Jesus prophesied that Sabbath would be kept by Christians until His return

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Johann

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2022
8,588
4,871
113
63
Durban South Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
I'm afraid to say, in context, this refers to YisraEl, not us.
And they asked him,.... That is, his disciples, when they were come to the Mount of Olives, and as he sat upon that, Mat_24:3
saying, master, but when shall these things be? when the temple shall be destroyed; and one stone shall not be left upon another;
and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass? which shows that this refers to the destruction of the temple, and so the signs following; See Gill on Mat_24:3.


Let him which is on the housetop,.... Who should be there either for his devotion or recreation; for the houses of the Jews were built with flat roofs and battlements about them, which they made use of both for diversion and pleasure, and for private meditation and prayer, for social conversation, and sometimes for public preaching; see Mat_10:27
not come down to take anything out of his house: that is, let him not come down in the inner way, but by the stairs, or ladder, on the outside of the house, which was usual. They had two ways of going out of, and into their houses; the one they call (d), דרך פתחים, "the way of the doors"; the other, דרך גגין, "the way of the roof": upon which the gloss is,
"to go up on the outside, דרך פולם, "by way" or "means" of a ladder, fixed at the entrance of the door of the upper room, and from thence he goes down into the house by a ladder;''
and in the same way they could come out; see Mar_2:4 and let him not go into his house to take any of his goods, or money, or food along with him necessary for his sustenance in his flight; lest, whilst he is busy in taking care of these, he loses his life, or, at least, the opportunity of making his escape; so sudden is this desolation represented to be.
(d) T. Bab. Bava Metzia, fol. 117. 1.

I know Gill can be a pain, but this is well explained.

As well as here

neither on the sabbath day: the word "day" is not in the Greek text; and some (i) have been of opinion, that the "sabbatical year", or the seventh year, is meant, when no fruits would be found in the fields, and a great scarcity of provisions among people; who would not have a sufficiency, and much less any to spare to strangers fleeing from their native places; but rather the sabbath day, or "day of the sabbath", as the Persic version reads it, is designed; and Beza says, four of his copies read it in the genitive case: and so four of Stephens's. And the reason why our Lord put them on praying, that their flight might not be on the sabbath day, was, because he knew not only that the Jews, who believed not in him, would not suffer them to travel on a sabbath day more than two thousand cubits; which, according to their traditions (k), was a sabbath day's journey; and which would not be sufficient for their flight to put them out of danger; but also, that those that did believe in him, particularly the Jerusalem Jews, would be all of them fond of the law of Moses, and scrupulous of violating any part of it, and especially that of the sabbath; see Act_21:20. And though the Jews did allow, that the sabbath might be violated where life was in danger, and that it was lawful to defend themselves against an enemy on the sabbath day; yet this did not universally obtain; and it was made a question of, after the time of Christ, whether it was lawful to flee from danger on the sabbath day; of which take the following account (l).
"Our Rabbins teach, that he that is pursued by Gentiles, or by thieves, may profane the sabbath for the sake of saving his life: and so we find of David, when Saul sought to slay him, he fled from him, and escaped. Our Rabbins say, that it happened that evil writings (or edicts) came from the government to the great men of Tzippore; and they went, and said to R. Eleazar ben Prata, evil edicts are come to us from the government, what dost thou say? נברח, "shall we flee?" and he was afraid to say to them "flee"; but he said to them with a nod, why do you ask me? go and ask Jacob, and Moses, and David; as it is written, of Jacob, Hos_12:12 "and Jacob fled"; and so of Moses, Exo_2:15 "and Moses fled"; and so of David, 1Sa_19:18 "and David fled, and escaped": and he (God) says, Isa_26:20 "come my people, enter into thy chambers".''
From whence, it is plain, it was a question with the doctors in Tzippore, which was a town in Galilee, where there was an university, whether it was lawful to flee on the sabbath day or not; and though the Rabbi they applied to was of opinion it was lawful, yet he was fearful of speaking out his sense plainly, and therefore delivered it by signs and hints. Now our Lord's meaning, in putting them on this petition, was, not to prevent the violation of the seventh day sabbath, or on account of the sacredness of it, which he knew would be abolished, and was abolished before this time; but he says this with respect to the opinion of the Jews, and "Judaizing" Christians, who, taking that day to be sacred, and fleeing on it unlawful, would find a difficulty with themselves, and others, to make their escape; otherwise it was as lawful to flee and travel on that day, as in the winter season; though both, for different reasons, incommodious.
(h) Taachuma, fol. 57. 2. (i) Vid. Reland. Antiq. Heb. par. 4. c. 10. sect. 1. & Hammond in loc. (k) Maimon. Hilch. Sabbat, c. 27. sect. 1. (l) Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 23. fol. 231. 4.
Gill.

