Keeping the Sabbath

[BibleOnly]

Thanks for your reply BibleOnly.

Could you expound for me the reasons that you dismiss the Sabbath and instead feel it would not be proper to go to church on Saturdays? Why is Sunday so special? Or any other day other than Saturday?

No, you've misunderstood me. There is no reason on earth not to go to church on Saturday. Or Wednesday ( as I do, in fact ). Or any other day. The church is not a building, the church is the people, God indwells the PEOPLE in the church, not the building. So, I am the temple of God where-ever I go, and I am equally holy as a result, every day. Sunday is just convenient, it is not special in any way.

[Woody]

Quote:

But, I also know that the New Testament was a new covenant, built on better promises.

This is a good example of how the Lord through the Holy Spirit works with us. It also points out to me why you don't fully understand the need for the Sabbath.

God takes us as babes in Him. He leads us along individually as we need. He gives us a little here and a little there. In the New Testament God did just that . He expounded just a little more. But He did not do away with what He previously instructed us to do in the Ten Commandments. No. He just went further. I see no Biblical instructions that say to do away with ANY of the Ten Commandments. Just the opposite. IN the new Testament God expounded the commandments to say that no only should we be concerned about our actions - but we should be concerned with what is IN OUR HEARTS. Actions are the easy part. But having a clean heart as David prayed for - is for the much more mature.

[BibleOnly]

As I've mentioned before, at least for myself and I'd guess most SDAs can agree, is we worship on the Sabbath not only because of the 10Cs, but because as He says in Genesis 2:2 On the seventh day God was finished with his work which he had made, so he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 God blessed the seventh day and separated it as holy; because on that day God rested from all his work which he had created, so that it itself could produce.. Also we as SDAs except the OT and the NT, not just one but both parts of the Bible.

I think you mean we 'accept' both parts of the Bible ? I certainly accept them both, I just regard that the NT was written after the old, and the OT describes being a Jew and the NT describes being a Christian, so where the NT describes something new that replaces something that was just a type and a shadow, an example of what was to come, I 'no longer need a schoolmaster', but can live as the apostles did, not as the Jews did.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

As I've mentioned before, at least for myself and I'd guess most SDAs can agree, is we worship on the Sabbath not only because of the 10Cs, but because as He says in Genesis 2:2 On the seventh day God was finished with his work which he had made, so he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 God blessed the seventh day and separated it as holy; because on that day God rested from all his work which he had created, so that it itself could produce.. Also we as SDAs except the OT and the NT, not just one but both parts of the Bible.

I think you mean we 'accept' both parts of the Bible ? I certainly accept them both, I just regard that the NT was written after the old, and the OT describes being a Jew and the NT describes being a Christian, so where the NT describes something new that replaces something that was just a type and a shadow, an example of what was to come, I 'no longer need a schoolmaster', but can live as the apostles did, not as the Jews did.

Was Jesus a Jew when He created the earth and established the Sabbath?

[joeb]

Well, that's not true. I read the OT a lot, and I regard it as very important, I am not a 'New Testament only Christian'. But, I also know that the New Testament was a new covenant, built on better promises.

[BibleOnly]

Was Jesus a Jew when He created the earth and established the Sabbath?

*grin* well, God didn't ever stop 'resting' from creation. The 'seventh day' was in fact the time from when creation ended until now and beyond. God does not create new worlds, or new plants, or new forms of life, today. So, it's more correct to say that a pattern was established in creation, which flowed through to the Sabbath given in the law, which flows through to the rest given a Christian in the Gospel.

[BibleOnly]

Originally Posted By: BibleOnly

Well, that's not true. I read the OT a lot, and I regard it as very important, I am not a 'New Testament only Christian'. But, I also know that the New Testament was a new covenant, built on better promises.

Hmmm.... I have to ask then, how was it Jesus was able to ask the question in verse 10, honestly? The question unmistakably implies that the new birth and righteousness by faith were forgotten concepts to the Jews of Christ's day, not new concepts.

Quote:

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Well, you could take that implication. I'd suggest that it's more the case that the Old Testament did foretell these things, and a master of Israel should know that. Jesus was clear, the ability to be born of the Spirit could not happen until His resurrection, it was not something that had happened before. What do you think verse 8 means ? Here it is from the youngs literal translation, which translates word for word without trying to interpret:

8the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.'

