THE TRUE SABBATH

[sadanyagci]

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

There were laws given to the Israelites, and the Israelites ONLY, as a foreshadow of things to come. Noah was not told to rest on the Sabbath. Neither was Adam. Not even Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or his 12 sons practiced it. God gave the Sabbath rest through Moses, to the Israelites. It is still the Sabbath. God rested on the Sabbath. Gentile believers not resting on the Sabbath does not change that. God rested on the 7th day, and gave that same rest to the Israelites, as a foreshadow. There is still a Sabbath rest yet to be entered, by all believers. But the foreshadow was never given to us.

The food laws are to be considered the same, as Paul spoke. It has been said many times that the animals listed as clean are the only creatures God ever considered food. To prove this the command to Noah about taking 7 pairs of clean animals with him is used to show that Noah knew already what was clean and what was unclean. However, there is a problem here. God defined food Himself, in two places.

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

To Adam only seed-bearing plants, and fruit trees were given as food. To Noah, everything that lives and moves. This is how it stands now. The food laws were a foreshadow, and had reasons. Such as that the Israelites were to be holy, and weren't supposed to take anything unclean into themselves. We know that food doesn't make us unholy, and that it was already known what clean was and what was unclean. Is it not easy to see that such rules were simply to show that "you are what you eat"?

So then why the distinction between clean and unclean animals? The word clean, used there, means set apart, holy, meaning sacrificable. Were unclean animals ever sacrificed? No. Noah even sacrificed clean animals. It meant nothing back then as to what was edible and what was not. Back at the time of Noah they were only allowed to eat plants. Clean meant sacrificable to God.

Gentiles were not given the Sabbath rest. Gentiles were not told to eat only clean animals. Gentiles were not given these foreshadows and surface examples. Everyone was given the truth through Christ. We are to be holy. That has nothing to do with food, Sabbaths, or holidays any more than it has to do with going to Church on Sunday. Is that not easy to see?

 

[CecilW]

Sorry, Sadan, I can't let that stand without challenge!

On what basis do you state that Adam, Noah, Abraham and others did not keep the Sabbath? Is it somehow your contention that the other 9 commandments spoken by God from the mountain applied to all mankind, but the 4th was specific to the Jews, despite God's having set it aside as holy time at creation long before Jews existed?

I've heard that idea before, but it still seems bizarre to me.

 

[sadanyagci]

Were the 10 commandments given to all mankind or to just one group? God spoke these things to one group. Yes, the Sabbath was important to that. God said to keep His Sabbath holy. Why? Because He gave it to them. Did He give gentiles that same Sabbath? No.

Bear in mind that the LORD has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out."

"Say to the Israelites, 'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy.

But, the other commands in the list, however, we already know to be for everyone. There were 9 commands in the 10 commandments associated with general holiness, and one specific to honor the specific sign between God and the Israelites. The equivalent for us would be to not honor the signs between God and us gentile believers. It was part of the agreement between God and Israel, a specific sign between them. God gave THEM His Sabbath. God commanded they obey it, as a sign between Him and them. It merited Him speaking it to them Himself and writing it on stone.

This does not change the fact that the Law is our example. But we were never given these holidays, Sabbaths, or orders about foods. These were examples, shadows, of things to come.

I defer back to the words of Paul.

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

 

[sadanyagci]

There is also no statement that anyone observed a rest on the Sabbath before God told the Israelites to do so, except for God resting on that first Sabbath. God talking about giving the Sabbath to the Israelites as a sign between them shows that they didn't observe it before then, and that it was for a specific reason that they were to observe it. Note that no one speaks against the gentiles for not observing the Sabbath all throughout the Bible. Yet God was quite upset for the things going on in Sodom, and in the land of Canaan. There is no mention of Sabbath ignoring among those complaints.

 

[CecilW]

You're right on this, my friend -- the Bible is silent as regards Sabbath observance from creation to the mountain. Fairly silent on the use of idols, and taking the name of God in vain and honoring parents and covetousness and ... as well. Against which no-one argues. So why target the Sabbath? Could it be that, bearing the special mark of the Creator and most especially acknowledging His rulership, it is the special target of Satan's wrath?

