Questions for Sabbatarians

[BarneyFife]

Yes Barney, Christians should understand and then obey the words of the LORD, and then speak the same things as He has said, Jesus said to take His yoke upon you and learn of Him, as far as myself I have come to some knowledge of this issue truth of this Covenant.

I hope it's clear that I meant nothing more need be said with regard to the specific question I was addressing.

.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

I hope it's clear that I meant nothing more need be said with regard to the specific question I was addressing.

.

Amen

 

[BarneyFife]

If Christians are to keep the law of Moses-the Sabbath-why did the apostles and elders who met at Jerusalem leave it out of their address to the churches? (Acts 15 :1-29). This case finds, in some respects, a parallel in your theorizing. Judaizing teachers had gone forth declaring to the brethren that unless they would submit to circumcision and keep the law of Moses they could not be saved. The apostles said, “We gave no such commandment.”

Another argument from silence. Must we?

Perhaps they left out the observance of the 4th commandment from their address at the Jerusalem Council because, like with the other 9 commandments, there was no change to be addressed, which is much more likely than that there might have actually been a change, since that episode of scandal and uprising would have made for a much heftier New Testament than we have on record.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

If Christians are required to keep the Sabbath, how are we to account for the open violation of the law by Jesus Christ, who is our example, unless by saying that the power that made the law can take it away (John 7 :22-23).

Two questions:

1. If Christ broke the fourth commandment, then why did He say, "I have kept my Father's commandments?" John 15:10.​

​

2. The Sabbath objector says that "the law"—and he insists that all laws both moral and ceremonial are comprehended in that term—was in force until the cross. Then if Christ broke the Sabbath commandment, was He not a sinner? There is only one answer. But we know that Christ did no sin; therefore there must be something wrong with the reasoning in the objection before us.​

What proof is offered that Jesus "broke the fourth commandment"? An inspired declaration of Holy Writ? No, only the charge of the "strictest Sabbatarians of His day."

On a certain Sabbath day, while our Lord was in a synagogue, there came before Him a man with a withered hand. Divining that Christ might plan to heal the cripple, some "strict Sabbatarians" asked the Master: "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days? That they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days." Matt. 12:10-12. Whereupon He immediately healed the cripple. "Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him." Verse 14.

Another instance of Christ's healing on the Sabbath is recorded in John 5:2-18. In verse 18 we read that the judgment of the Jews was that Christ “had broken the Sabbath."

Here we see the charge of the "strictest Sabbatarians" in its Scriptural setting. Yet the Sabbath objector evidently considers this charge to be sufficient ground for saying that Christ "broke the fourth commandment." Incredible!

We believe the incident of the healing of the crippled man proves the very opposite of what some people allege it does, as the following questions will reveal:

1. If Christ considered the fourth commandment simply ceremonial, was this not an excellent opportunity for Him to discourse upon the distinction between ceremonial and moral precepts? Present-day Sabbath opposers surely would have done so, for here they argue that very point, insisting that it was proper to break the fourth commandment, because it was ceremonial, but that it would have been sin to break any other of the ten, because they were moral. But Christ did not use any such reasoning.​

​

2. Note the question asked of Christ: "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days?" When the Samaritan woman at the well asked Christ where men should worship, a question that through the long past years had had genuine importance, He dismissed it summarily by informing her that the time was at hand when the question no longer had significance. If Christ was soon to abolish the Sabbath law on the cross, would we not expect Him to dismiss, in similar fashion, the question the "strictest Sabbatarians" had posed? Instead, He gave no hint of impending abolition, but replied, "It is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days.”​

There is no suggestion that He considered He was breaking the Sabbath. Instead, He was interpreting its true meaning. Nor is there anything in His interpretation, or His miraculous action that followed, that warrants the conclusion that the Sabbath rests on a ceremonial law. it is always lawful to "do well" in relation to moral laws.

But it is alleged that the Sabbath is ceremonial because Christ declared that the priests "profane the Sabbath, and are blameless." His reference to the priests was simply offered in illustration of His statement that "it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days." Christ's adversaries were contending that He and His disciples profaned the Sabbath by engaging in some form of work on the Sabbath. He reminded them that the priests also worked on the Sabbath, and were blameless. Even the "strictest Sabbatarians" would agree that what the priests did on the Sabbath, in harmony with "the law," was "lawful," even though the priests each Sabbath had to engage in the work of slaying and offering sacrifices.