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Woody

Was Jesus a Jew when He created the earth and established the Sabbath?

*grin* well, God didn't ever stop 'resting' from creation. The 'seventh day' was in fact the time from when creation ended until now and beyond. God does not create new worlds, or new plants, or new forms of life, today. So, it's more correct to say that a pattern was established in creation, which flowed through to the Sabbath given in the law, which flows through to the rest given a Christian in the Gospel.

Thanks. That explains your thoughts better to me.

And if that is your theory - it is fine with me. Go and live a life of Christ. I have no beef with it. WE can agree to disagree. But at least now we both know where each of us is at.

Fruitful. Thanks for the discussion.

[Lysimachus]

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:

Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

The word 'days' is in brackets as it does not occur in the Greek, the translators felt it was implied, but in the Greek, this uses the same single word as all the verses that talk about the Sabbath. I know the SDA claims this is about 'sabbaths' other than Saturday, but given how careful Paul usually is to explain things, if keeping the Saturday was so important, it is out of character for him to write this and not clarify what he means. Remember, he didn't have the internet or even a phone, he sent a letter and it had to explain exactly what he meant, so people would not be mistaken or over compensate to a new error. There is no New Testament verse that I know of that states that Christians must keep the Sabbath, and these plainly state that we don't need to.

I would agree with you that the Greek word for "sabbath days" is most-likely singular. But it is being used in "plural form". For example, the word "sabbath" is singular. But the expression "a sabbath" is "plural form". This means that the singular form is being expressed in a plural form, to indicate that there are many sabbaths. The expression "THE Sabbath" is not in the Greek, but the meaning of "a sabbath" is.

It is debated whether the expression "sabbatwn" is plural or not. Strong's seems to believe it is plural:

Scroll down here concerning Colossians 2:16:

http://www.studylight.org/isb/parse.cgi?bk=col&ch=2&vs=16&nt=na

• Sabbatwn - Noun : Genitive : Plural : Neuter

In the King James Version, the word "days" was added, not to "add" to what is said, but to qualify what was meant. "Give no regard to a sabbath" and "give no regard to sabbaths" and "give no regard to sabbath days" all mean the same thing, just different ways to say it. But, had Colossians 2:16 said "give no regard to THE Sabbath day", then it would have been impossible to add the qualifier "days", nor could the plural meaning be derived from it.

You understand better now?

It's important to pay attention not just to the Greek, but also to the Greek parsing in the Greek Lexical Parser.

[BibleOnly]

Thanks. That explains your thoughts better to me.

And if that is your theory - it is fine with me. Go and live a life of Christ. I have no beef with it. WE can agree to disagree. But at least now we both know where each of us is at.

Fruitful. Thanks for the discussion.

Thanks - I feel you've helped me to understand the SDA better, too, which is why I came here. Thanks again.

[BibleOnly]

You are correct that the Greek word is singular. But it is being used in "plural form". For example, the word "sabbath" is singular. But the expression "a sabbath" is "plural form". This means that the singular form is being expressed in a plural form, to indicate that there are many sabbaths. The expression "THE Sabbath" is not in the Greek, but the meaning of "a sabbath" is.

It is debated whether the expression "sabbatwn" is plural or not. Strong's seems to believe it is plural:

Scroll down here concerning Colossians 2:16:

http://www.studylight.org/isb/parse.cgi?bk=col&ch=2&vs=16&nt=na

• Sabbatwn - Noun : Genitive : Plural : Neuter

The word "days" was added, not to "add" to what is said, but to qualify what was meant. "Give no regard to a sabbath" and "give no regard to sabbaths" and "give no regard to sabbath days" all mean the same thing, just different ways to say it. But, had Colossians 2:16 said "give no regard to THE Sabbath day", then it would have been impossible to add the qualifier "days", nor could the plural meaning be derived from it.

You understand better now?

