye for an eye can be seen not as a violation for murder, but as an actual protection of life. I.E. Death penalty.
Easy enough, but I appreciate your desire to make be be as clear as possible.
CT
Ok, thanks. I got it.
Tim,
OK, good. Now we can start making some progress.
3) I want to consider the command against adultery. Obviously there are things in the rest of the O.C. laws which speak to this issue. (I do not see the 10th commandment as prohibiting lust as a man may wish to have another man’s wife for a number of reasons — just ask John Wesley! whose wife was a disaster to his ministry.)
It is categorically prohibited in the Decalogue: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” In more specific language we read: “And thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbor’s wife, to defile thyself with her” (Lev 18:20). The penalty is death for both guilty parties: “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death” (Lev 20:10). Even a woman betrothed to a husband was subject to the law of adultery. (Deut. 22:23)
Now, we are in agreement that these laws, because they are part of the same covenant, will not violate the ten commandments. In fact, if anything, they clarify for us what was meant by God in those commands of the Old Covenant.
Now we also read Moses tell the people in Deut. 24:1-4:
“When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.”
Now, this further clarifies what is allowed, and not allowed in the Covenant documents of the 10 Commandments. Ad we may be certain that nothing in the law of Moses will contradict the meaning of those documents. Again, this is important, because what we have here is God himself interpreting the 7th commandment as it was given to Israel at Mt. Sinai. As it was meant to be understood in the O.C.
4) Next step:But what do we find in this respect from the lips of Christ?
Matthew 19:1-9:”Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
The common Reformed interpretation of this passage is that Christ is here rescuing this piece of Mosaic legislation from the perversion of the Pharisees. And certainly he is doing that. Further, the interpretation goes on, stating that Christ is harking back to the real meaning of the 7th commandment, as the Mosaic law in question essentially deals with the 7th commandment. But I believe that Christ is not doing that at all.
Let me explain. While it is true that Christ is rescuing this piece of Mosaic legislation from its perversion, it is not true that he is simply doing that. Notice, they said, ‘Moses commanded …’ and he says in correction, ‘Moses allowed …’ The traditional understanding of the passage gets that right. But look at what he affirms, not just what he denies! (This is amazing to me)
He actually says that Moses allowed this practice. He also affirmed that from the beginning of time God has not allowed it, nor does he in his kingdom. Nevertheless, Moses allowed it. We must be clear on this. “Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” Wow!
In other words, the Mosaic covenant (i.e. Moses allowed) allowed this action which Christ condemns as adultery. Further, this means that the 7th commandment, as wonderful as it is, cannot contain the prohibition which Christ here gives.
5) At least in this case, it is a wrong practice to poor into the 7th commandment, as given through Moses on Sinai, all biblical teaching regarding adultery.
The 7th commandment, as meant and intended from Sinai, is not the highest teaching regarding adultery. If you want the highest teaching regarding adultery, if you want the true prohibition about this, you go to Christ who lays it down in its highest form.
I have much more here, and will answer the glaring question about Christ’s “have you not read …” and his “from the beginning it was not so” But for now, understand that Christ says that Moses allowed the practice. It was not a violation of the covenant which came down from Moses. It was not a violation of the tablets of the Covenant.
Deut. 4:13 “And he declared to you his covenant which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone.”
Christ says - “Moses allowed … and I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” He condemns the man that Moses does not. And he does so because God does not approve of the practice, nor has he ever. He says, “from the beginning it was not so.” His declaration that they are required to not separate is bound up with the unchanging moral law of God. But this unchanging moral law of God is absolutely not the law that Moses gave. In fact, if we understand Christ’s words correctly, it is most certainly not found in the Old Covenant given to Israel as Mt. Sinai.
Tim, Do you follow? Any questions/objections/clarifications on what I am saying here?
Chad
I follow what you are saying, but I guess I am wondering about the point, since in fact Jesus did state that this was so from the beginning. Not only that, but I don’t see how it was not a violation. Its simply took on how to deal with it in the society. If it wasn’t a violation, then why is there defilement mentioned? However, before I ask further questions in regards to the specific item your are addressing (adultery, divorce and remarriage), I will wait and see how you continue it.
Could you clarify your questions? I am not clear on what you are asking here.
In short, and I will continue later, I woudl say that point is that the 10 Commandments are not the unchanging moral law of God. They are a lower form of law. It will be a few more steps before we get to anything regarding the Sabbath, but these things are foundational.
CT
Chad, I’ve enjoyed your analysis of the Mosaic law and what it IS and ISN’T. Great insights and examples. I loved the clarity of your comment, “that the 10 Commandments are not the unchanging moral law of God.” That is exactly what I have meant but haven’t stated so clearly.