J.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Learner

Johann

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2022
8,588
4,871
113
63
Durban South Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
Your post is really off the rails. Jesus DID NOT predict the sabbath would be kept by Christians until His return.

IN FACTJesus never used the word Christian at all. The first mention of disciples of Christ being 'Christian' was in the early to mid fourth century - long after Jesus has ascended into heaven.

The word Christian only appears in scripture three times; Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28 & 1 Peter 4:16.

Some scholars have suggested the disciples of Jesus never called themselves Christians at all. The moniker was attached to them by pagans. (Acts 11:26) They 'were called Christians' not 'they called themselves Christians'.

Today the sabbath (shabbat) IS NOT KEPT by the church - either the Roman church, the orthodox church or the protestant church. This is a fulfillment of a prophecy of Daniel 7:25 (He [anti-Christ] will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws.)

The "set time and law" for the sabbath (shabbat) is the last day of the week - Saturday, not Sunday.

"the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest" (Exodus 31:15)

The Vatican attempted to change GOD'S LAW from Saturday to Sunday as predicted by the prophet Daniel.

We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.” (Rev. Peter Geiermann C.SS.R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50).

Thus the church today DOES NOT KEEP THE SABBATH, called Shabbat in Hebrew, AT ALL. Sunday worship, called 'the Lord's Day by the Vatican, is a violation of the 4th commandment. It is a SIN.

God owns Saturday.
The NFL owns Sunday.


One can argue against keeping Shabbat on Saturday, but one cannot rewrite scripture. What God has ordained is true. It is NOT subject to change by any human.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
Lol!
Nothing wrong with hollering from the choir loft brother!
J.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Learner

[email protected]

Choir Loft
Apr 2, 2009
1,635
127
63
West Central Florida
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
I'm afraid to say, in context, this refers to YisraEl, not us.


Read Genesis 3. The first lie of satan claims God lied when He said SIN would result in DEATH.

Is the LAW of God invalid? It is not. Matthew 15:17 quotes Jesus saying, "I did NOT come to abolish the LAW. I came to fulfill it."

Fulfillment of the LAW makes it perfect. It does not destroy the LAW. Thus the LAW STILL STANDS.

When statements deny the application of God's LAW as applicable to Israel only, they deny God's will for anyone.

This is commonly known as <false> Replacement Theology or Supersessionism. (google it)
It falsely replaces God's LAW with church tradition - and arrives at the same point of error and SIN that the Jewish teachers of Jesus' day had fallen into.

Religious pride isn't a monopoly of the Jews. The church today has an ample supply of it invented by themselves.

If the LAW doesn't apply to the church, then it would be ok for anyone to kill his neighbor, rape his neighbor's wife, steal his neighbor's goods, burn his neighbor's house to the ground and still claim he was marching the road to heaven.

If the LAW doesn't apply to the church, then nobody in the church is saved.

APART FROM THE LAW NO ONE CAN BE SAVED.

Think about it.

What is the purpose of the LAW? Church tradition does not know.

Read the Bible to find out.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Sad
Reactions: The Learner

Johann

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2022
8,588
4,871
113
63
Durban South Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
Clever, but bogus as any lie of satan.

