Try This Testimony of Sabbath

[Lysimachus]

Here is an EXCELLENT article on Hebrews 4:

Hebrews 4 and the Rest that Remains ~ by Eugene Prewitt

It breaks it down very clear.

[Lysimachus]

"The point is clear. The eternal "katapausis" rest existed even in the Old Testament. Therefore, it is impossible that the "katapausis" eternal rest in the New Testament "replaces" the Seventh-Day Sabbath in the New Covenant. "

Where does it say that ? The Holy Spirit was unable to indwell people in the NT sense until Jesus died and rose again, and that's the reason why they did not have the same constant rest available to them.

[BibleOnly]

Mostly good article, it seemed to twist everything at the end to remind us that, regardless of what this says, we still need to keep the Old Testament Sabbath.

[BibleOnly]

I need to go now. My main point is this. 1 Cor 12-14 is ALL about tongues in the church. Every part of it. 1 Cor 12 is about different gifts being used, 1 Cor 13 is about love being more important than gifts, and 14 is about exactly how tongues should be used. In my world, Paul writes like this. He is careful to cover all his bases and explain himself clearly. That he mentions the Sabbath three times, twice entirely in the context of 'do not be judged by keeping certain days', and not once feels the need to make sure he's clear over what days he does and does not mean, makes no sense at all, and is totally out of character in comparison to other scripture. For that reason, I don't believe that Paul was careless and just assumed we knew when he said not to be judged by sabbath keeping, that he meant 'sabbath' and not 'sabbath', or that when he said we could regard every day the same, but he meant 'except for the sabbath'.

SDA doctrine seems to me to be all about filling the gaps in statements in the Bible with what you believe. Which is the essence of legalism really, looking for the letter and finding where it's not precise enough to exclude your desired interpretation. Of course you do so in good faith, but it does not change that that ends up being what you're doing.

[Lysimachus]

You sure read fast. =P

[Lysimachus]

I need to go now. My main point is this. 1 Cor 12-14 is ALL about tongues in the church. Every part of it. 1 Cor 12 is about different gifts being used, 1 Cor 13 is about love being more important than gifts, and 14 is about exactly how tongues should be used. In my world, Paul writes like this. He is careful to cover all his bases and explain himself clearly. That he mentions the Sabbath three times, twice entirely in the context of 'do not be judged by keeping certain days', and not once feels the need to make sure he's clear over what days he does and does not mean, makes no sense at all, and is totally out of character in comparison to other scripture. For that reason, I don't believe that Paul was careless and just assumed we knew when he said not to be judged by sabbath keeping, that he meant 'sabbath' and not 'sabbath', or that when he said we could regard every day the same, but he meant 'except for the sabbath'.

SDA doctrine seems to me to be all about filling the gaps in statements in the Bible with what you believe. Which is the essence of legalism really, looking for the letter and finding where it's not precise enough to exclude your desired interpretation. Of course you do so in good faith, but it does not change that that ends up being what you're doing.

Had Paul been implicating the Seventh-Day Sabbath in Romans 14, you would have heard an outcry--as Jews rent their garments concerning Paul's disgrace and desecration. The Jews were never once concerned about Paul breaking the Sabbath. Their issue with him was not practicing circumcision. The Sabbath to the Jews was something the Jews would have taken issue with even more than circumcision.

Romans 14 is very clear...Paul is referring to days "men esteem", not days "God esteems". The context of Romans 14 is concerning "doubtful disputations". Certainly the 10 Commandments were not among the "doubtful disputations"--after all, Paul worshiped EVERY Sabbath (See Acts 13:42-44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4).

It's the other way around. Had the Seventh-Day Sabbath been abolished, and replaced by Christ's rest, it would have been made ABUNDANTLY clear that the Seventh-Day Sabbath of the 4th commandment Decalogue, the Tables of Stone, was superseded by Christ's eternal rest.

But the Sabbath is a sign of that relationship we have with Christ, and we keep it as a sign to the world that we are different. That we are peculiar. That we honor the one and true God, not idols, not fake gods. That we respect and honor His creation.

The Sabbath still points forward to the New Earth Sabbath rest, the New Canaan. It was that rest that Israel failed to enter in.

[doug yowell]

In the garden of eden when the earth was new Adam and Eve kept the sabbath without the 10c’s.

This is a ludicrous fiction, the Bible does not say it.

That's an interesting response. Jesus said that "the Sabbath was made for man." And the Bible writers are unanimous in explaning that God Himself declared it separate and kept the Sabbath (rested from His work). What do you think A&E were doing on that first 7th day of creation?

