God changed Seventh Day Sabbath Worship to First Day of the Week

[Brakelite]

And yet the church in Galatia was told they would be putting Christ to open shame if they became circumcised - which is in the law, and is greater than sabbath, because a male child is still circumcised if the 8th day falls on a seventh.

So how easy was it for God to save us?
And which is the least part of the letter of the law?

Your contributions are highly misleading. Are you deliberately deceiving people here and for what purpose? The Galatians had a problem, sure. But it wasn't circumcision. Paul circumcised Timothy, so circumcision as such wasn't an issue. The real issue which you failed to mention was that the Galatians were being deceived into thinking circumcision was essential for salvation. That being obedient to a command and a part of the law that was set aside at Calvary(unlike the Ten Commandments) was necessary to meet criteria for being justified. Faith was set aside. Circumcision was replacing faith. That was the issue.
The context you are promoting, that somehow the Sabbath is reduced in importance because of an OT requirement, is utterly negated by the fact that the Sabbath hasn't been negated, abolished, changed.
And the context of Jesus referencing that old law, was that the Pharisees were condemning Jesus for healing on the Sabbath, yet on the Sabbath they for centuries had been injuring babies on the 8th day. Yet as Jesus was being merciful on Sabbath by healing, God was actually being merciful by stipulating that the sabbaths weren't to impede that 8th day rule... Why? Because the 8th day was the most beneficial to the child as being the least hurtful. Science had since confirmed this. So turning things around to nonsense contextual arguments just to augment your preconceived assumptions and your bias and resentment of the Sabbath.

 

[Robert Gwin]

We read in Acts 13:42, 44
42) And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
44) And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

Please note that the Jews gathered together on the seventh day of the week [Saturday] and also note the term "next" in Strong's Concordance means "between" therefore, in this case, "next/between sabbaths" would mean the day after Saturday will have to mean Sunday the first day of the week.

Now the most significant and profound Scripture reference concerning the change from Saturday Sabbath to Sunday Sabbath worship [which BTW, can't be seen in the English translation] is Matthew 28:1 that reads:
"In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher."

Please note that the printer is warning the English reader that words in italicize in the KJV Bible, are not in the original manuscripts. Also note that the word "week" is the plural Hebrew word "sabaton" that can be proven.

Hence, Matthew 28:1 can be rendered thus:
"In the end of the sabbaths as it began to dawn towards the first of the sabbaths came Mary..."

Now Matthew 28:1 seems to be in harmony and that God teaches us that He changed the Seventh Day Sabbath Worship to the First Day Sabbath which to us is Sunday.

To God Be The Glory

I should have put my 2cents in on this earlier, but guess I will now. Christians are not under the sabbath law, therefore not under obligation to observe one. Keep this in mind however, God does not change. When we were under law, the sabbath began at dusk on Friday and ended at dusk on Saturday. Any who did unauthorized work during that time was to be executed, that is how serious God took it. So what I am saying is, if you choose to obey the Sabbath, then do it scripturally. I think you will find that it was a great kindness on God's part to not carry that law into the new covenant. Everyone I know including myself would have to be executed. Most likely yourself as well.

 

[Brakelite]

I should have put my 2cents in on this earlier, but guess I will now. Christians are not under the sabbath law, therefore not under obligation to observe one. Keep this in mind however, God does not change. When we were under law, the sabbath began at dusk on Friday and ended at dusk on Saturday. Any who did unauthorized work during that time was to be executed, that is how serious God took it. So what I am saying is, if you choose to obey the Sabbath, then do it scripturally. I think you will find that it was a great kindness on God's part to not carry that law into the new covenant. Everyone I know including myself would have to be executed. Most likely yourself as well.

The constant vain skewed theology that equates "under the law" with obligation to obey, is getting tiresome. Just as bad is the concept that the laws in the OT were designed as a means of salvation for Israel should they obey them. Both ill conceived ideas born from an innate prejudice against the so called "Jewish Sabbath"... Another tiresome ill conceived theological concept.