Read Genesis 3. The first lie of satan claims God lied when He said SIN would result in DEATH.

Is the LAW of God invalid? It is not. Matthew 15:17 quotes Jesus saying, "I did NOT come to abolish the LAW. I came to fulfill it."

Fulfillment of the LAW makes it perfect. It does not destroy the LAW. Thus the LAW STILL STANDS.

When statements deny the application of God's LAW as applicable to Israel only, they deny God's will for anyone. This is commonly known as the heresy of Replacement Theology or Supersessionism. It falsely replaces God's LAW with church tradition - and arrives at the same point of error and SIN that the Jewish teachers of Jesus' day had fallen into.

Religious pride isn't a monopoly of the Jews. The church today has an ample supply of it invented by themselves.

If the LAW doesn't apply to the church, then it would be ok for anyone to kill his neighbor, rape his neighbor's wife, steal his neighbor's goods, burn his neighbor's house to the ground and still claim he was marching the road to heaven.

If the LAW doesn't apply to the church, then nobody in the church is saved.

APART FROM THE LAW NO ONE CAN BE SAVED.

Think about it.

What is the purpose of the LAW? Church tradition does not know.

Read the Bible to find out.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
I'm going to ask you the same thing as I asked another member....

How many mitzvot, nomos, entole, law is mentioned in Romans?

1. The Mosaic law...
2. The law of faith...
3.........

...can you fill in the rest?

Says me, hollering from South Africa.
J.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Learner

Johann

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2022
8,588
4,871
113
63
Durban South Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
Clever, but bogus as any lie of satan.

Read Genesis 3. The first lie of satan claims God lied when He said SIN would result in DEATH.

Is the LAW of God invalid? It is not. Matthew 15:17 quotes Jesus saying, "I did NOT come to abolish the LAW. I came to fulfill it."

Fulfillment of the LAW makes it perfect. It does not destroy the LAW. Thus the LAW STILL STANDS.

When statements deny the application of God's LAW as applicable to Israel only, they deny God's will for anyone. This is commonly known as the heresy of Replacement Theology or Supersessionism. It falsely replaces God's LAW with church tradition - and arrives at the same point of error and SIN that the Jewish teachers of Jesus' day had fallen into.

Religious pride isn't a monopoly of the Jews. The church today has an ample supply of it invented by themselves.

If the LAW doesn't apply to the church, then it would be ok for anyone to kill his neighbor, rape his neighbor's wife, steal his neighbor's goods, burn his neighbor's house to the ground and still claim he was marching the road to heaven.

If the LAW doesn't apply to the church, then nobody in the church is saved.

APART FROM THE LAW NO ONE CAN BE SAVED.

Think about it.

What is the purpose of the LAW? Church tradition does not know.

Read the Bible to find out.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
I'm going to ask you the same thing as I asked another member....

How many mitzvot, nomos, entole, law is mentioned in Romans?

1. The Mosaic law...
2. The law of faith...
3.........

...can you fill in the rest?

Says me, hollering from South Africa.
J.
I'm going to ask you the same thing as I asked another member....

How many mitzvot, nomos, entole, law is mentioned in Romans?

1. The Mosaic law...
2. The law of faith...
3.........

...can you fill in the rest?

Says me, hollering from South Africa.
J.

...besides, I'm not here to enter into a debate re the Shabbat/s
 

Johann

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2022
8,588
4,871
113
63
Durban South Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
Clever, but bogus as any lie of satan.
I am trying my best to stay true to God's word, to rightly cutting straight the scriptures, as I am sure do others and you hollering.
A Change in the Law
A specific mandate to change the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday doesn’t explicitly appear in the New Testament. What is mandated is a change in the Law (see Heb. 7–10, especially 7:11–12 and 8:13), and the Sabbath was part of that Law. We’re now free to worship and rest whenever we like, and Christians have historically chosen to honor the day Jesus rose from the dead and freed us from the Law, which was “only a shadow of the good things to come” (Heb. 10:1).