Interesting. My Strongs does not say that. It defines the word as:

1) the seventh day of each week which was a sacred festival on which the Israelites were required to abstain from all work

a) the institution of the sabbath, the law for keeping holy every seventh day of the week

a single sabbath, sabbath day

2) seven days, a week

When I ask to see the other places the exact same Greek word was used, I am shown all the times like

Mat 12:1 At 1722 that 1565 time 2540 Jesus 2424 went 4198 on the sabbath day4521 through 1223 the corn 4702; and 1161 his 846 disciples 3101 were an hungred 3983 , and 2532 began 756 to pluck 5089 the ears of corn 4719, and 2532 to eat 2068 .

and

Jhn 19:31 The Jews 2453 therefore 3767, because 1893 it was 2258 2258 the preparation 3904, that 3363 0 the bodies 4983 should 3306 0 not 3363 remain 3306 upon 1909 the cross 4716 on 1722 the sabbath day4521, (for 1063 that 1565 sabbath day4521 was 2258 an high 3173 day 2250,) besought 2065 Pilate 4091 that 2443 their 846 legs 4628 might be broken 2608 , and 2532 [that] they might be taken away 142 .

and

Act 17:2 And 1161 Paul 3972, as 2596 his manner was 1486 , went in 1525 unto 4314 them 846, and 2532 1909 three 5140 sabbath4521 days reasoned 1256 with them 846 out of 575 the scriptures 1124,

so, where do I look to get that site to render Acts 17:2 in the same way ?

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

You are correct that the Greek word is singular. But it is being used in "plural form". For example, the word "sabbath" is singular. But the expression "a sabbath" is "plural form". This means that the singular form is being expressed in a plural form, to indicate that there are many sabbaths. The expression "THE Sabbath" is not in the Greek, but the meaning of "a sabbath" is.

It is debated whether the expression "sabbatwn" is plural or not. Strong's seems to believe it is plural:

Scroll down here concerning Colossians 2:16:

http://www.studylight.org/isb/parse.cgi?bk=col&ch=2&vs=16&nt=na

• Sabbatwn - Noun : Genitive : Plural : Neuter

The word "days" was added, not to "add" to what is said, but to qualify what was meant. "Give no regard to a sabbath" and "give no regard to sabbaths" and "give no regard to sabbath days" all mean the same thing, just different ways to say it. But, had Colossians 2:16 said "give no regard to THE Sabbath day", then it would have been impossible to add the qualifier "days", nor could the plural meaning be derived from it.

You understand better now?

Interesting. My Strongs does not say that. It defines the word as:

1) the seventh day of each week which was a sacred festival on which the Israelites were required to abstain from all work

a) the institution of the sabbath, the law for keeping holy every seventh day of the week

a single sabbath, sabbath day

2) seven days, a week

When I ask to see the other places the exact same Greek word was used, I am shown all the times like

Mat 12:1 At 1722 that 1565 time 2540 Jesus 2424 went 4198 on the sabbath day4521 through 1223 the corn 4702; and 1161 his 846 disciples 3101 were an hungred 3983 , and 2532 began 756 to pluck 5089 the ears of corn 4719, and 2532 to eat 2068 .

and

Jhn 19:31 The Jews 2453 therefore 3767, because 1893 it was 2258 2258 the preparation 3904, that 3363 0 the bodies 4983 should 3306 0 not 3363 remain 3306 upon 1909 the cross 4716 on 1722 the sabbath day4521, (for 1063 that 1565 sabbath day4521 was 2258 an high 3173 day 2250,) besought 2065 Pilate 4091 that 2443 their 846 legs 4628 might be broken 2608 , and 2532 [that] they might be taken away 142 .

and

Act 17:2 And 1161 Paul 3972, as 2596 his manner was 1486 , went in 1525 unto 4314 them 846, and 2532 1909 three 5140 sabbath4521 days reasoned 1256 with them 846 out of 575 the scriptures 1124,

so, where do I look to get that site to render Acts 17:2 in the same way ?

Naturally, your Strong's would not say that. That's where the Greek Lexical Parser comes into play.

It's the "parsing" of the word that makes all the difference. The Strong's on the outside just gives you the definition of the "root word". The root word is "sabbaton". But the parsing of the word can change the intent of usage of the word, such as "sabbatwn".

Only the translators are familiar with these extra details. This is why it is unfortunate when average people just look up a Greek word in their Strong's Concordance, and then come to a conclusion of what the word means, not realizing that the reason why the translators gave it an additional meaning is because of the way it was parsed.

The translators aren't as stupid as people think!

[Lysimachus]

Notice for example:

http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&amp...mp;oq=&sr=1

From there, click on the "Greek" link.