[doug yowell]

And again, it doesn't make you more righteous to inconvenience yourself in ways God did not ask for. this is like a lite version of Catholics crawling over broken glass to show their penitence. God didn't ask for it, and He's not moved by it.

True, but He did ask mankind to keep His Sabbath day holy and He even said He WAS moved(pleased) by their compliance with His request.Sounds to me like He intended it to be a real positive experience.

[doug yowell]

Well, you're free to follow the 10 commandments instead of the golden rule if you want to. But Paul said, no-one was saved that way, nor could they be.

But you can be saved by following the golden rule??

[Woody]

Quote:

But you can be saved by following the golden rule??

Good Point Doug.

It just sounds like sugar coated legalism to me. No thanks. I will stick with the sacrifice of Jesus on my behalf so that when I break the 10 commandments - that HIS blood covers me.

Thanks you Jesus.

[doug yowell]

Hbr 4:7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

Hbr 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

Today and another day can't both be references to the same day, which is only 'today' once a week. It just doesn't work. That's not what those words mean.

?

Another interesting exercise in logic. God clearly limits a "certain day" in Hebrews 3&4 but in Romans 14 opens the doors for a day,any day,every day,or no day??"Therefore there remains (future)a (Sabbath)rest for the people of God." But if they're (God's people)already resting in faith ("today") how can there be another Sabbath rest to come?Very confusing.

[doug yowell]

See, I fully expected this sort of reply. But, as far as I am concerned, Paul stated that we're not children of the bondwoman ( Sinai ) but the free ( Jerusalem ) and Hebrews makes absolutely clear why it is that the Sabbath is not a forced day of no natural work any more.

Any more?? Has Sabbath holiness always been a legalistic bondage imposed by God in order to teach mankind how bad it was to be legalistic? Was Moses a legalist when he stoned the Sabbathbreaker at God's command? Were the children of Israel in bondage when they didn't have to work for their food every Sabbath day for 40 years? Were the slaves in Israel upset when every Sabbath they were forced not to work?What are your thoughts on the God of the OT Who imposed upon His people the bondage of the Sabbath, demanded that they enjoy it,imposed the death penalty, and kicked them out of the Promised Land if they broke it? Imagine the confusion of the Jews of the NT when they were suddenly informed that the middle of God's law was no longer an issue?

[Q.E.D.]

Well, you're free to follow the 10 commandments instead of the golden rule if you want to. But Paul said, no-one was saved that way, nor could they be.

"10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

11 For *he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty."(Jam 2:10-12)

[BobRyan]

Hbr 4:7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

Hbr 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

Today and another day can't both be references to the same day, which is only 'today' once a week. It just doesn't work. That's not what those words mean.

?

[BobRyan]

Mostly good article, it seemed to twist everything at the end to remind us that, regardless of what this says, we still need to keep the Old Testament Sabbath.

Christ said of the OT Sabbath "the Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND" in Mark 2:27 (New Testament).

Thus the blessing FOR mankind in God's own "Holy Day of the Lord" is not obtained "by ignoring it".

And of course the "New Heaven and New Earth" that we find in Rev 21 is not a day or age in the OT - rather as Is 66 says of that future New Heaven and New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship".

The Bible makes it all so clear.

in Christ,

Bob

[phkrause]

Not quite.

In Rom 14 "one man OBSERVEs one day aBOVE the others " in the list of Lev 23 annual holy days - while "another man observes them all".

This text limits the list of observed annual holy days to those that you find in Lev 23.

By contrast in Gal 4 Paul condemns the observation of pagan holy days "you OBSERVE days months seasons and years" and says "you have believed in vain" if you do such things - returning again to the observation of pagan days from which the gentile believer had come.

Thus Paul does NOT allow observation "of any day" the papacy might select.

in Christ,

Bob

[phkrause]

Christ said of the OT Sabbath "the Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND" in Mark 2:27 (New Testament).

Thus the blessing FOR mankind in God's own "Holy Day of the Lord" is not obtained "by ignoring it".

And of course the "New Heaven and New Earth" that we find in Rev 21 is not a day or age in the OT - rather as Is 66 says of that future New Heaven and New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship".

The Bible makes it all so clear.

in Christ,

Bob

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:Bob Ryan

In Rom 14 "one man OBSERVEs one day aBOVE the others " in the list of Lev 23 annual holy days - while "another man observes them all".