When we’re united to Jesus, we become heirs of the promises given to Abraham not the Law given to Moses—promises that were guaranteed by God’s grace, through faith, not through law, according to Romans 4:13–16. Galatians 3 explains,

Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed…that is, Christ…. [T]he Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant [with Abraham] previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

If God never intended to grant Abraham’s inheritance through law, then why did God give the Law? Paul responds to this question in the rest of chapter three. As part of his answer, he says we were “kept in custody under the law,” and “the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ.... But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.”

The Law was a shadow pointing to the reality of Christ (Heb. 10:1, Col. 2:16–17). Now that we have Christ, we’re no longer under the shadow because we have the substance:

Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day—things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. (Col. 2:16–17)

Jesus was the real sacrifice—not a sacrifice under the Mosaic Law but the true sacrifice that the Mosaic Law, the shadow, was pointing to (Heb. 8). His sacrifice and work as our high priest were not part of the Mosaic covenantal system. In fact, if we were still under the Mosaic Law with its Levitical priesthood, Jesus (who is not a Levite) could not act as our priest at all. Hebrews 7:11–22 explains:

Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek [i.e., Jesus], and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also….

For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God…. Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. [Emphasis mine.]

Shalom
J.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Learner

Johann

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2022
8,588
4,871
113
63
Durban South Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
I am trying my best to stay true to God's word, to rightly cutting straight the scriptures, as I am sure do others and you hollering.
A Change in the Law
A specific mandate to change the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday doesn’t explicitly appear in the New Testament. What is mandated is a change in the Law (see Heb. 7–10, especially 7:11–12 and 8:13), and the Sabbath was part of that Law. We’re now free to worship and rest whenever we like, and Christians have historically chosen to honor the day Jesus rose from the dead and freed us from the Law, which was “only a shadow of the good things to come” (Heb. 10:1).

When we’re united to Jesus, we become heirs of the promises given to Abraham not the Law given to Moses—promises that were guaranteed by God’s grace, through faith, not through law, according to Romans 4:13–16. Galatians 3 explains,

Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed…that is, Christ…. [T]he Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant [with Abraham] previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

If God never intended to grant Abraham’s inheritance through law, then why did God give the Law? Paul responds to this question in the rest of chapter three. As part of his answer, he says we were “kept in custody under the law,” and “the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ.... But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.”

The Law was a shadow pointing to the reality of Christ (Heb. 10:1, Col. 2:16–17). Now that we have Christ, we’re no longer under the shadow because we have the substance:

Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day—things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. (Col. 2:16–17)

Jesus was the real sacrifice—not a sacrifice under the Mosaic Law but the true sacrifice that the Mosaic Law, the shadow, was pointing to (Heb. 8). His sacrifice and work as our high priest were not part of the Mosaic covenantal system. In fact, if we were still under the Mosaic Law with its Levitical priesthood, Jesus (who is not a Levite) could not act as our priest at all. Hebrews 7:11–22 explains:

Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek [i.e., Jesus], and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also….

For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God…. Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. [Emphasis mine.]

Shalom
J.
Incase you dismiss str.org...

In response to such teachings, some Christians (like myself) quickly cite passages of Scripture that indicate the old law has been taken away. For example, the writer of Hebrews plainly stated that “if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second” (8:7). Then, quoting the prophet Jeremiah, he wrote: “Because finding fault with them, He says: ‘Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt’ ” (8:8-9; cf. Jeremiah 31:31-34). Elsewhere, the apostle Paul stated that Christ has “wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14, emp. added). The old law has become “obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13; cf. 7:12; Ephesians 2:14-16). Although we still can learn numerous valuable lessons and principles about how to live godly lives from the old law (cf. Romans 15:4), we are bound by it no longer.

How many laws mentioned in Romans?

Says me hollering from South Africa
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Learner

Johann

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2022
8,588
4,871
113
63
Durban South Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
Incase you dismiss str.org...