But it can be argued with equal validity that the reason for its silence is that these thin gs were known, and practiced among God's people, and that in the wilderness, God was RESTORING lost knowledge to folks who had been enslaved for generations, much as He is doing today as regards PM.

Even if one were to grant that basic premise, which I can't, it would then be arguable that we, the gentiles, are grafted into the vine and become the seed of Abraham -- not a separate and parallel strain with a different standard of morality.

If the Bible, while given THROUGH the Jews, was given TO all mankind, as most of us believe, then surely the same would apply to the weekly Sabbath which figures so prominently therein! THROUGH the Jews TO all of us!

Besides, the same arguments that apply on behalf of PM apply here. Somehow God was too shy to tell folks that monogamy was his plan, leaving them to transgress in a morass of polygamy for century after century? Oh, and somehow, He established the pattern of the week -- work 6 days, rest 1, repeat indefinitely -- at creation, but was too embarrassed about it to TELL anyone until long after the flood?

Sorry, I can't be convinced of that one. However, this isn't the prime topic of this board. There are others where it is examined pro and con. I don't want it polariziong members of this group, who are here to fellowship and receive help and support in the area of our families. So, I intend to leave this topic ...

 

[cnystrom]

I have found that GOD is very specific when it comes to the issue of worship.

You are quite correct, sir. And what does God say about Christian worship?

John 4: (19) "Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. (20) Our fathers worshipped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem." (21) Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. (22) You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. (23) Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks. (24) God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth." "

A time is coming and HAS NOW COME! It is no longer about the mountain! It is now about being a "type of worshipper". Praise God!

However that is a little vague. Can we be more specific about this type of worshipper God is looking for?

Romans 12 tells us that

(1)Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual[a] act of worship. (2) Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

There it is in clear black and white. Our worship is our transformation to a renewed mind, our sacrificial living.

Make no mistake. This is Christian worship and there is no other.

What day of the week do we do this? Every day of course. How can there be any debate?

So the answer is that before they worshipped one day a week, now we Christians worship every day of the week.

 

[sweetlissa]

Cnystrom has hit the nail on the head. Like the beatitudes, where Christ was telling us that it is what is in our hearts that matters, so it is with worship. Worship is to be in every breath we take. If Christ is in me, then my very breath should be of him. I don't have to wait until Saturday or Sunday or any other day to worship my Lord and Master.

SweetLissa

 

[Curtis]

My family and I enjoy this day (today is the 7th day) of rest greatly. Sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. I am thankful for Yah's instructions and find blessing in heeding them. This much is beyond debate.

 

[Mark C]

There were laws given to the Israelites, and the Israelites ONLY, as a foreshadow of things to come.

Interesting point, Sadan - but I always ask the same question when I hear about things that (like our Savior, BTW*) were specifically "for Israel".

Do we want to be "grafted in", or not?

As for "me and my house", I'm thankful that He responded with grace to the woman who reminded Him that "even the little dogs" eat the scraps that fall from the table.

Like Caleb, who was NOT "of Israel, but, by faith came "out of Egypt" and walked in obedience, I am thankful that He accepts even the "foreigner" who asks to be admitted to His house as a "son"! (Caleb was given the inheritance of Judah, the line of the King, as a reward. Interestingly, he was not only a polygynist, but one of the few men in ALL of Scripture of whom no criticism is Written!)

So, my "reasonable service" is to obey Him. ALL of the "teachings and understanding" that He has -- I am thankful for. As David says, "the Torah of YHVH is perfect, converting the soul..."


Blessings, (and Shabbat Shalom!)
Mark



-----------------------
* Matthew 15:24: "But He answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

 

[Mark C]

PS> The fact that I choose to rest on His Sabbath does not at ALL mean that I take issue with the very valid point that we worship Him on each and every day of the week. (This, BTW, was hardly "new with Christianity". There was worship each and every day in the Tabernacle, the Temple, and probably in exile as well throughout Scripture. Deuteronomy 6 -- in particular 6:4-9 -- was cited by 'the Word Made Flesh' as the commandment upon which all the rest of the "Torah and Prophets hangs".)

 

[Mark C]

After something in another thread that you wrote struck a chord with me, Randy, I realized that the response I put there was at least as much of a response to this comment as it was to the question of music and "doctrine".