This text limits the list of observed annual holy days to those that you find in Lev 23.

By contrast in Gal 4 Paul condemns the observation of pagan holy days "you OBSERVE days months seasons and years" and says "you have believed in vain" if you do such things - returning again to the observation of pagan days from which the gentile believer had come.

Thus Paul does NOT allow observation "of any day" the papacy might select.

Quote:

Quote:Seventh Day

Quite right ....

except ... be more precise and cut out the use of the word "observe" here. "Regard" is far better and more accurate literally, coming from the idea of 'to judge'.

And in the case of Galatians 4:10, the correct idea is expressed more literally and BETTER with calling the spade a spade; NOT "observe" merely; but "SUPERSTITIOUSLY WORSHIP" --- common idolatry of the time with the day of the lord SUN the chief of the objects of pagan WORSHIP

Sunday worshippers, take NOTE! !

Umm, guys, don’t let us get ahead of ourselves in fervor of defending some currently arbitrary ‘Seventh-day Sabbath’. St Paul wrote Galatians to the Xtian Believers in the Churches of Galatia – who were, by and large, once and formerly Jews. Witness the predications of chapter 3 – namely, the conflicts and curses attending the law(s) of the Jews.

It is doubtful that newly converted Gentiles would have been familiar, intimately or otherwise, with the ‘assiduous observance’ of “days, months, times, and years”.

Though ‘assiduous’ seems more appropriate to G3906, "SUPERSTITIOUSLY WORSHIP" may apply re the ‘bondage of the law’ redux.

However, were the Xtian Galatians truly worshipping the “day of the lord SUN” – that would argue for an early keeping of Sunday by the earliest Xtians; regardless, the brouhaha always attendant Constantine.

That being the case, one might suppose then that the quibble re the uses of the Greek plural sabbatwn in Matthew 28:1 do indeed mean an end to the Seventh-day Sabbaths and a sea change to the Sabbaths of the First day of the week.

Re: Gal 4:10 - observe

Strong’s G3906 – paratēreō; observe (Present Middle Indicative verb)

1) to stand beside and watch, to watch assiduously, observe carefully

..a) to watch, attend to with the eyes

...1) of auguries, to see what he is going to do

...2) in a bad sense, to watch insidiously

...3) to watch one's self

.. to observe, keep scrupulously

...1) to neglect nothing requisite to the religious observance of

[Gibs]

How on earth do you read Matt. 28:1, it reads,

Mt 28:1 ¶ In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

It WAS IN THE END OF THE SABBATH. History also proves without the Bible Christians kept the Sabbath until corruption came in and men took over the Church and made it their church which was not the one Jesus Christ established upon Himself the Rock.

It isn't galling to keep the Sabbath so why try to do away with it. It may be a matter of how much we love Him to do His Will and have His to be our will and our love.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[jasd]

>>How on earth do you read Matt. 28:1, it reads,

Mt 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.<<

Quote:

Quote:jasd

That being the case, one might suppose then that the quibble re the uses of the Greek plural sabbatwn in Matthew 28:1 do indeed mean an end... [ed.jasd]

>>It WAS IN THE END OF THE SABBATH. History also proves without the Bible Christians kept the Sabbath until corruption came in and men took over the Church and made it their church which was not the one Jesus Christ established upon Himself the Rock.<<

Yes, some did, and some kept the first day. I suppose it was equal opportunity.

However, “What the King giveth, the King taketh away.” The Magna Carta had to be reaffirmed thirty-eight times, yes?

It is the privilege of Kings to do so. Even the King of Kings.

At the time of Jesus Christ the Jews were keeping several different calendars re the 'Sabbaths'. Why?

>>It isn't galling to keep the Sabbath so why try to do away with it.<<

Far be it for anyone to do away with what Gd hath wrought. Only He can do so. And only He has done so, as man persisted in profaning it. It grieves even Gd to cast pearls before swine.

Where there is a vacuum re the weekly Sabbaths, it is within the purview of man to create his substitute, which he has done. Sunday.

The book of Job informs the expositor that man may sanctify. He has done so re the Sunday Sabbath. Moreover, he has done so unto the Lord.

Why be galled at another seeking to honor and to praise Gd?—even though he does so pitifully...

>>It may be a matter of how much we love Him to do His Will and have His to be our will and our love.<<

Indeed, however it is parsed. So why do we strain at dogmas re the body of Jesus Christ? Are we not told in Writ that though we are not all the same?—even so, we together, comprise the body of Jesus Christ, Gd?