Christ's use of the word "profane" must be understood in the context of the controversy. His reasoning appears to be this: If His and His disciples' deeds were profanation of the Sabbath, then by the same token the deeds of the priests were profanation. To contend that Christ really meant that the priests, whose Sabbath deeds of sacrificing were done in harmony with the law, did, in truth, desecrate the Sabbath, would lead to an impossible conclusion. Christ would really be saying that God gave a holy law to guard the sacredness of the Sabbath and then gave to Moses another law that resulted weekly in the desecration of the Sabbath! Those who wish to, may hold this conclusion. I do not.

The Sabbath commandment, like the other commands in the Ten Commandments, is relatively brief. It sets down the principle that men should refrain from all their own labors on the seventh day. But the God who gave the law also revealed—for example, through other laws given to Moses, and through Christ's words—just how the Sabbath command should be understood and how it is related to other aspects of life. But that does not warrant the conclusion that the Sabbath command was therefore ceremonial. Commands that the Sabbath objector admits are moral, sometimes need interpretation to enable a person to know how to carry out the real intent of those commands under differing circumstances. For example, the fifth commandment makes the unqualified statement that children should honor their parents. And in Oriental lands that would be understood in a most far-reaching sense. But what if the parents were heathen, a situation that began to present itself when Christianity was preached to the Roman world? Paul, who quotes the opening words of the command, places it with this obvious interpretation: "Children obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right." Eph. 6:1. That permitted them to disobey the command of a heathen parent if that command was contrary to the standards of Christ.

The eighth commandment reads, “Thou shall not steal." Was ever a command more unquestionably moral? But is it possible that what man might consider a violation of that command, God might not? Evidently so, for Moses was instructed to tell the people that a person going through someone else's field could satisfy his hunger by eating to the full, though he must not carry anything away. (See Deut. 23:24, 25) Did a hungry person by eating his neighbor's grapes thus flout, or profane, the law against stealing? No. Why? Because the God who gave the law declared that such eating was in harmony with the law, the "strictest" honesty advocates notwithstanding. The same is true of the Sabbath command. Neither Christ nor the priests violated or devalued the Sabbath command, because the God who gave the command also declared that the work of the priests and the work of Christ were "lawful" on that day.

The Sabbath objector may take his choice: either assert that the fourth command is ceremonial, which logically calls for the eighth command to be considered ceremonial also; or admit that the eighth is moral, which logically calls for the fourth to be also.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

If you keep the Sabbath because you think it was kept before the law of Moses, why do you not practice circumcision, seeing it is plainly commanded in these ages? (Gen. 17:1-14; Gal. 5:1-6).

The Sabbath should be kept for the same reason people shouldn't steal, kill, bear false witness, etc.—not because of some hermeneutical hocus pocus. Your equivocation fallacy is hereby expelled:

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.
(1 Corinthians 7:19)

.

 

[BarneyFife]

When did patriarch, prophet, or apostles, or anybody else, command any Gentile to keep the law of Moses? No dodging here. Proof! Proof! Proof!

Not that this question refers to the Sabbath in any way, but:

Acts 15:23-29
They wrote this letter by them:

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.

Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment—it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Farewell.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

Paul says the ministration of death written and engraved in stone (Ex. 20:1-17; 31:18; 32 6:15-16; 34:1-28) was done away (2 Cor. 3:1-18). When, where, and by whom was it brought back into force? Name the day, the age, the authority, and give proof from the Book! If your doctrine is true the great apostle of the Gentiles stands convicted of a mistake.

The premise of the question is flawed and convoluted but the explanation of 2 Corinthians, chapter 3 is as follows:

The introduction to the passage before us finds Paul declaring to the Corinthian brethren: "You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: forasmuch as you are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” 2 Cor. 3:2, 3.

Here is the key to interpret the words that follow. His figure of speech is patently borrowed from the Scriptural contrast between the old and the new covenant, "Tables of stone" contrasted with “tables of the heart”, “ink" contrasted with "the Spirit of the living God.” These Corinthians, he said, were "ministered by us.”

By an easy transition Paul moves into a discussion of the two covenants by adding immediately that Christ "also hath made us able ministers of the new testament [covenant]; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.” (The word ‘testament’ in this and almost all other instances in the New Testament does not have the meaning of a “will as made by a testator in anticipation of death, but of covenant, and is so translated in the RSV.)