Now the English words will be "clickable" to take you to the Greek word.

Notice that every time you click on a Greek word, the "root word" is given, not the parsed version of that word.

Thus, the next step to be taken is to click the "Greek Lexical Parser" on the upper-right corner of the verse.

Once you are there, you can see how each word is parsed. A separate pop-up window will open. After that, you can then click on the parsed word itself, and it will explain more details.

[BibleOnly]

Naturally, your Strong's would not say that. That's where the Greek Lexical Parser comes into play.

It's the "parsing" of the word that makes all the difference. The Strong's on the outside just gives you the definition of the "root word". The root word is "sabbaton". But the parsing of the word can change the intent of usage of the word, such as "sabbatwn".

Only the translators are familiar with these extra details. This is why it is unfortunate when average people just look up a Greek word in their Strong's Concordance, and then come to a conclusion of what the word means, not realizing that the reason why the translators gave it an additional meaning is because of the way it was parsed.

Well, that kind of does not change that Paul doesn't actually make clear the meaning that you're implying, although I can see how it would help to support it. Any reason why you didn't answer my question as to how I can see those other passages in the Lexical parser, so I can see the difference for myself ?

[BibleOnly]

Notice for example:

http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&amp...mp;oq=&sr=1

From there, click on the "Greek" link.

Now the English words will be "clickable" to take you to the Greek word.

Notice that every time you click on a Greek word, the "root word" is given, not the parsed version of that word.

Thus, the next step to be taken is to click the "Greek Lexical Parser" on the upper-right corner of the verse.

Once you are there, you can see how each word is parsed. A separate pop-up window will open. After that, you can then click on the parsed word itself, and it will explain more details.

OK, I see. So, you're saying that because Paul said 'sabbath days', he didn't mean 'the sabbath', as in, keeping the sabbath week after week ( in the same sense that the same tense is used in Acts 17:2, to mean Saturday three times, not a variety of non Sabbath sabbaths ). Why does the word 'sabbath' have multiple meanings ? Where does the Bible make this clear ? How does someone who reads the Bible wanting to gain clarity, without the inclination or access to multiple Greek language tools, work out what the word 'Sabbath' means in each instance ?

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

Naturally, your Strong's would not say that. That's where the Greek Lexical Parser comes into play.

It's the "parsing" of the word that makes all the difference. The Strong's on the outside just gives you the definition of the "root word". The root word is "sabbaton". But the parsing of the word can change the intent of usage of the word, such as "sabbatwn".

Only the translators are familiar with these extra details. This is why it is unfortunate when average people just look up a Greek word in their Strong's Concordance, and then come to a conclusion of what the word means, not realizing that the reason why the translators gave it an additional meaning is because of the way it was parsed.

Well, that kind of does not change that Paul doesn't actually make clear the meaning that you're implying, although I can see how it would help to support it. Any reason why you didn't answer my question as to how I can see those other passages in the Lexical parser, so I can see the difference for myself ?

Sorry about that, I thought I did. I think I responded to that just a split second before you wrote the above.

After clicking the "Greek" on a verse, then you will see the Greek Lexical Parser.

For Acts 17:2, it uses "sabbata" - Noun : Accusative : Plural : Neuter

However, I will confess that it's not always so much the Greek that qualifies what Paul means, but the various linguistic markers around it that help to qualify what is being said.

[BibleOnly]

Sorry about that, I thought I did. I think I responded to that just a split second before you wrote the above.

After clicking the "Greek" on a verse, then you will see the Greek Lexical Parser.

For Acts 17:2, it uses "sabbata" - Noun : Accusative : Plural : Neuter

However, I will confess that it's not always so much the Greek that qualifies what Paul means, but the various linguistic markers around it that help to qualify what is being said.

Yes, you posted twice and I answered in between. My question at the core then is, how smart do you have to be to be able to understand the Bible ? Is someone who has the Bible and no other language tools going to be able to understand it ? If the Sabbath is so important, why do we need these extra tools to understand ? Couldn't Paul have written something more clear, if the Sabbath meant so much to him, so that no-one could misinterpet what he meant when he used the same Greek word used to refer to the Sabbath, regardless of the context he meant it in ? I see him being this careful in his other writings.

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

Notice for example:

http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&amp...mp;oq=&sr=1

From there, click on the "Greek" link.