 

[post]

The sabbath commandment with Noah (Genesis 6:3,9, 7:4,10,11,13, 8:10,12; 2 Peter 2:5; Psalms 119:172; Luke 17:26-30; Revelation 13:17, 14:6-12; 1 Peter 3:18-21).

none of these say Noah kept the sabbath or was instructed to keep sabbath.

 

[post]

"If ye love Me, keep My commadnments."

nowhere is Jesus or any of the apostles recorded as commanding observation of sabbath.
if you presume that 'keep My commandments' means to ritually cease activity on a certain schedule because it's in Exodus, then you are liable to keep the whole law because you are guilty of all of it if you break any of it.

the closest thing we get is Paul commanding that we do not let ourselves be judged over sabbath ((Colossians 2)), and the council at Jerusalem deciding it was against the Holy Spirit to command Gentiles to keep the law of Moses, as "believing pharisees" ((Acts 15)) wanted to do.

 

[post]

on the Sabbath they for centuries had been injuring babies on the 8th day.

excuse me, what??

"injuring babies" ?

you know that circumcision was commanded by God 430 years before the law, right? and that it's in the law, too? so your comment is essentially calling the law evil, and calling God evil?


wow.

 

[BarneyFife]

excuse me, what??

"injuring babies" ?

you know that circumcision was commanded by God 430 years before the law, right? and that it's in the law, too? so your comment is essentially calling the law evil, and calling God evil?


wow.

Abraham was recognized by God for observing all of His commandments, statutes, and judgments. Do you think that does not include the ten commandments?



wow



But you also don't seem to understand that you're dealing with people who make a distinction between moral and ceremonial law. Until you at least acknowledge that fact, you will have no meaningful dialogue with Sabbath-keepers. For many of us this is a constant, conscious reality, like the sky being blue and the grass green. If meaningless discussion is your intention then, by all means, continue as you have.

 

[post]

Abraham was recognized by God for observing all of His commandments, statutes, and judgments. Do you think that does not include the ten commandments?

you'll have to excuse me, but i believe scripture.

the law, which came 430 years afterward
(Galatians 3:17)​

 

[BarneyFife]

@post

Do you also not recognize that obedience to the law was only called for after deliverance?

Exodus 20
1And God spake all these words, saying,


2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.


3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.


4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.


7Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.


8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


12Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.


13Thou shalt not kill.


14Thou shalt not commit adultery.


15Thou shalt not steal.


16Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.


17Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

 

[post]

But you also don't seem to understand that you're dealing with people who make a distinction between moral and ceremonial law.

the law is the law. it is one law, and it is not shattered into pieces.

people by their human tradition try to separate it into parts they can ignore and parts they can subjugate believers under.
there is nothing in scripture to justify that false doctrine.
if you break any of the law, you are guilty of all of it.

Christians are under none of it.


again, please excuse me but i believe scripture and reject human lies.
i'm not here to make friends with heretics and false teachers.

 

[BarneyFife]

you'll have to excuse me, but i believe scripture.

the law, which came 430 years afterward
(Galatians 3:17)​

You're not reading closely enough. Dig as for hid treasure.

 

[BarneyFife]

the law is the law. it is one law, and it is not shattered into pieces.

people by their human tradition try to separate it into parts they can ignore and parts they can subjugate believers under.
there is nothing in scripture to justify that false doctrine.
if you break any of the law, you are guilty of all of it.

Christians are under none of it.


again, please excuse me but i believe scripture and reject human lies.
i'm not here to make friends with heretics and false teachers.

There is no need to separate. God already did that. There is a difference between commandments CHISELED IN STONE and THE HANDWRITING OF ordinances.

Who asked for your friendship?

 

[BarneyFife]

@post

And why all the name-calling?

 

[BarneyFife]

again, please excuse me but i believe scripture and reject human lies.