We might close the discussion right here, for our examination of the two covenants revealed clearly that the ratifying of the new covenant did not mean the abolishing of the, Ten Commandments. However, let us proceed.

“But if the ministration of death, written and engraved in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more does the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excels. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remains is glorious. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: and not as Moses, which put a vale over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.” Verses 7-13.

Here is a series of contrasts, intended not so much to belittle the old dispensation as to glorify the new. It was ever Paul's studied endeavor to prove that Christ and His ministry are the blazing glory beside which the spiritual glory of the former times seems pale. This argument by contrast particularly marks the book of Hebrews, which was written for the Jewish believers, who, until they accepted Christ, had thought that the glory of Sinai and the ministration of the divine law under the Jewish priests and rulers were the last word in heavenly glory.

To be continued...

.

 

[BarneyFife]

Continued...

The contrasts that Paul seeks to make are essentially the same as the contrasts between the old and new covenants:

1. "The ministration of “death" versus ”the ministration of the spirit."​

2. "Ministration of condemnation" versus "ministration of righteousness."​

3. "Letter killes" versus -spirit gives life.”​

4. “Was glorious- versus -exceed in glory.”​

5. "Done away" versus "remains."​

Numbers one and two are simply variant expressions.

The questions before us are therefore:

1. What are these two ministrations?​

2. What is meant by letter and spirit?​

3. What is this relative "glory"?​

4. What was "done away” and what "remains "?​

The objector quickly answers: The "ministration of death" was that which was "written and engraved in stones," and is plainly the Ten Commandments. But not so quickly. Is it correct to speak of a "ministration" and a "law" as synonymous? No. It is correct to speak of the "ministration" or, as we would say, the administering of a law. The administering of the law is the means by which it is put in operation, and is not to be confused with the law itself. Therefore, "the ministration of death," or "the ministration of condemnation," refers to the ministration, or the administering, of the law that was "written and engraved in stones.”

By a simple figure of speech, the law is called death and condemnation. On a certain occasion in Elisha's day, the sons of the prophets gathered with him around a "great pot" in which had been cooked certain "wild gourds." Evidently the gourds were poisonous, for one of those eating cried out: "There is death in the pot." (See 2 Kings 1:38-40) He meant, of course, that there was something in the pot that would cause death, and substituting cause for effect, he cried out as he died.

Paul had earlier said to the Corinthians, "The sting of death is sin: and the strength of sin is the law." 1 Cor. 15:56. That is, if it were not for the law of God, which condemns those who violate it, there would be no sin, and hence no death in penalty for sin, "for where no law is, there is no transgression.- Rom. 4:15. Thinking on this fact and the contrasting fact that ”the law is holy . . . and just, and good," caused Paul to inquire: ”Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid!" Rom. 7:12,13 Here he speaks of the law as "death." Now, how does Paul say that we escape from this "ministration of death”,- this "ministration of condemnation"? By abolishing the law of God? Listen to his words: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Rom. 8: 1-4.

We escape from "condemnation" through Jesus Christ, who changes our hearts so that "the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us." Paul describes this changed state as walking "after the Spirit," and adds that "to be spiritually minded is life and peace." Verses 5, 6.

Here is a state of "condemnation" and "death" changed to one of "no condemnation" but rather "life." In other words, a ministration of condemnation and death exchanged for a ministration of the spirit and life. How evident that we are here discussing the two covenants. And how evident also that Paul's words in Romans 8 parallel his words in 2 Corinthians 3. That is the plain teaching of the Scripture.

The cold letter of the law as it appeared on the stone tables had no life-giving power. It could only point accusingly at every man, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. An administration of the law based on its letter alone results only in death for violators. But an administration of it based on the forgiveness possible through the action of God's Spirit on the heart results in life. The contrast between "letter" and "spirit" does not mean a contrast between an age of law and an age of freedom from all law. As we have already noted, when God's Spirit is in control, the law's requirements are carried out in our hearts.

What, now, of the "glory" mentioned by Paul? He plainly speaks of the relative glory of two ministrations. The justice and righteousness of God shone forth in awesome, even terrifying glory on Mount Sinai as He proclaimed His law. He stood there as a consuming fire. But how much greater the glory of God that bathed the earth with its life-giving rays where Christ came down to "save his people from their sins." Matt. 1:21. Here was the glory of justice and mercy combined, for in dying for our sins our "transgression of the law" Christ revealed how God at one and the same time could "be just, and the justifier of him which believes in Jesus." Rom. 3:26.