Now the English words will be "clickable" to take you to the Greek word.

Notice that every time you click on a Greek word, the "root word" is given, not the parsed version of that word.

Thus, the next step to be taken is to click the "Greek Lexical Parser" on the upper-right corner of the verse.

Once you are there, you can see how each word is parsed. A separate pop-up window will open. After that, you can then click on the parsed word itself, and it will explain more details.

OK, I see. So, you're saying that because Paul said 'sabbath days', he didn't mean 'the sabbath', as in, keeping the sabbath week after week ( in the same sense that the same tense is used in Acts 17:2, to mean Saturday three times, not a variety of non Sabbath sabbaths ). Why does the word 'sabbath' have multiple meanings ? Where does the Bible make this clear ? How does someone who reads the Bible wanting to gain clarity, without the inclination or access to multiple Greek language tools, work out what the word 'Sabbath' means in each instance ?

My best answer to this would probably be that we would have to take into account Paul's audience. Paul was dealing with the Colossians, and he left out clarifying details they were already aware of. The issues concerning the "sabbaths", were in connection with "meat offerings", "drink offerings", and "holydays" (Greek: Feasts, Festivals). Now the 4th commandment does not contain anything concerning festivals, meat offerings, or drink offerings.

Here is an excellent book I encourage you to purchase:

http://www.amazon.com/Judging-Sabbath-Discovering-Found-Colossians/dp/1883925622

It's by Ron du Preez. The best exegesis on Colossians 2:16 you'll ever find. It's more than just understanding Colossians 2:16, but understanding why he worded it the way he did in the context of the entire chapter 2, and who his audience really was.

[BibleOnly]

My best answer to this would probably be that we would have to take into account Paul's audience. Paul was dealing with the Colossians, and he left out clarifying details they were already aware of. The issues concerning the "sabbaths", were in connection with "meat offerings", "drink offerings", and "holydays" (Greek: Feasts, Festivals). Now the 4th commandment does not contain anything concerning festivals, meat offerings, or drink offerings.

Here is an excellent book I encourage you to purchase:

http://www.amazon.com/Judging-Sabbath-Discovering-Found-Colossians/dp/1883925622

It's by Ron du Preez. The best exegesis on Colossians 2:16 you'll ever find. It's more than just understanding Colossians 2:16, but understanding why he worded it the way he did in the context of the entire chapter 2, and who his audience really was.

OK. I've been reading a bit about Genesis, esp the intended audience for chapter 1, so I agree that understanding the intended audience for a book is important, but I also believe the books were written with God knowing the greater audience they would find. What I struggle with, is the idea that God would have known that the Sabbath would not be generally observed in our age, and yet, the New Testament contains several verses that, to the person reading in English, plainly state that the Sabbath does not need to be kept in it's OT form, because we instead rest in Christ always. Does this mean God made His message obscure so people would struggle to find it ?

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

Sorry about that, I thought I did. I think I responded to that just a split second before you wrote the above.

After clicking the "Greek" on a verse, then you will see the Greek Lexical Parser.

For Acts 17:2, it uses "sabbata" - Noun : Accusative : Plural : Neuter

However, I will confess that it's not always so much the Greek that qualifies what Paul means, but the various linguistic markers around it that help to qualify what is being said.

Yes, you posted twice and I answered in between. My question at the core then is, how smart do you have to be to be able to understand the Bible ? Is someone who has the Bible and no other language tools going to be able to understand it ? If the Sabbath is so important, why do we need these extra tools to understand ? Couldn't Paul have written something more clear, if the Sabbath meant so much to him, so that no-one could misinterpet what he meant when he used the same Greek word used to refer to the Sabbath, regardless of the context he meant it in ? I see him being this careful in his other writings.

I personally believe it should be fairly easy to prove that the "sabbath days" or "sabbaths" in Colossians 2:16 are referring to the Jewish seasonal holidays. In fact, most of the old-time famous commentarians all agreed that the "sabbaths" in Colossians 2:16 had nothing to do with the 4th commandment Sabbath.

Who were these men? They were non-Adventists.

Albert Barnes

Matthew Henry

Adam Clarke

John Wesley

The People's New Testament by B.W. Johnson

...etc. etc.