Where's the love?

[doug yowell]

some did, and some kept the first day. I suppose it was equal opportunity.

At the time of Jesus Christ the Jews were keeping several different calendars re the 'Sabbaths'. Why?

.

Where there is a vacuum re the weekly Sabbaths, it is within the purview of man to create his substitute, which he has done. Sunday.

The book of Job informs the expositor that man may sanctify. He has done so re the Sunday Sabbath. Moreover, he has done so unto the Lord.

>>It may be a matter of how much we love Him to do His Will and have His to be our will and our love.<<

Indeed, however it is parsed. So why do we strain at dogmas re the body of Jesus Christ? Are we not told in Writ that though we are not all the same?&#151;even so, we together, comprise the body of Jesus Christ, Gd?

Where's the love?

"If you love ME keep MY commandments"? Or, "If you love ME, keep YOUR commandments"? "Indeed you are called a Jew...and know His will...being instructed out of the law..." "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God..." "...You made known to them Your Holy Sabbath..."Don't think your reasoning about the nebuluosness of the Sabbath has much Biblical support, even from Job.

[Neil D]

. . .

I've said time and again, if anyone could actually show that the Bible says God wanted me to go to church on Saturday, I would happily do it. In fact, it would not even be an inconvenience to me. What I meant was, when the church I go to was started, we chose Sunday on the basis that it's the day that's most convenient to people in general, especially people we'd seek to invite to come along. Why deviate over something unimportant ? It's exactly the same as this: Today is Xmas. I know it's a pagan tree worship ceremony that God did not tell me to keep. I know Jesus was probably born about 3 months ago. But, there is no harm in giving my kids presents, and just plain seeing no religious significance in this day, and being known as the person who talks about how God answers with evidence, not the guy who won't let his kids have Xmas, or goes to church on a weird day. It's about what matters, in terms of the Gospel I represent.

Hmmmm......I've never known Christ to be "convienient"...In fact, I thought there was something the Christ said about bearing a cross....Oh, well, my mistake....

I look at this issue of Paul saying some things that somehow don't quite square with the Law and the Prophets...but he was also a deep thinker...And he took from the Law and the Prophets to make his points at establishing "The Good News" [aka "Gospel"]....

The reason why I keep the Sabbath is not because of all the texts regarding Law, and bondwoman ect....The truth be told, I have given up trying to understand the legality of the Sabbath with the Gospel...

The Good News from God is that He wants to be my friend, and mentor, and buddy...and teacher...and all the other good relationships that make my life more abundant...because, God promised an "abundant life"...Wouldn't you agree that's a good reason to follow God, because He wants to give us a "more abundant life"....He wants to be involved in our lives?

Jesus says to "Follow Me." I'll let you decide if that is not a biblical statement or not. But to follow Jesus is to follow His customs...

So, when I look at Jesus, I find that it was His custom to do God's will, and it was His custom to keep the Sabbath. See Luke 4:16. Interestingly, Jesus' custom should be something that His followers need to do...He thought it was important and He set the example..

Peter, John and Paul all say that they followed Jesus because He is "our example"....So, if the custom of Jesus was to 'keep the Sabbath" and go to church, ...can we do anything less?

It doesn't matter what Paul says, as I didn't use any of Paul's writing to establish the custom of the Sabbath...I used the Gospel writings....

I would appreciate you limiting your rebuttal to the Gospel writings to establish the reasoning for a Sunday Church....

[jasd]

>>“If you love ME keep MY commandments"<<

Regardless of His declaration in John 8:58 “Before Abraham was, I am”, by which Jesus Christ informed His listeners that He claimed to have been the very One who inscribed the tablets of stone – the above proffered quote with uncial personal pronouns is found only in the Gospel of St John (Jn 14:15); that is, it is not in the other synoptic Gospels.

As you may recall via another recent thread, St John never used nomos law. He, rather, elected to utilize only entole commandments. The question obtains, Why?

>>"If you love ME, keep YOUR commandments"?<<

Not a Divine commandment, but perhaps?—by tradition, which Writ subscribes to and authorizes.

You are forgetting the texts of Lamentations and Hosea heretofore proffered this forum. They, thenceforward set the standard, having been neither nullified nor abrogated in written text. The OT Orthodoxist appeals to tradition for the continuity argument, “since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue...”: “Jesus kept it.” “The Apostles kept it.” “Paul kept it.” – whilst the point of crucial salience “They lived, moved, and had their being within the Jewish economy” is neglected and/or otherwise overlooked in their dialogues.