This brings us to the last question: What was “done away" and what "remains"? The question is really already answered. The glory attendant upon the giving of the law is so greatly excelled by the glory attendant upon the saving of men from its violation that Paul could appropriately speak of the first as "glorious" and the second as "the glory that excels.” But right here Paul weaves in an incident in connection with the giving of the law at Sinai to illustrate a point that he wishes to make in the verses that immediately follow this disputed passage. When Moses came down from the mount with the tables of stone in his hands, ”the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him." So Moses "put a veil on his face- while he spoke to the Israelites. (See Ex. 34:29-35)

Paul refers to this: "The children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away." 2 Cor. 3:7. He refers to this again in verse 11, saying it was "done away," and then again in verse 13 in these words: "And not as Moses, which put a vale over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished."

It was the glory of the former ministration, now ended, and not the law administered, that was "done away," "abolished," even, as by historical analogy, Paul reminds them that it was the glory on Moses' face that was "done away.” The record declares that the veil was on Moses' face, not on the tables of stone, that it was his face that shone and not the tables of stone, and that it was the glory on his face that faded, not the luster that ever surrounds the divinely written Ten Commandments.

Well do Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, in their Bible commentary, make this general observation in their comments on 2 Corinthians 3: "Still the moral law of the ten commandments, being written by the finger of God, is as obligatory now as ever; but put more on the Gospel spirit of 'love,' than on the letter of a servile obedience, and in a deeper and fuller spirituality (Matthew 5.17-48; Romans 13.9)."

.

 

[BarneyFife]

If the early Christians kept the Sabbath day, why did they break bread on the first day of the week? (Acts 20:7).

Some people get weak when they don't eat.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

If Christians are to keep the Sabbath day, how do you account for the fact that the apostles preached the gospel in Jerusalem, Samaria, to Cornelius the Gentile, and to many others, without commanding a single individual to keep it? Did they, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit fail to properly instruct their converts? (Acts 2:1-47; 8:1-40; 10:1-48 ;16:1-40).

No. The Book they taught from tells all about the Sabbath. I'm sure it came up. A lot of things happened during the infancy of the church that didn't make it into the New Testament. An argument from silence is a "fact" for which no account can be given.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

Is it not a fact, according to the book of Acts, that the thing done was of more importance than the day? Acts 20:7.

Another "fact" that proves nothing. Paul undoubtedly spoke to people every chance he got. Are we to believe that he declined offers to speak unless they involved making an appearance during sacred hours? I used to argue this point by an illustration of the entire account, giving a precise timeline, and it's just plain silly. No reference is made to sacred time in the account. And no credible, non-Catholic, Bible scholar argues Sunday sacredness anymore.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

Can you demonstrate that the day you keep is really the seventh day or Sabbath, coming down in regular succession from the day on which God keeps? If not, your day is no better than any other day. Admitting, for argument’s sake, that the law of Moses is still in force, and that the fourth commandment is binding on the whole human race, will you affirm that it is possible for all men to keep the same day?


If so, how do you explain the fact that the traveler who starts out to go around the earth, gains, say, if going east, one hour for every thousand miles traveled, or if going west loses an hour for every thousand miles traveled? How far would he go before he lost the count? Do you not see that he would inevitably be behind or in advance? Further, how do you explain the fact that far away toward the extremes of the earth, traveling from the equator, there are periods of six months night and six months day from age to age? Do you not see that it is a geographical impossibility for all men to keep the same day, and that the Law was only intended for one people, one country, and one age?

I explain it by just acknowledging that God isn't a fool and He wouldn't require people to observe a sacred appointment that was logistically impossible. He actually knew that people were going to be fruitful and multiply and fill the whole earth.

I belong to a worldwide body of 24 million Christian people who get it done just fine. Virtually everyone comes away blessed and I'm sure the nation of Israel would be shocked to find that you've discovered Sabbath-keeping is impossible. On second thought, I doubt they'd entertain your nonsense the way I am.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

Do you keep the Sabbath day? No dodging, do you? Do you rest, or put in the day promulgating your doctrines? If you do not keep the day according to the Law, you do not keep it at all. If part is done away, then all is done away. Read Exodus 20:8-11; 35:1-3.