(that was here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1075&p=10557#p10557 )

First of all, anyone who has read my posts knows that I believe that Christ did not come to destroy the Law.

Agreed; He says so, more than once, through multiple witnesses.

However, the application of the Law has certainly changed because of Christ. Furthermore, it should be recognized that Christ so fulfilled the Law that there are certain Laws that do not need to be practiced anymore (i.e. Blood Sacrifices).

Here I return to the Hebrew for clarity. (And acknowledge in advance that the witness reports that we currently have only in Greek add one additional level of potential confusion.)

If "Torah" is understood to mean more than "nomos", or a legalistic concept of "law", then God's "teaching and understanding" is "perfect", and "changes not" and "not one yod or tiddle will pass" from it so long as "heaven and earth" still exist.

But what was "fulfilled" was His Plan, His Will, and the things that He had "declared through His servants the prophets", literally since 'the Beginning' (Bereshiet 1:1, where He is the 'et', the 'aleph-tav'). "Fulfill" means to "complete", make "whole" or "perfect", and even to "fill up" with the true Meaning of His "teaching and understanding".

What was "done away with", or "nailed to the cross" was not the Torah, not the "teaching", or "instruction", but the CURSE of REBELLION to that instruction, the penalty for our WILLFUL, deliberate disobedience to Him. (Note, carefully, that while the Torah specifies sacrifices for peace offerings, for UNintentional sin, and the like - there was NOWHERE a sacrifice available in any earthly temple for deliberate rebellion! That took a Perfect Lamb, and was the Point of the Whole Story up until that point, of course. But even so, He is not "done"; we have seen "Meshiach ben Joseph, the Servant Who is our Kinsman-Redeemer, but NOT "Meshiach ben David", the return of the Conquering King, Who is yet to come. This, of course, was why some did not recognize Him the first time anyway.)

However, this principle does not only apply here, but it applies to other Laws. Now, I am the first to say that I do not have a full grasp of the inter-connectivity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, but I do know from my research that there is a lot of confusion on the topic. For example, many people who teach that the Law is still applicable today will eat according to the dietary laws, yet, these same people ignore all the clothing Laws.

Not all of us, of course. But we recognize that while we try to walk in obedience to His teaching and instruction to the very best of our abilities (why? Because we LOVE Him, for what He did!)
...we know that "choose Life!" is still at the root of discernment. The "Schoolmaster" is no longer here with us in the flesh, but His teaching still guides us on what is without doubt a very "narrow path" indeed, and few there are that find it.

Not only do we know the application of the Law has changed by the very death of Christ (no more animal sacrifices), we also know it because of how Apostle Paul applied the Law to the man who was sleeping with his father’s wife. The Law advocated the death penalty. Apostle Paul merely told them to excommunicate him. So, if we want to apply the Law properly, we must apply it with the same hermeneutics that the New Testament writers applied with in order to come up with a sound hermeneutic concerning how to apply the Law today.

This is a big topic, and one I won't claim to address in a 'sound bite'. But Paul was a consummate Torah scholar, who knew what His Master taught. Note that Yeshua did NOT order the "woman (allegedly) caught in adultery" to be stoned.

Why? The answer is far from what is often taught. (Where were the "two or three witnesses"? What did He write in the dust? (I believe the teaching which suggests that the answer is in Numbers 5. Furthermore, the death penalty was VERY rare; to send transgressors "out of the camp" was far more often the remedy of the judges, and even the later Pharisees, if for no other reason than the 'choose life' teaching of "mercy".)

With that said, I suggest that the Sabbath rest was 100% fulfilled in Christ, just as the blood sacrifices were indeed fulfilled. Therefore, today, I am convinced that the preponderance of Scriptural evidence supports that since He fulfilled the Sabbath for us, this Law is 100% followed each and every day we place our faith on the finished work of Christ.

Could I be wrong? Yes, I could be! Perhaps you have figured out how the entire Law interconnect under the New Covenant. I would be a very blessed man if you had a clear answer for me.