The “10 Words” cannot summarize God’s moral law. If they could, they would necessarily be eternal instead of given, as Paul points out in Galatians 3, 430 years after Abraham until the Seed would come. They are a derivation of God’s eternal law, to be sure—but not THE eternal moral law. Only God Himself can contain—can BE—the eternal moral law.
BTW, I am not opposed to people observing a day as holy unto the Lord. I am opposed to the suggestion that such observance is required in the New Covenant.
I realize that the passion many of us former Adventists feel about walking away from required Sabbath observance may seem like a knee-jerk response to people looking on. In reality, however, because the Sabbath had such a spiritual “claim” on us—believing as we did that it was the “seal of God” or, at the least, the “sign of the seal” and thus coming dangerously close to blaspheming the role of the Holy Spirit—the idea of NOT observing the seventh day evoked deep fear of apostasy.
Much like Paul’s writing to the Corinthians about not eating meat offered to idols so as not to offend the consciences of the weak who would associate such eating with pagan rituals [while Paul himself said he could eat such meat because the idols meant nothing to him], so we have had to deliberately “abandon” the seventh-day Sabbath as an act of trust and of placing our complete faith in Jesus alone. It was terrifying to break, deliberately, that day. It meant we were no longer hedging our bets. Either Jesus was enough—or we were lost.
Jesus IS enough. His confirmation of His presence is not possible to explain to someone who hasn’t had to give up such an “idol” which had such “biblical” and salvational overtones.
What this experience has taught me is that the OT Sabbath was, truly a shadow. It is certainly not wrong for someone to observe a day. Clearly, however, the NT doesn’t command such observance, and there isn’t necessarily special blessing or sanctification to be found in such observance. Of course, some people might experience God’s special blessing if they dedicate a day to Him. But God does not require honoring a day. He requires that we honor Jesus.
One last puzzlement: I still do not understand how Christians satisfy themselves that the OT command to keep Sabbath, explicitly described to be the seventh day, can be understood to be “changed” to the first day in the NT. I understand the church tradition behind this observance, but I do not see how the fourth commandment—or Genesis 2—can be construed as Biblical support or proof for considering the first day to be Sabbath.
I would have more respect for Sunday observance being acknowledged to be based on church tradition than I have for the attempts to justify it based on the fourth commandment or on the creation account.
Just my particular view on the subject…
Colleen
Jeremy
[quote]Also, the Sabbath is based on the Exodus—see Deut. 5.[/quote]
I am not trying to be a stickler here but Ex 20:11 seems quite clear stating “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” And if memory serves correctly, Deut. was written for the second generation and not the first that actually did receive the decalogue from God.
[quote]God’s rest was not a Sabbath—He simply ceased creating the world. That’s all it says He “rested” from (John 5, Jesus says that God has always been working and not keeping Sabbath). So if He was “resting” from the work of Creation—did He start creating again the next week? NO! It was not a 1 day rest—it was an eternal rest. He CEASED creating on the 7th day. And He did not start again on Sunday or Monday or any other day.[/quote]
Again, Exodus20:11 makes your argument difficult to accept here. Your assumption here dictates that God must continue onward with creation after resting to be a Sabbath. Why? BTW: How do you know God’s rest was not a Sabbath?
But I do agree that He ceased his work on the seventh day hence the example of resting. Just because He rested from creation does not mean that He stopped all his work. Maybe He did somethings else on Sunday like visit with Adam and Eve, made them some garments, or even kicked them out of the Garden. Even that, maybe He started teaching them things about Himself and the need to rest on the seventh day.
[quote]How could a Gentile believer possibly automatically understand that he was supposed to keep the Sabbath day holy, rest, and do no work? The Gentiles were definitely not used to keeping the Sabbath.[/quote]
Most of the Gentiles that did come to faith were ones who were known as God-fearers. They did not become Jews but recognize the importance of the Scriptures. Why does Paul refer so much to the OT and the Law if the Gentiles were clueless on it? If Paul argues regarding the Law would not one think that the Gentiles are fully aware of the Sabbath? Even mentioning the Sabbath as you quote would assume that the Gentiles knew about it.
I was not suggesting that the NT does not talk about the Sabbath, but I was mentioning that Christ does not reject the practice of such a thing, since He never denounces it but corrects the abuses of it.
Surely, we can differentiate between Paul’s arguments regarding Salvation is not of the Law and “Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law (Romans 3:31),” in our daily living.
I hope that this may clear up where I am coming from.
PuritanD
The issue I am bringing up concerning defilement of a divorced person, specifically it is spoken of as a woman in the Old Testament. The passage you quoted earlierspeaks to that. The Levitical priests were not to marry a divorced woman because of defilement. Is that defilement not tied to sin? BTW, Coleen, I am not disputing what you are saying about Christ. He is the Lawgiver. Therefore he is the eternal Law. There is no question about that. This is why I was going to hold my questions till Chad was finished:)
I was not suggesting that the NT does not talk about the Sabbath, but I was mentioning that Christ does not reject the practice of such a thing, since He never denounces it but corrects the abuses of it.