I'm experiencing some insomnia presently, so I'm using these hours to brush up on some apologetics skills.

Have you ever lusted after a woman in your heart or hated your brother without cause? I hope not, in the case that "if part is done away, then all is done away."

The way in which individual people carry out the requirements of Sabbath-keeping that may or may not meet your approval doesn't effect the legitimacy of the 4th commandment one bit, one way or the other, I can assure you.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

Yep, and it's unlikely that any of the sabbatarians hanging around will be able to answer any of these questions.

 

[L.A.M.B.]

The Ten Commandments appears twice in the Bible: at Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21, given in the law.
Bits and pieces may be spoken of throughout the word.

We however, live under the New Testament of Jesus Christ, not the law given unto Moses for the rebellious Israelites!

Here, Jesus states his position for his followers to adhere unto after he states on the cross " It is finished"!
Matthew 5:7
Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill”
If then he fulfilled it why then do some insist on imposing it on his believers ?

Jesus reinterated these two;
Matthew 22
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

And He added a third!
John 13:34-35
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

So I ask, is it love that lays an obsolete commandment on the followers of Jesus or an unnecessary burden of man ?

No sabbath mentioned but only acts of love to God & man.

 

[BarneyFife]

The Ten Commandments appears twice in the Bible: at Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21, given in the law.
Bits and pieces may be spoken of throughout the word.

We however, live under the New Testament of Jesus Christ, not the law given unto Moses for the rebellious Israelites!

Here, Jesus states his position for his followers to adhere unto after he states on the cross " It is finished"!
Matthew 5:7
Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill”
If then he fulfilled it why then do some insist on imposing it on his believers ?

Jesus reinterated these two;
Matthew 22
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

And He added a third!
John 13:34-35
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

So I ask, is it love that lays an obsolete commandment on the followers of Jesus or an unnecessary burden of man ?

No sabbath mentioned but only acts of love to God & man.

The reason some people emphasize the ten commandments is because they lived during or are, at least, aware of a very recent time when no such opposition to their emphasis similar to that which you have expressed existed, except from the voices of UNBELIEVERS.

But if you can find a reference to such an expression of objection older than about 40 years, I would love to see such a rarity.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

The 10 Commandments were ordained as part of the Mosaic Law in Exodus 20:8-11 (aka Law of Moses)

No such thing ever happened. It's a flowery enough pronouncement, but it's simply not a thing at all. The Ten Commandments are not sub-ordinate to the Torah, and no "ordination" making them so is to be found in Exodus 20.

The hierarchy of law is as follows:

1. The Two Great Commandments
2. The Ten Commandments (a summary expansion of the two)
3. The whole of Scripture

Matthew 22
35Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 36“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” 37Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

The entire old testament has been taken away so that a New Covenant could be established...

This is quite problematic, too. And it's not at all like what the New Testament says. Unless Jesus was somehow teaching the Emmaus Road mourning travelers the New Covenant from the "taken away" Old Testament in Luke 24.

And we're going to have to run that by The Great Apostle at some point, too, since he said:

"So, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place," (Acts 26:22)

And with the changing of the priesthood, God’s Word tells us there is also a change of the law.

And by "change," you figure that just means a huge subtraction from what Moses wrote, including a part of the ten commandments—an idea that would get you kicked out of most churches just 50 years ago. And any time before that.

So your version of the "better promises" is evidently just for people who lived after the church had already been established for 1,900 years.

Now, under the New Covenant, 9 of the original 10 commandments were included as those 9 were always part of God's moral law even before the 10 Commandments were ordained as part of the Mosaic Law in Exodus 20:8-11

Which, again, is diametrically opposed to what Christ, Himself taught.

For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished! (Matthew 5:18)

But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail. (Luke 16:17)

But one of the original 10 Commandments has been made obsolete under the New Covenant because the New Covenant is based on better promises. Something better has been made available to God's people than keeping Saturday sabbath!

So what exactly about the 4th commandment would you say makes it an old, inferior "promise?"

Could it be this stuff?:

• A gift of time — In the beginning, God gave humans the gift of sacred time to spend in fellowship with their Creator (Genesis 2:1–3).
  
  
• Freedom from work — Since sin brought exhausting toil, the Sabbath is a weekly rest from work for everyone, including animals (Exodus 20:8–11).
  