Scripture has a number of answers for that one. We are told (Lev. 23, obviously, but also repeatedly in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) that these Sabbaths (plural, actually) are "forever", and "throughout our generations", and also again in the Renewed Covenant that they will be honored in the time to come, in His Kingdom (and those who fail to do so will get "no rain".)

So, in summary – I believe that the entire Bible is to be followed. However, the applications of all the Laws need to be understood with some real depth. It is easy for us to say that the Laws were never rescinded! But, what does that really mean – especially in light of how some of them were applied in the New Testament!
It is clear that Christ became obedient, thus 100% fulfilling the Law. Some of this fulfilling was so complete that it obliterated the application for you and me. In other words, since Jesus fulfilled...

There are some things in His "teaching and instruction" which we CANNOT do today (and many which NEVER applied to all of us, of course.) I am not a Levite, nor a King, nor a wife; the strictures about marrying a virgin do not apply to me, I CANNOT make a temple sacrifice, because there IS no (physical!) temple (but I can, of course, make a "sacrifice of praise" in the "holy of holies" in the temple within me), and I couldn't "multiply" horses or gold even if I wanted to. (But I would perhaps "add" a wife. )

But I know that He did not "do away with" His teaching and instruction. Not only is it "perfect" (Psalm 19) but it is "not too hard", and is for my blessing. (Deut. chapter 30). I will "keep His commandments" not because I "HAVE TO", but because I love Him, and it is my "reasonable service", since I have chosen to "serve Him only" as a bondservant forever. (Exodus 21:5-6)

I don't presume to ever "judge" any man who, particularly for his own house, chooses to walk a different path. But I appreciate the "liberty in Him" to walk in agreement with my brothers - even when have occasional differences of opinion!

Blessings in His love,

Mark

 

[CecilW]

SHOOT A MONKEY! Y'all're drawin' me back in ...

My wife and I enjoy our relationship, commune together (usually in harmony) every day of the week, etc.

That doesn't mean that we don't still treasure and benefit greatly from "Date Night"!

Sabbath is no more nor less than a 24 hour weekly Date Night with our Creator, the "Husband" and initiator in our relationship.

Skip date night if you want. But there are blessings offered for those who accept and show up that aren't there if you don't. Cindy and I both treasure it, uh, them (date night with each other, and date day with God) more and more all the time.

 

[sadanyagci]

So then what did Paul mean when he said not to let anyone judge you concerning those things? If Sabbath is valid for everyone it is judged as a sin if it is not followed. If it is not valid for everyone it is not judged as a sin if it is not followed. So, do we require forgiveness if we don't observe the Sabbath? If so, then why didn't Paul say that? Why did he say the opposite?

 

[PolyPride]

So then what did Paul mean when he said not to let anyone judge you concerning those things? If Sabbath is valid for everyone it is judged as a sin if it is not followed. If it is not valid for everyone it is not judged as a sin if it is not followed. So, do we require forgiveness if we don't observe the Sabbath? If so, then why didn't Paul say that? Why did he say the opposite?

Those are some good questions, Sadanyagci. It's not characteristic of Paul to tell us to do nothing when a believer is sinning. In fact, Paul tells us to judge those inside the Church and to EXPEL the wicked from among you (1 Corinthians 5:12-13). If not observing the Sabbath was a sin, then Paul would be contradicting himself when he says to not let anyone judge you in regards to a Sabbath day (Colossians 2:16). The same passage you're referencing, Colossians 2:16, also mentions the Sabbath in a list of other clearly irrelevant or inactive OT requirements (New Moon celebrations, dietary laws, etc.) which convinces me more that it is just as irrelevant for the New Covenant as those other listed items are.

Colossians 2:16 16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.


There's also the very next verse, which speaks to an earlier point that DaPastor made, on page 2 of this topic:

In reference to the Sabbath, New Moon celebration, etc..
Colossians 2:17 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

With that said, I suggest that the Sabbath rest was 100% fulfilled in Christ, just as the blood sacrifices were indeed fulfilled. Therefore, today, I am convinced that the preponderance of Scriptural evidence supports that since He fulfilled the Sabbath for us, this Law is 100% followed each and every day we place our faith on the finished work of Christ.

Could I be wrong? Yes, I could be! Perhaps you have figured out how the entire Law interconnect under the New Covenant. I would be a very blessed man if you had a clear answer for me.