Do you believe Exodus 20:8-11 and Revelation 14:6-7 and Ecclesiastes 12:13 are human lies?



WOW!!!

 

[post]

There is no need to separate. God already did that. There is a difference between commandments and ordinances.

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
(James 2:10)​

the law = the law.

your little human tradition / false doctrine of 'not under some of it, but under some of it' is frankly complete BS and it's 100% contrary to scripture.

 

[BarneyFife]

"Our new relationship to the law is that of Christ Himself to it. It is that of men who have met all its claims, exhausted its penalties, satisfied its demands, magnified it, and made it honorable. For our faith in God's testimony to Christ's surety obedience has made us one with Him. The relation of the law to Him is its relation to us who believe in His name. His feelings toward the law ought to be our feelings. The law looks on us as it looks on Him; we look on the law as He looks on it. And does not He say. "I delight to do thy will, 0 my God; yea thy law is within my heart" (Psa 40:8)?

Some speak as if the servant were greater than the Master, and the disciple above his Lord; as if the Lord Jesus honored the law, and His people were to set it aside; as if He fulfilled it for us, that we might not need to fulfill it; as if He kept it, not that we might keep it, but that we might not keep it, but something else in its stead, they know not what.

The plain truth is, we must either kecp it or break it. Which of these men ought to do, let those answer who speak of a believer having nothing more to do with law. There is no middle way. If it be not a saint's duty to keep the law, he may break it at pleasure. and go on sinning because grace abounds.

The word duty is objected to as inconsistent with the liberty of forgiveness and sonship. Foolish and idle cavil! What is duty? It is the thing which is due by me to God; that line of conduct which I owe to God. And do these objectors mean to say that, because God has redeemed us from the curse of the law; therefore we owe Him nothing, we have no duty now to Him? Has not redemption rather made us doubly debtors? We owe Him more than ever; we owe His holy law more than ever--more honor, more obedience. Duty has been doubled, not canceled, by our being delivered from the law; and he who says that duty has ceased, because deliverance has come, knows nothing of duty. or law, or deliverance.

The greatest of all debtors in the universe is the redeemed man, the man who can say. "The life that I live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." What a strange sense of gratitude these men must have who suppose that because love has canceled the penalties of law, and turned away its wrath, therefore reverence and obedience to that law are no longer due! Is terror, in their estimation, the only foundation of duty; and when love comes in and terror ceases, does duty become a bondage?

"No," they may say; "but there is something higher than duty. there is privilege; it is that for which we contend."

I answer, the privilege of what? Of obeying the law? That they cannot away with; for they say they are no longer under law, but under grace. What privilege. then? Of imitating Christ? Be it so. But how can we imitate Him whose life was one great law-fulfilling. without keeping the law? What privilege? again we ask. Of doing the will of God? Be it so. And what is law but the revealed will of God? And has our free forgiveness released us from the privilege of conformity to the revealed will of God? But what do they mean by thus rejecting the word duty, and contending for that of privilege?

Privilege is not something distinct from duty, nor at variance with duty, but it is duty and something more; it is duty influenced by higher motives, duty uncompelled by terror or suspense. In privilege the duty is all there; but there is something superadded, in the shape of motive and relationship, which exalts and ennobles duty. It is my duty to obey government; it is my privilege to obey my parent. But in the latter case is duty gone, because privilege has come in? Or has not the loving relationship between parent and child only intensified the duty, by superadding the privilege, and sweetening the obedience by the mutual love? "The love of Christ constraineth" That is something more than both duty and privilege added.

Let men who look but at one side of a subject say what they will. this is the truth of God, that we are liberated from the law just in order that we may keep the law; we get the "no condemnation," in order that "the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in us" (Rom 8:4); we are delivered from "the mind of the flesh," which is enmity to God, and not subject to His law, on purpose that we may be subject to His law (Rom 8:7), that we may "delight in the law of God after the inward man" (Rom 7:22); nay that we may "with the mind serve the law of God" (Rom 7:25); that we may be "doers of the law" (James 4:1 1). These objectors may speak of obedience to the law as bondage, or of the law itself being abolished to believers; here are the words of the Holy Ghost: the law of God is "holy, just, and good"; that very law which David loved, and in which David's Son delighted--it would be well for such men meekly and lovingly to learn what serving and delighting in it is.