In response to such teachings, some Christians (like myself) quickly cite passages of Scripture that indicate the old law has been taken away. For example, the writer of Hebrews plainly stated that “if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second” (8:7). Then, quoting the prophet Jeremiah, he wrote: “Because finding fault with them, He says: ‘Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt’ ” (8:8-9; cf. Jeremiah 31:31-34). Elsewhere, the apostle Paul stated that Christ has “wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14, emp. added). The old law has become “obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13; cf. 7:12; Ephesians 2:14-16). Although we still can learn numerous valuable lessons and principles about how to live godly lives from the old law (cf. Romans 15:4), we are bound by it no longer.

How many laws mentioned in Romans?

Says me hollering from South Africa
Joh 13:34 I give you a new commandment: that you should love one another. Just as I have loved you, so you too should love one another.
AMP

A new. Gr. kainos, +Mar_2:22 note. Note: The Mosaic law commanded men to "love their neighbour as themselves;" and this implied that reciprocal and social love of believers of which our Lord spake: but this was now to be explained with new clearness, enforced by new motives and obligations, illustrated by a new example, obeyed in a new manner, and carried to a new extent. They were required to love each other for his sake, and in imitation of him, "even as I have loved you," and be ready on all occasions to lay down their lives for each other. By this the primitive Christians were particularly known among the Gentiles: "See, said they, how they love one another; and are ready to lay down their lives for each other" (Tertulian, in Apol.). Mat_9:17; Mat_13:52, +Mar_2:22 note. Act_17:19, Gal_6:2, 1Jn_2:7-10; 1Jn_3:11; 1Jn_3:14-18; 1Jn_3:23, 2Jn_1:5.


2Jn 1:5 And now I beg you, lady (Cyria), not as if I were issuing a new charge (injunction or command), but [simply recalling to your mind] the one we have had from the beginning, that we love one another.

2Jn 1:6 And what this love consists in is this: that we live and walk in accordance with and guided by His commandments (His orders, ordinances, precepts, teaching). This is the commandment, as you have heard from the beginning, that you continue to walk in love [guided by it and following it].
AMP

Very clear, ain't it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Learner

Johann

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2022
8,588
4,871
113
63
Durban South Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
What some like the Seventh-Day Adventists teach, however, is that that God gave two laws on Mt. Sinai. They differentiate between the Ten Commandments and the ceremonial laws, saying that one (the Ten Commandments) is the Law of God and the other (the ceremonial laws) is the Law of Moses. Moreover, they assert that all of the passages in the Bible that refer to the old law being abolished are speaking of the ceremonial laws and not the Ten Commandments, which (they stress) were written with the very finger of God (Exodus 31:18).

Those who separate the “the Law of God” and “the Law of Moses” (in an attempt to find approval for continuing to follow portions of the old law) fail to realize that the Bible does not make such distinctions. Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of Moses,” which also was called “the Book of the Law of God” (Nehemiah 8:1,18). Luke recorded that after Mary gave birth to Jesus “when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, ‘Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord’), and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, ‘A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons’ ” (Luke 2:22-24, emp. added). The Law of Moses and the Law of the Lord were the same thing and still are. When writing to the brethren in Rome, the apostle Paul quoted from the Ten Commandments and taught that it was part of the old law to which they had “become dead…through the body of Christ” (Romans 7:4,7). In his second epistle to the Corinthians, Paul wrote:

[C]learly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart…. But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious…. For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious (3:3-11, emp. added).

What was “passing away”? The law written on the “tablets of stone.” What was the law “engraved on stones” that was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai? The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). In this passage, Paul teaches the very opposite of what Seventh-Day Adventists teach—the Ten Commandments are not an eternal covenant.

The New Testament explicitly teaches that the old law has been abolished. Whether one is talking about the Ten Commandments or the ceremonial laws, the Law of Moses or the Law of God, all are considered the old law that no longer is in effect. Jesus Christ fulfilled that law and nailed it to the cross forever (Matthew 5:17-18; Colossians 2:13-17).