  
• A blessing of joy — Those who keep the Sabbath are promised joy and fulfillment in life (Isaiah 58:13, 14).
  
  
• A special blessing for our children — As we show our dedication to God by keeping His Sabbath holy, He promises to gather our children to Him and bless them (Isaiah 56:2–9).
  
  
• Security — God has given to us the Sabbath as a sign of our saving relationship with Him, giving us security in the midst of a world of falsehood and deception.(Ezekiel 20:20).
  
  
• Renewal in Christ — Jesus came as God in the flesh to show us how to live and how much God wants to save us from sin so that we can live eternally with Him. He claimed the Sabbath as His holy day and then showed us how to keep it. (See Mark chapter 2.)
  
  
• Hope of eternity — God’s promise of a new world, free from sin, is concurrent with an unbroken cycle of Sabbath worship (Isaiah 66:22, 23).

Care to guess which of the 10 Commandments is NOT mentioned are required under the New Covenant due to the New Covenant being based on better promises???

Well, based on the sentence previous to this one, I'd say there's really no need to guess.

By the way, what exactly are the old and inferior promises and the newer, better ones? Care to guess?

.

 

[BarneyFife]

5-8 “Haven’t any of you read in the Law that every Sabbath day priests in the Temple can break the Sabbath and yet remain blameless? I tell you that there is something more important than the Temple here. If you had grasped the meaning of the scripture ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice’, you would not have been so quick to condemn the innocent! For the Son of Man is master even of the Sabbath.”

Here you quote Scripture Matthew 12 that ironically tends to refute the following objection to the Sabbath:

If Christians are required to keep the Sabbath, how are we to account for the open violation of the law by Jesus Christ, who is our example, unless by saying that the power that made the law can take it away (John 7 :22-23).

Over and over Christ claimed that the accusations of Sabbath desecration leveled against Himself and his disciples are completely groundless. Yet these utterly bogus charges are recycled endlessly by 4th commandment cancelers.

.

 

[Wrangler]

Do you keep the Sabbath day? No dodging, do you? Do you rest, or put in the day promulgating your doctrines? If you do not keep the day according to the Law, you do not keep it at all. If part is done away, then all is done away.

Yes, along with @BarneyFife, I consider myself a Sabbatarian, as you like to call it.

Yep, and it's unlikely that any of the sabbatarians hanging around will be able to answer any of these questions.

There! I answered any of your questions. Do I win a prize?

Honestly, after reading the Bible, I am shocked that there is such acrimony over this grace from God among his children.

Christ said the Sabbath was made for man; man was not made for the Sabbath. It is a gift from God. I Sabbath for my benefit, to recharge my body, mind and soul, through rest, contemplation and worship. The infighting over law is ridiculous, akin to:

1. My father left me a fork for an inheritance.
2. I am not required by the law to eat. Therefore, I do not have to use the gift my father gave.
3. Huh?

That's what this is like.

I do not Sabbath as a law keeper. I Sabbath as a hungry man needs food, a thirsty man needs drink, a tired man needs rest. Geesh!

 

[Wrangler]

So what exactly about the 4th commandment would you say makes it an old, inferior "promise?"

Could it be this stuff?:

• A gift of time — In the beginning, God gave humans the gift of sacred time to spend in fellowship with their Creator (Genesis 2:1–3).
  
  
• Freedom from work — Since sin brought exhausting toil, the Sabbath is a weekly rest from work for everyone, including animals (Exodus 20:8–11).
  
  
• A blessing of joy — Those who keep the Sabbath are promised joy and fulfillment in life (Isaiah 58:13, 14).
  
  
• A special blessing for our children — As we show our dedication to God by keeping His Sabbath holy, He promises to gather our children to Him and bless them (Isaiah 56:2–9).
  
  
• Security — God has given to us the Sabbath as a sign of our saving relationship with Him, giving us security in the midst of a world of falsehood and deception.(Ezekiel 20:20).
  
  
• Renewal in Christ — Jesus came as God in the flesh to show us how to live and how much God wants to save us from sin so that we can live eternally with Him. He claimed the Sabbath as His holy day and then showed us how to keep it. (See Mark chapter 2.)
  
  
• Hope of eternity — God’s promise of a new world, free from sin, is concurrent with an unbroken cycle of Sabbath worship (Isaiah 66:22, 23).

Thanks for compiling this! I really appreciate it.