Here are some excellent resources with the commentaries of these men--who were Sunday keepers by the way. Even though they kept Sunday, they believed that Colossians 2:16 was not referring to the 4th commandment Sabbath. Interesting, eh?

http://www.colossians-2-16.com/ (there is pages 2 and then again 3 at the bottom)

[BibleOnly]

I personally believe it should be fairly easy to prove that the "sabbath days" or "sabbaths" in Colossians 2:16 are referring to the Jewish seasonal holidays. In fact, most of the old-time famous commentarians all agreed that the "sabbaths" in Colossians 2:16 had nothing to do with the 4th commandment Sabbath.

Who were these men? They were non-Adventists.

Albert Barnes

Matthew Henry

Adam Clarke

John Wesley

The People's New Testament by B.W. Johnson

...etc. etc.

Here are some excellent resources with the commentaries of these men--who were Sunday keepers by the way. Even though they kept Sunday, they believed that Colossians 2:16 was not referring to the 4th commandment Sabbath. Interesting, eh?

http://www.colossians-2-16.com/ (there is pages 2 and then again 3 at the bottom)

Actually, it seems obvious to me that 'sunday keepers' would come to the same conclusion, as they would assume that Paul could not be talking about THEIR Sabbath. I'm not a Sunday Keeper, or a Saturday Keeper, I'm a 'walking in the Spirit every day keeper'. In any case, I don't believe any interpretation of the Bible comes from looking for the most popular opinion.

[Lysimachus]

• Hosea 2:11 - I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

It would seem here that Paul did have in mind Hosea 2:11 when writing Colossians 2:16. And the phrase "her sabbaths" would lend to the support to the fact that these were Israel's dedicated sabbaths, not the "Sabbath of the Lord".

It is possible that Paul could also have been implicating Ezekiel 45:17 --

• Ezekiel 45:17 - And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.

It is interesting how similar it does sound to Colossians 2:16:

• Colossians 2:16 - Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday [festival], or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths:

The YLT, Darby Translation, and NKJV translates "sabbath days" as "sabbaths". So for clarity, I just translated the KJV version of "sabbath days" to "sabbaths". Doesn't matter really.

I suppose it could be argued that Ezekiel 45:17 is including the 4th commandment Sabbath. However, the emphasis seems to be of the holding of solemnities, or festivals, on these days. The actual "resting" on the Sabbath of the 4th commandment would need to be distinguished in a separate category from actual festival keeping "on" these days.

[BibleOnly]

• Hosea 2:11 - I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

It would seem here that Paul did have in mind Hosea 2:11 when writing Colossians 2:16. And the phrase "her sabbaths" would lend to the support to the fact that these were Israel's dedicated sabbaths, not the "Sabbath of the Lord".

It is possible that Paul could also have been implicating Ezekiel 45:17 --

• Ezekiel 45:17 - And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.

It is interesting how similar it does sound to Colossians 2:16:

• Colossians 2:16 - Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday [festival], or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths:

The YLT, Darby Translation, and NKJV translates "sabbath days" as "sabbaths". So for clarity, I just translated the KJV version of "sabbath days" to "sabbaths". Doesn't matter really.

I suppose it could be argued that Ezekiel 45:17 is including the 4th commandment Sabbath. However, the emphasis seems to be of the holding of solemnities, or festivals, on these days. The actual "resting" on the Sabbath of the 4th commandment would need to be distinguished in a separate category from actual festival keeping "on" these days.

Well, I'd tend to agree with you that Paul probably had these verses in mind. However, it seems like Paul has been quite unclear, requiring you to assume what he meant by it, if he was specifically excluding the Sabbath rest, and general observance of the Sabbath rest. It still seems odd to me that Paul himself was not that clear, if the Saturday meant as much to him as you suggest.

[Woody]

Quote:

I don't believe any interpretation of the Bible comes from looking for the most popular opinion.

This is good. Kinda goes back to our discussion regarding whether we should be instructed by our pastor on how to keep the Sabbath or if we should individually be pointed to scripture and glean from that how to observe Sabbath.