How many laws mentioned in Romans?

I don't know it all brother, but this makes sense, unless, of course, you can show me I'm in error.
J.
 

GerhardEbersoehn

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2014
6,311
575
113
Johannesburg
www.biblestudents.co.za
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
And who is bnei ammi?
YisraEl/Israel.

(29) And he said, Shimcha shall be called no more Ya'akov, but Yisroel: for sarita im Elohim ([yisrah=to prevail + El=G-d = Yisroel] ye have striven with Elohim) and with anashim, and hast overcome.
OJB

Thanks for the Koine Greek, I actually read it, but more interested in the morphologies, Middle, Active, Genitive, 2nd Aorist, Aorist etc.

..like...

τοτε ο ιησους ειπεν τοις μαθηταις αυτου ει τις θελει οπισω μου ελθειν απαρνησασθω εαυτον και αρατω τον σταυρον αυτου και ακολουθειτω μοι


Did you know there are three Imperatives in just this one verse?

Must be really important, coming from Yeshua's lips, Perfect Tense.

Shalom
J.
DUH
 

Johann

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2022
8,588
4,871
113
63
Durban South Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
What some like the Seventh-Day Adventists teach, however, is that that God gave two laws on Mt. Sinai. They differentiate between the Ten Commandments and the ceremonial laws, saying that one (the Ten Commandments) is the Law of God and the other (the ceremonial laws) is the Law of Moses. Moreover, they assert that all of the passages in the Bible that refer to the old law being abolished are speaking of the ceremonial laws and not the Ten Commandments, which (they stress) were written with the very finger of God (Exodus 31:18).

Those who separate the “the Law of God” and “the Law of Moses” (in an attempt to find approval for continuing to follow portions of the old law) fail to realize that the Bible does not make such distinctions. Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of Moses,” which also was called “the Book of the Law of God” (Nehemiah 8:1,18). Luke recorded that after Mary gave birth to Jesus “when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, ‘Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord’), and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, ‘A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons’ ” (Luke 2:22-24, emp. added). The Law of Moses and the Law of the Lord were the same thing and still are. When writing to the brethren in Rome, the apostle Paul quoted from the Ten Commandments and taught that it was part of the old law to which they had “become dead…through the body of Christ” (Romans 7:4,7). In his second epistle to the Corinthians, Paul wrote:

[C]learly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart…. But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious…. For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious (3:3-11, emp. added).

What was “passing away”? The law written on the “tablets of stone.” What was the law “engraved on stones” that was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai? The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). In this passage, Paul teaches the very opposite of what Seventh-Day Adventists teach—the Ten Commandments are not an eternal covenant.

The New Testament explicitly teaches that the old law has been abolished. Whether one is talking about the Ten Commandments or the ceremonial laws, the Law of Moses or the Law of God, all are considered the old law that no longer is in effect. Jesus Christ fulfilled that law and nailed it to the cross forever (Matthew 5:17-18; Colossians 2:13-17).

How many laws mentioned in Romans?

I don't know it all brother, but this makes sense, unless, of course, you can show me I'm in error.
J.
Is it "DUH' as I am DUH, or is it you
J.
 

GerhardEbersoehn

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2014
6,311
575
113
Johannesburg
www.biblestudents.co.za
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
And they asked him,.... That is, his disciples, when they were come to the Mount of Olives, and as he sat upon that, Mat_24:3
saying, master, but when shall these things be? when the temple shall be destroyed; and one stone shall not be left upon another;
and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass? which shows that this refers to the destruction of the temple, and so the signs following; See Gill on Mat_24:3.