"Do we make void the law by faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law" (Rom 3:31); that is, we set it on a firmer basis than ever. That law, "holy, and just, and good," thus doubly established, is now for us, not against us. Its aspect toward us is that of friendship and love, and so we have become "the servants of righteousness" (Rom 6:18), "yielding our members servants to righteousness" (Rom 6:19). We are not men delivered from service, but delivered from one kind of service, and by that deliverance introduced into another, "that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter" (Rom 7:6), as "the Lord's freemen," yet Christ's servants (1 Cor 7:22).

Thus, obligation, duty, service and obedience still remain to the believing man, though no longer associated with bondage and terror, but with freedom, and gladness, and love. The law's former bearing on us is altered, and, with that, the nature and spirit of the service are altered, but the service itself remains, and the law which regulates that service is confirmed, not annulled."

From: Horatius Bonar - God's Way of Holiness: Chapter 6 - The Saint and the Law

Horatius Bonar - Wikipedia

 

[BarneyFife]

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
(James 2:10)

Agreed

the law = the law.

Then why is there more than one name for them?

your little human tradition / false doctrine of 'not under some of it, but under some of it' is frankly complete BS and it's 100% contrary to scripture.

Flattery will get you nowhere. "Little human tradition?" "BS?" Running out of civil expression, are we?

 

[BarneyFife]

And the statutes, the ordinances, the Law, and the commandment which He wrote for you, you shall take care to do always; and you shall not fear other gods. (2 Kings 17:37)

the statutes,
הַחֻקִּ֨ים (ha·ḥuq·qîm)
Article | Noun - masculine plural
Strong's 2706: Something prescribed or owed, a statute

ordinances,
הַמִּשְׁפָּטִ֜ים (ham·miš·pā·ṭîm)
Article | Noun - masculine plural
Strong's 4941: A verdict, a sentence, formal decree, divine law, penalty, justice, privilege, style

laws,
וְהַתּוֹרָ֤ה (wə·hat·tō·w·rāh)
Conjunctive waw, Article | Noun - feminine singular
Strong's 8451: Direction, instruction, law

and commandments
וְהַמִּצְוָה֙ (wə·ham·miṣ·wāh)
Conjunctive waw, Article | Noun - feminine singular
Strong's 4687: Commandment

 

[post]

Then why is there more than one name for them?

there's not.

ubiquitously in the NT the entire Torah is referred to as "the law"
there is absolutely not even the slightest hint that it means anything less than all 613 commandments and it even includes all the histories and genealogies in the books of Moses ((see Galatians 4))

in Romans 7 Paul absolutely clearly and without possibility of legitimate argument defines "the law" as including the decalogue, and says that because we have died in Christ we are not under it.

Jesus declares the entire basis of "the law" is a couple of what you call "mere ignorable ordinances" in Deuteronomy 6 & Leviticus 19.

you have no credibility with me.
we're done. talking to you is a waste of my time.
but go on blabbing all you want. this forum apparently loves heresy.

 

[BarneyFife]

ubiquitously in the NT the entire Torah is referred to as "the law"
there is absolutely not even the slightest hint that it means anything less than all 613 commandments and it even includes all the histories and genealogies in the books of Moses ((see Galatians 4))

Matthew 19
16Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good[d] Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”

17So He said to him, [e]“Why do you call Me good? [f]No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

18He said to Him, “Which ones?”
Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”

commandments
ἐντολάς (entolas)
Noun - Accusative Feminine Plural
Strong's 1785: An ordinance, injunction, command, law. From entellomai; injunction, i.e. An authoritative prescription.