I'm with you - I don't believe we should be told by ANYone how to apply scripture. We should pray and be lead by the Spirit,

[Lysimachus]

Actually, it seems obvious to me that 'sunday keepers' would come to the same conclusion, as they would assume that Paul could not be talking about THEIR Sabbath. I'm not a Sunday Keeper, or a Saturday Keeper, I'm a 'walking in the Spirit every day keeper'. In any case, I don't believe any interpretation of the Bible comes from looking for the most popular opinion

It is true that we are to walk in the Spirit every day, and worship God every day. However, according to Mark 2:27,28, the Sabbath was "made FOR man" (not against). "Not man for the Sabbath".

Think about this for moment. If the Sabbath was to be treated exactly the same as every single other day, then how is the Sabbath made for you? How is it special for you? What is the difference?

Obviously, Christ emphasized this point because He knew that the Sabbath was to be treated differently from the other days. It was made for man's rest. It was made for man's physical as well as spiritual rest and refreshment. It was sanctified, blessed, and hallowed at Creation week. And this was done before sacrifices were instituted I might add.

The point is, it was made for "man's rest". God is thinking of our rest here, so that when we do think about God and walking in the Spirit on that day, we are not distracted with any other worldly ventures. We now are able to give him "consecrated time".

When Paul met with the Greeks and the Jews in the Synagogue on the Sabbath, he was keeping it. How do we know this?

Because keeping it is more than just spiritually and physically resting on it. It also means to "convocate" on it.

• Leviticus 23:3 - "Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it [is] the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings."

This is why Paul convocated (to come together and worshiped) with all the believers on the Sabbath. So while it does not say that Paul "rested" on the Sabbath, it is definitely showing that he kept it by "convocating" on it, just as we are commanded to do. The 4th commandment does not bring out the "convocating" part because it is specifically focusing on the meaning of the Sabbath and what we must not do on the Sabbath rather than what we must do.

We find spiritual rest and refreshment when we come together with our brothers and sisters on the Sabbath.

Oh what a joy and refreshment it is! It also helps us to better keep the Sabbath too when we are in one another's company, talking about the things of God, partaking of wonderful meals, enjoying nature, and giving top-notch quality time.

The Sabbath is like the birth-day of the World. We meet God on His day.

If you decided to celebrate your grandma's birthday in July when her birthday is actually in February, would that mean very much to her? Not really. She would appreciate it if you recognized her birthday ON her actual birthday.

The same it is with God and His Sabbath. He wants us to meet Him on HIS day, not our day. Why?

Because He said so. It is a test of obedience. It is a test of loyalty. It is used as a tool to decipher who is who when the the final test comes concerning the laws of worship.

Why would God care so much about just a day?

Why did God care so much about just a tree and a piece of fruit in the Garden of Eden?

Sadly, the attitude being manifested among the Christian world is the SAME attitude similar to those thoughts that were harbored by Eve concerning the forbidden fruit: "Why would God make such a big deal out of tasting just a piece of fruit...after all it's not doing anyone any harm". After allowing the serpent to deceive her, eating a piece of the fruit seemed a matter of "insignificance". "God isn't going to strike me dead just for doing such a 'small' thing like this". Now look at the mess were in. All because of that one "small", and and so called "insignificant" rule that God had made.

The fact is, just as God placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil with the forbidden fruit in the garden, so the Sabbath is a "test" for the Christian world--to see if they have really and truly made up their minds to obey God "implicitly"--regardless of the worldly circumstances. Now we can see why God was so "vague" concerning the Sabbath in the New Testament. He wants us to see that what was established in stone in the Old Covenant does not change in the New.

The serpent beguiled Eve to sin. The serpent is a "beast". This is a type of the world-wide spiritual apostasy that is taking place. The Papacy (Roman Church State) is the Beast. Satan has spoken "through" the beast and is beguiling the Church (Eve) into thinking that Sunday keeping is okay. Hence, we see all the Protestant daughters of Rome (the mother) allowing themselves to be beguiled, and are not only breaking the Sabbath, but observing the day for which the Catholic Church admits they "changed" (an exact fulfillment of prophecy of Daniel 7:25 concerning the "changing of times and laws").

So the issue will be worship and the law. God requires honor as Creator. Is this related to the pope's recent statement in favor of evolution--that it is more than just a 'theory'?

Yes, the Bible story ends as it began, with a command of God being slighted by the Devil speaking through a medium. In Genesis, the medium was a snake, and now it is the Roman Church. But this time there are some who refuse to join the woman that fell, despite her affectionate encouragement to take a bite.