Let him which is on the housetop,.... Who should be there either for his devotion or recreation; for the houses of the Jews were built with flat roofs and battlements about them, which they made use of both for diversion and pleasure, and for private meditation and prayer, for social conversation, and sometimes for public preaching; see Mat_10:27
not come down to take anything out of his house: that is, let him not come down in the inner way, but by the stairs, or ladder, on the outside of the house, which was usual. They had two ways of going out of, and into their houses; the one they call (d), דרך פתחים, "the way of the doors"; the other, דרך גגין, "the way of the roof": upon which the gloss is,
"to go up on the outside, דרך פולם, "by way" or "means" of a ladder, fixed at the entrance of the door of the upper room, and from thence he goes down into the house by a ladder;''
and in the same way they could come out; see Mar_2:4 and let him not go into his house to take any of his goods, or money, or food along with him necessary for his sustenance in his flight; lest, whilst he is busy in taking care of these, he loses his life, or, at least, the opportunity of making his escape; so sudden is this desolation represented to be.
(d) T. Bab. Bava Metzia, fol. 117. 1.

I know Gill can be a pain, but this is well explained.

As well as here

neither on the sabbath day: the word "day" is not in the Greek text; and some (i) have been of opinion, that the "sabbatical year", or the seventh year, is meant, when no fruits would be found in the fields, and a great scarcity of provisions among people; who would not have a sufficiency, and much less any to spare to strangers fleeing from their native places; but rather the sabbath day, or "day of the sabbath", as the Persic version reads it, is designed; and Beza says, four of his copies read it in the genitive case: and so four of Stephens's. And the reason why our Lord put them on praying, that their flight might not be on the sabbath day, was, because he knew not only that the Jews, who believed not in him, would not suffer them to travel on a sabbath day more than two thousand cubits; which, according to their traditions (k), was a sabbath day's journey; and which would not be sufficient for their flight to put them out of danger; but also, that those that did believe in him, particularly the Jerusalem Jews, would be all of them fond of the law of Moses, and scrupulous of violating any part of it, and especially that of the sabbath; see Act_21:20. And though the Jews did allow, that the sabbath might be violated where life was in danger, and that it was lawful to defend themselves against an enemy on the sabbath day; yet this did not universally obtain; and it was made a question of, after the time of Christ, whether it was lawful to flee from danger on the sabbath day; of which take the following account (l).
"Our Rabbins teach, that he that is pursued by Gentiles, or by thieves, may profane the sabbath for the sake of saving his life: and so we find of David, when Saul sought to slay him, he fled from him, and escaped. Our Rabbins say, that it happened that evil writings (or edicts) came from the government to the great men of Tzippore; and they went, and said to R. Eleazar ben Prata, evil edicts are come to us from the government, what dost thou say? נברח, "shall we flee?" and he was afraid to say to them "flee"; but he said to them with a nod, why do you ask me? go and ask Jacob, and Moses, and David; as it is written, of Jacob, Hos_12:12 "and Jacob fled"; and so of Moses, Exo_2:15 "and Moses fled"; and so of David, 1Sa_19:18 "and David fled, and escaped": and he (God) says, Isa_26:20 "come my people, enter into thy chambers".''
From whence, it is plain, it was a question with the doctors in Tzippore, which was a town in Galilee, where there was an university, whether it was lawful to flee on the sabbath day or not; and though the Rabbi they applied to was of opinion it was lawful, yet he was fearful of speaking out his sense plainly, and therefore delivered it by signs and hints. Now our Lord's meaning, in putting them on this petition, was, not to prevent the violation of the seventh day sabbath, or on account of the sacredness of it, which he knew would be abolished, and was abolished before this time; but he says this with respect to the opinion of the Jews, and "Judaizing" Christians, who, taking that day to be sacred, and fleeing on it unlawful, would find a difficulty with themselves, and others, to make their escape; otherwise it was as lawful to flee and travel on that day, as in the winter season; though both, for different reasons, incommodious.
(h) Taachuma, fol. 57. 2. (i) Vid. Reland. Antiq. Heb. par. 4. c. 10. sect. 1. & Hammond in loc. (k) Maimon. Hilch. Sabbat, c. 27. sect. 1. (l) Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 23. fol. 231. 4.
Gill.

J.
After all saying nothing with no Scripture far, far above past my pampoenkop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.