So, in summary – I believe that the entire Bible is to be followed. However, the applications of all the Laws need to be understood with some real depth. It is easy for us to say that the Laws were never rescinded! But, what does that really mean – especially in light of how some of them were applied in the New Testament!
It is clear that Christ became obedient, thus 100% fulfilling the Law. Some of this fulfilling was so complete that it obliterated the application for you and me. In other words, since Jesus fulfilled

 

[Mark C]

So then what did Paul mean when he said not to let anyone judge you concerning those things?

I tend to note that Paul is probably about the most MISunderstood and "twisted" (as Peter said) of all of the teachers in Scripture. His stated mission was to teach the 'gentiles' -- those who did NOT know anything about Torah -- not only about torah, the "teaching and instruction", but about the Teacher and Instructor Made Flesh.

Have you ever noticed how if you try to tell a disobedient and willful child something, that no matter how specific you try to be, the words get "twisted"?

For example, "Why do you expect to be able to do [some privilege] when you are disrespectful, won't listen, and HAVEN'T EVEN BOTHERED TO PICK UP THE CLOTHES ON YOUR FLOOR?" becomes a bad statement, doesn't it? Is it a surprise when that child comes and then petulantly says, "OK -- I picked up the clothes! NOW I want [ALL of those privileges!]"

In other words, an Absolute Minimum Standard somehow becomes 'twisted' into ALL that can be expected. (Try re-reading the minimum standards to begin fellowship of Acts 15:20-21 in that understanding!)

Much of Paul's teaching seems to get "turned on its head" in that way.

So let me just ask a question, for consideration:

Who is most often "judged" in 'the Church' in this post-Biblical, Truth-denying culture:

Those who read what God REALLY WROTE about something like, oh -- say, marriage -- or those who instead follow the "tradition of men", that idol of Monogamy?

Now take a look at warnings like Isaiah 1 (esp. 13-14) , in light of a history that Shaul/Paul knew all too well. Perverting His appointed times, dishonoring His sabbaths, "mixing" the clean (qadosh) and profane, was nothing new at all. Not in ancient times, Paul's time, or now. There really is "nothing new under the sun".

I think Paul was writing to the Believers, those who -- to the best of their knowledge, ability, and understanding -- sought to KEEP YHVH's eternal commandments. Take a look at Col. 2:16 in light of that understanding:

"Therefore do not let anyone judge you... (with regard to any of these things that are commanded in His Word). It is a fallen "church" which judges those who reject a FALSE authority, based on pagan tradition, and seems to be the worst "Hypocrite" that exists today. They don't have to be called "Pharisees" to practice the same self-serving acts of replacing His commandments with tradition-based "doctrine".

Blessings,

Mark

 

[sadanyagci]

Lots of words to prove a point, but not scripture. And such an argument could be applied to anything, not only breaking the Sabbath. You don't find Paul saying "don't let anyone judge you because you sleep with prostitutes and worship idols. You don't know any better. I'll come teach you later." No, if there was lack of knowledge about Sabbath or foods Paul would have provided knowledge. But does he? No. He doesn't even say he'll inform them of these things later. 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. What was worthy of death in Israel, by God's command? Working on the Sabbath. What does that translate to these days? All other death sentences translated to excommunication from believers after being rebuked by first one, then a few, and then the whole body of Christ. Paul would have known this.

The Sabbath was a sign between God and the children of Jacob... Israel. It was between them. Yes, we are grafted in... but we are still gentiles. We know circumcision is circumcision of the heart. We know what the Sabbaths mean and what is coming. We know what the holidays stand for. We are a little confused on at times, but sort of know, what the foods mean. We know these things. We were not told to follow the letter of the law. We were not told to be the shadow. We were told to follow the spirit of the law. I do wear mixed fibers at times, but I know God hates "mixture"... mixture of good and evil... mixture of right and wrong... and especially crossbreeding. That is plain to see. Was it clothing He was worried about? Do not mussel the ox while he is treading out the grain. Was it oxen He was worried about?

 

[Mark C]

Lots of words to prove a point, but not scripture.

Then keep reading.