Jesus was a Jew and was under the Mosaic Law until the New Covenant was in place, which was not while He was walking the earth.
Here is a story with some thought provoking implications.
The Levitical priests were not to marry a divorced woman because of defilement. Is that defilement not tied to sin?
And if the woman’s sin was to have been abandoned by her husband?
Tim,
To be sure there is some continuity here. Such as the defilement issue. In the OC the man is not allowed to go and remarry the women which he was allowed to put away for an indecency. If he does, he is defiled. In the NC, he is not allowed to put her away for an indecency. If he does he is defiled and a lawbreaker.
I don’t understand how you cannot see this. Christ clearly condemns what Moses allows. And in doing so he appeals not only to his own moral authority (i.e. he is the proper judge to determine the will of God and interpret the Scriptures) but he also appeals to the moral law of God which does not change while we are on this earth (i.e. there is no law concerning divorce, etc. in the new heavens and earth).
In other words, he pits the ‘law of God’ against the law of Moses. And instead of them balancing out on the scale, the ‘law of God’tips the scale in its favor, leaving the law of Moses wanting. This does not make the law of Moses evil, or unspiritual, but it does mean that it is not the most good, holy, just, and spiritual form of law that there is.
Now, back to where we started, we will come full circle, and then take off in another direction.
from post 121:”What I mean is that the difference between the 10th commandment, and say the 8th, etc. is that it explicitly deals with the heart. Now, you keep saying that the 8th commandment prohibits hatred in all forms directed at people. Yet nowhere in the 10 commandments is this stated. You want to make them say that because you have already committed to the view that the 10 comandments must be the unchanging moral law of God. Therefore, if anyone (esp. Christ) later mentions any of these commandments in context of moral law, that person must be simply expounding on the meaning which was already understood to be contained within the 10 commandments themselves.
I am giong to try to show you that this is not the case, and that such a view is untenable.”
I believe I have proved my case. The 10 Commandments were/are not the unchanging moral law of God. Or we could say this, whatever God was doing in the giving of the 10 commandments, we can know for certain that he was not giving a set of commands for all people at all time. Essentially, these commands were the basic covenant stipulations between God and the people of Israel. And we now know for certain that at least some of those laws CANNOT be identified with the perfect law of God.
I would entertain the opinion that we should abandon this type of terminology all together, but that is another matter.
once you can see that Christ is not afraid to do this with the law of Moses, then I believe your blinders have been removed, so that you can see what is really happening in the Sermon on the Mount. You can see what really happened in the New Covenant. Also, and perhaps this is the mostimportant thing for any in the reformed camp, you are open to the possibility taht the old and new covenants do not relate to one another as parts 1 and 2 of one covenant of grace. Rather, they relate as type and anti-type.
more laterCT
Colleen,
Thanks for your words of encouragement. Glad these thougths have been helpful. This last post was a bit rushed, as I am heading out the door, so I hope it is clear as well.
CT
Tim, here’s a big (BIG) problem with your statement that a priest couldn’t marry a woman defiled by divorce.
It was divorce that defiled, it was prostitution. And priests also couldn’t marry widows. Please tell me how I would have been defiled by the “sin” of having my husband get cancer and die?
Seriously. If you import “defiled” from “defiled by prostitution to divorce, then you must import it to widow also.
Here is the correct quote:
Lev. 21:13 ” ‘The woman he marries must be a virgin. 14 He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people, 15 so he will not defile his offspring among his people. I am the LORD, who makes him holy.
I would have more respect for Sunday observance being acknowledged to be based on church tradition than I have for the attempts to justify it based on the fourth commandment or on the creation account.
That is where I am at. I worship on Sundays because that is the tradition, not because it’s law.
Thanks Chad,
I see your point and understand what you are saying. I don’t know that I ever held the conviction of part 1 and 2 of covenant of grace, though I must say that all men were saved by grace through faith whether Old or New Covenant. Thanks for taking the time to explain your position. It really helps.
Ellen,
Thanks for your comments. You are correct. I was commenting off the top of my head, which I should not do, but thanks for your correction.
Regarding the Sabbath:
These statements are not following from my earlier posts. They are directly related to the Sabbath and I believe pose a real challenge to those who maintain that all Christians are required to observe a regulatory weekly Sabbath.
Colleen and maybe others have pointed this out, but we could ask, “If the Sabbath observance is a creation ordinance, part of the unchanging moral law of God, then how can it be that it changes days. In other words, murder did not change. Adultery did not change. All these things were sins from teh beginning. so how is it that IF God mandated a Saturday Sabbath at creation, and IF he reaffirmed such in the Old Covenant and the prophets, then how is it that in the NC the day suddenly changes? It is part of the unchanging moral law of God, so it can’t just change.”
next point of contention:This question is for Sabbatarians.