>>"Indeed you are called a Jew<<

Rom 2:17. St Paul speaking to the Jews (and their economy) – uncharitably, I might add.

>>and know His will<<

Same Romans 2 passage, same uncharitably with what may be described as sarcasm.

>>being instructed out of the law..."<<

Again, same Romans 2 passage, which I might reiterate, spoke to the Jewish economy.

>>"The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God..."<<

Ahh, the Exodus 20 revert. Not, I hasten to add, an unworthy revert...

>>"...You made known to them Your Holy Sabbath..."<<

As is custom, or should I say, economy?—the OT Nehemiah 9:14

>>Don't think your reasoning about the nebuluosness of the Sabbath has much Biblical support,<<

To the Northern Kingdom: “the LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion,”

To the Southern Kingdom: “I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.”

Forgotten is forgotten. Cessation is cessation. Where are the subsequent texts of remembrance and recommencement?—they are found confluent with the Millennium and forward.

>>even from Job.<<

“precepts upon precepts”

“every jot and tittle”

The believer leaves off the milk of the word for the meat of it. We all need, at times, to flesh out our diagrams and dialogics.

[doug yowell]

Ah, again thou dost dote about questions and strives of words.Does appealing to the economy,and the phantasmic right of tradition to negate Divinity, and non-specificity of a specific order make it Biblically true? If "salvation is of the Jews" then why would Paul or Jesus want to use their disobedience as a positive?? And why do all of the NY writers and Christ Himself appeal to the continuity of the OT as a PROOF of the validity of their teachings? ..."teaching for commandments the doctrines of men" is not the NT freedom in Christ.

[jasd]

First, addressing an erratum: “To the Northern Kingdom” and “To the Southern Kingdom” in my last post were transposed.

>>Ah, again thou dost dote about questions

I dost, yes?—and Mairzy doats...

>>and strives of words<<

And kiddley divey too [/smiling]

>>Does appealing to the economy,<<

“Just the facts...” --Friday

>>and the phantasmic right of tradition to negate Divinity,<<

Didn’t say tradition negates Divinity. I said that given a lacunal parenthesis, tradition made small effort to fill.

>>and non-specificity of a specific order make it Biblically true?<<

If we decide that the Prophets Jeremiah and Hosea did not, impressed by the HS, speak for Gd – we enter the strange realm of the weird. And by my read,

the texts are direct and specific. They, thereafter written, perform the function of governors of the harmony of texts – until it can be shown that Gd also caused remembrance and recommencement of the iterated Feasts, Sabbaths, etc.

Perhaps, that is why there are several formulae for the dates and order of the Spring Feasts – and why, to this day, there is no consensus re the Biblical “three days and three nights” or the day upon which Jesus Christ was crucified, or the day when He arose.

>>If "salvation is of the Jews"<<

Indeed, Jesus Christ was of the Jews; moreover, He had just come from Judea when He made the statement. However, the text

Jn 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews

may be more properly read:

Jn 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is out of the Jews

because, this is the only text where the Greek ek is translated without the out.

And indeed,

Matt 2:6 And thou Bethlehem, [in] the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of (ek) thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

is the explicative. Besides, “Jews” in the text is a mistranslation.

Anyway, "salvation is of the Jews" sounds like Dispensational heresy, yes?

>>then why would Paul or Jesus want to use their disobedience as a positive??<<

You mean “disobedience” re the Seventh-day Sabbath? Umm, I don’t think that I characterized their observance of the Seventh-day Sabbath by the term disobedience. It would not have been disobedience on their part to have kept 'their' Sabbaths.

Anyway, one point addressing your question may be that they lived within the Jewish economy. Another point may be that Jesus Christ said to obey those who sat in Moses’ seat - thereby setting forth an example?

Per “positive’: the Jews regarded what they did as unto the Lord. How negative can that be?

>>And why do all of the NY writers and Christ Himself appeal to the continuity of the OT as a PROOF of the validity of their teachings?<<

True and false. Certain aspects of the OT no longer obtained, whilst certain others did. I guess it goes to: each judged on its own merit...

>>"teaching for commandments the doctrines of men" is not the NT freedom in Christ.<<

The Babylonian Talmud was alive and well in Canaanland at the time of Jesus Christ. It is determined by many expositors to have been the source for Jesus Christ's condemnation of the 'traditions of men'.

You may want to try reading some of it. Mighty interesting stuff in it.

However, that said, Writ does authorize traditions per se.