And such an argument could be applied to anything, not only breaking the Sabbath.

Of course it can; which is the point.

You don't find Paul saying "don't let anyone judge you because you sleep with prostitutes and worship idols. You don't know any better. I'll come teach you later." No, if there was lack of knowledge about Sabbath or foods Paul would have provided knowledge. But does he? No.

Here, and perhaps only here, we disagree strongly, Sadan.

What do you suppose he means by "ALL Scripture" in II Timothy 3:16? (There was no "new" testament at the time, obviously; he was referring to the same "Scripture" that the Savior did.)

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

He doesn't even say he'll inform them of these things later.

He didn't have to. The point of the summary (noted above) in Acts 15:20-21 was that "Moses is taught every Sabbath in every city." After meeting the MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS to "get through the door" (the 'strait gate', even) we are expected to "study for ourselves" (as he and others repeated frequently).

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?

The Sabbath was a sign between God and the children of Jacob... Israel. It was between them. Yes, we are grafted in... but we are still gentiles. We know circumcision is circumcision of the heart. We know what the Sabbaths mean and what is coming. We know what the holidays stand for. We are a little confused on at times, but sort of know, what the foods mean. We know these things. We were not told to follow the letter of the law. We were not told to be the shadow. We were told to follow the spirit of the law. I do wear mixed fibers at times, but I know God hates "mixture"... mixture of good and evil... mixture of right and wrong... and especially crossbreeding. That is plain to see. Was it clothing He was worried about? Do not mussel the ox while he is treading out the grain. Was it oxen He was worried about?

That part looks back on track to me, Sadan.

Just remember that there is a distinction between what 'the world' calls "law", and what YHVH Wrote down for us. And it is certainly possible to be judged for keeping the latter, and rejecting the former...just as all of those teachers and prophets consistently warned.

I use John 14:15 for a 'signature line' for that very reason. It is the "conditional" that really matters - whether we are talking about "new moon", or "Sabbaths", or "food and drink", or even marriage.

I don't expect to "EARN" His love, or my salvation, by "keeping Torah". But - BECAUSE He first loved me, I "love my master", and hope to dwell in His house forever. I understand what Paul called my "reasonable service". It is obedience.

SO - because I love Him, I am thankful to be allowed to keep His commandments.

Blessings,
Mark

 

[PolyPride]

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.

James 2: 10 even adds to this, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."


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 (in which the NT seems to rescind some of those OT laws) is that I can't find anyone who keeps ALL of them, including the punishments. If someone wants to talk to me about the Sabbath being a command that should be kept forever, shouldn't I also question them about all of the other remaining 612 or so laws that Psalms mentioned were meant to be kept forever?

Hebrews 18:13 mentions, By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

 

[PolyPride]

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.

James 2: 10 even adds to this, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."


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 (in which the NT seems to rescind some of those OT laws) is that I can't find anyone who keeps ALL of them, including the punishments. If someone wants to talk to me about the Sabbath being a command that should be kept forever, shouldn't I also question them about all of the other remaining 612 or so laws that Psalms mentioned were meant to be kept forever?

Hebrews 18:13 mentions, By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.



If you're going to follow the Law, you should follow ALL of it, and most importantly, the way it was mentioned to be followed, that means regardless of Christ's sacrifice. Otherwise, as soon as you start saying that the NT rescinds this or modifies a even a minute detail of the Law, then I don't see why wouldn't God potentially do that to the Sabbath, as well, especially in light of Colossians 2:16-17 (which would contradict 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 if not observing the Sabbath really was a sin). I only claim that something from the OT Law is no longer applicable to the NT when the NT specifies, otherwise, I simply would not know nor would I draw any conclusions.

 

[Mark C]

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)

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)

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!

The hardest thing for me to "get over" once I realized that "what I had been TOLD it said" was NOT what "is Written" was the Big Lie that He was a capricious, fickle 'god', like the Greek and Roman variety!

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...

Mark



----------------------------
* 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?

Now consider this:

The penalty for rebellion to Him was death, and still is. That "penalty" (think "conservation of mass-energy"; picture an imminent train wreck) still exists...
...just be VERY thankful that Someone took your place in the equation!

(But DON'T go get right back on the train!)