Would you have dinner with me as Christian fellowship if I was a murderer, not had murdered in the past, but was actively engaged a life of murder? Or what if I had two wives and taught that all Christians should do the same?
Have you had Christian fellowship with those who are actively involved in an non-Sabbatarian position? how can you justify this?
Also, when is the last time your church disciplined someone for the way in which they keep the Sabbath? What would constitute a sufficient violation of the Sabbath to warrant church discipline?
I think that you will not be able to answer these questions in truth and still hold your position.
CT
PuritanD,
I think you may have misunderstood Paul’s comments in Romans 3:31. Paul says, “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. ” What is “this” faith? This faith, is this understanding of faith being the sole instrument by which we gain a right standing with God apart from any law-keeping on our part.
What does he mean, “we uphold the law”? He means just what he goes on to explain. This is always Paul’s method of answering these objections.
1)the question “do we then overthrow the law by this faith”2)strong denialBy no means!3)short answerWe uphold/establish the law4)extended answeran exegetical look at Gen. and its teaching about faith and righteousness (chp. 4)
In other words, uphold the law, in Rom. 3:31, is not a reference to the day to day life of the Christian; that is found in Rom. 8 when Paul says that Christians are people who WALK by the Spirit and thus fulfill the righteous requirements of the law.
Paul follows this same pattern in the following sections of Romans6:1-146:15-237:7-127:13-259:14ffand elsewhere
CT
Chad,
Thanks for your comments they were helpful. I personally have struggled with discipline issues regarding the Sabbath issue. However, I don’t think the whole Saturday-Sunday issue is really part of the command anyway. There is simply the principle of 6 days working and the next in line, the 7th, is spent in rest. I never saw the word Saturday throughout the OT. Maybe it is a big issue. It was not one I really considered.
Great points, Chad!
Also, if we are to uphold the Law then we must NOT keep it. Deut. 18 says to listen to Jesus when He comes “like Moses” as a New Lawgiver giving a New Law to replace Moses and the Mosaic Law, and God said the same at the Transfiguration and took away Moses (Law) and Elijah (Prophets).
Jeremy
Jeremy, Colleen, Tim, Ellen,
I would be open to any of you emailing me privately regarding this or other issues.
I would also welcome anyone else who has genuine questions/comments/objections on this issue.
If you do email me, please include something obvious in the subject line - stupid spam mail ;-) .
cat721@earthlink.net
Especially Jeremy, if you would email me I would send you a short article I wrote on Gal. 2. It relates very closely to your last post.
I don’t plan on commenting any longer on this subject. I had planned on working out my line of thought through to the Sabbath issue, but looking at so many of the previous posts by Colleen, Jeremy, Ellen and others, it just seems that it would be superfluous. they have all done a wonderful job in their presentation, though I do not necessarily agree with all that they have suggested on each point.
CT
Great insights above! Chad, thank you again.
Tim, as far as the importance of the seventh day goes, the Jews certainly saw the specific day as important. God didn’t give them the option of keeping any day but the seventh as a memorial of His rest at the end of Creation week. I understand how the significance of the day could have become blurred over the passing centuries, but if one really studies the OT, the Sabbath was not a mandate to keep any one of seven. It was to keep ONLY the seventh as the sign of the covenant.
If the law is still binding today as a rule of faith and practice, one really must keep the seventh day because that clear mandate was never changed. Fulfilled—yes; changed, no.
Also, regarding upholding the law: Even as Christ-followers, we need the law as our evidence of Jesus’ identity. Without its guaranteed permanence, we would have no clear evidence that Jesus was the One who fulfilled it. Anyone could have claimed to be the Messiah; with the law as our template, however, we can see that Jesus fulfilled every symbol, ceremony, and shadow of it. Only He is worthy to claim the identity of Messiah, Son of God, Savior, Redeemer, high priest, Lamb of God, Immanuel, our Substitute.
He is everything.
Colleen
Avoid vain strivings about the Law. Jesus knows our hearts. Many will say in that day Lord Lord. Jesus will not be too happy with those who trample His law and attempt to explain it away because they no longer wish to have it written their hearts. Should we make void the law through faith God forbid. To those who wish to quote Romans 14 as their way out do not egnore the greater context of the passage. It’s not about abolishing the Sabbath it is however about judging each other.
To Colleen, Jeremy
I’ve just finished comment #149, and have enjoyed the discussions so far. I have a question for both of you regarding the concept of the relationship between the decalogue, Abraham, and the promised seed.
Given that we are counting on these to institutionalize or not Sabbath-observance at face value, what were the basis of sin, say, before the fall? Or after the fall? Before the flood? After the flood? Or more clearly, before the Abraham promise?
Thanks.