What will happen to Christians who reject the Sabbath?

  • 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!

BarneyFife

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2019
9,113
6,342
113
Central PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Mary,

I think Scripture and my post make it clear that for NT Christians the breaking of bread was, at a minimum, every Lords Day if not daily!

I wouldn't go that far but it's not a hill I would die on, anyway.

It CLEARLY is not only a "Catholic devotion to the Eucharist"

Agreed, but surely you'd agree that Catholics, in general, emphasize partaking of the Eucharist above that which characterizes the practice among the average non-Catholic.

I can't find anywhere in Scripture where it says to celebrate communion quarterly(?).

Me, neither.

But it doesn't exactly "say to" do it every day or every week either, does it?

Again the frequency of the practice is not something I'd care to make a test of fellowship, since Scripture doesn't seem to do so.

The Lord's Prayer speaks of praying for daily bread and getting together daily for bread;

Aren't we venturing pretty close to eisegesis here? Is the Lord's Prayer really talking about communion?

Bread tends to eat a lot better after you break it, and bread was a big staple of diet for folk who had no religion at all.

I think interpreting the breaking of bread as always meaning communion in the Bible might be a questionable hermeneutic, IMO (since we're doing the opinion thing).

I'm also of the opinion that early church fathers had no special gift of discernment in spiritual matters, as wil come as no surprise to you, I'm sure. :)

It's also not surprising that you feel more strongly about this issue than I, for reasons that you seem to deny, but exhibit, nevertheless.

Let me grab a helmet real quick. Mary. ;)

.
 

Cassandra

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2021
2,654
3,016
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What's up with the bacon posts? Neither Hobie nor Barney eat bacon.

We believe it is unclean.
 
  • Love
Reactions: BarneyFife

Pierac

Active Member
Nov 15, 2021
756
159
43
61
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yeah, it's pretty weird. o_O

.
Yet.... You.... ALL.... STILL.. miss the Mark...

To Not following The Sabbath = SIN​

Eating Bacon = Sin

They are the same in the eye's of God... are you that Stupid not to see this???


I'm dealing with a Spiritual... first Grader... and yea... its pretty wierd BarneyFife... Where is the F... ruit of Andy to put you in your place.... My God do I have to do everything???
 

Cassandra

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2021
2,654
3,016
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yet.... You.... ALL.... STILL.. miss the Mark...

To Not following The Sabbath = SIN​

Eating Bacon = Sin

They are the same in the eye's of God... are you that Stupid not to see this???


I'm dealing with a Spiritual... first Grader... and yea... its pretty wierd BarneyFife... Where is the F... ruit of Andy to put you in your place.... My God do I have to do everything???
Are you speaking in some sort of ancient tongue? (A not nice use of the Lord's name BTW.)
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,431
1,687
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Mary,

I wouldn't go that far but it's not a hill I would die on, anyway.
Hey B5,

You didn't post anything from Scripture that discredited what I posted, but you did give your opinion....and I appreciate that.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,431
1,687
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Mary,

Agreed, but surely you'd agree that Catholics, in general, emphasize partaking of the Eucharist above that which characterizes the practice among the average non-Catholic.
Hi B5,

It is true that The Church and some Protestant denominations "emphasize partaking of the Eucharist"! But as I clearly stated before, with quotes from Scripture and Christian history to back it up, the NT Christians ALSO emphasized partaking of the Eucharist. JESUS emphasized it when he said, DO THIS in remembrance of me. He didn't say do it quarterly.

With that said I really don't care if the "average non-Catholic" doesn't emphasize partaking of the Eucharist! Since they don't emphasize it, they are not practicing what is taught in Scripture! That is not my opinion, it is fact as previously laid out in my other posts.

None the less....thank you for your opinion.

Mary
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,431
1,687
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Mary,


Me, neither.

But it doesn't exactly "say to" do it every day or every week either, does it?

Again the frequency of the practice is not something I'd care to make a test of fellowship, since Scripture doesn't seem to do so.
Seriously B5?

As I stated before, with quotes from Scripture and historical Christian writings, the NT Christians did partake every day and at a minimum every Lords Day. ONCE AGAIN you have given your opinion on the matter instead of any facts on the matter!

Just because Scripture does not flat out say PARTAKE OF THE BREAD EVERY DAY that does not mean that they didn't. Since the FACT is that they were partaking every day or at a minimum every Lords Day, I think it is safe to bet that the Apostles taught it. If the Apostles didn't teach it, then the NT Christians were not adhering to the teachings of the Apostles. The FACT is they didn't say partake quarterly. Therefore, any church that practices partaking quarterly is NOT practicing what the NT Christians practiced! Who would be right on this matter. The NT Christians? Or what your men have taught you 2,000 years later?

Based on your opinion (logic?) that since it doesn't "exactly "say to" do it every day or every week either"....how about once a year? Every five years? Heck, why not 10 years? I mean after all; it doesn't exactly say!! hmmx1:


Mary
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,431
1,687
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Aren't we venturing pretty close to eisegesis here? Is the Lord's Prayer really talking about communion?

Bread tends to eat a lot better after you break it, and bread was a big staple of diet for folk who had no religion at all.

I think interpreting the breaking of bread as always meaning communion in the Bible might be a questionable hermeneutic, IMO (since we're doing the opinion thing).

I'm also of the opinion that early church fathers had no special gift of discernment in spiritual matters, as wil come as no surprise to you, I'm sure. :)

It's also not surprising that you feel more strongly about this issue than I, for reasons that you seem to deny, but exhibit, nevertheless.

Let me grab a helmet real quick. Mary. ;)
B5,

No, The Church is not "venturing pretty close to eisegesis" in regard to Matthew 6:11. Thank you for your opinion. Here are the facts! It appears to me that your men taught you that the 'bread' spoken of in 6:11 is edible bread since you opinionated that it is a big staple of diet for folk who had no religion at all.

The FACT is that in the NT every other reference to “daily” is written as hemeran (ἡμέραν, “the day”) in the Greek texts. In MT. 6:11 “Daily” is written as epiousios. Taken literally (epi-ousios: “super-essential”) refers to the Bread of Life, the Body of Christ! This connects to Him telling us that He is the bread of life and that we must eat Him if we want to have life in us. It connects to Paul rhetorically asking, The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? Therefore, the breaking of bread IS a communion in the body of Christ just like He said it was when holding up bread saying, this IS my body!

The "early church fathers had no special gift of discernment in spiritual matters" but the men YOU study under, 2,000 years later, do? The men who lived closest to the time of Christ are wrong, but your men are right? Fascinating!

I feel strongly about this issue because I want to adhere to what Scripture teaches. Do you want to?

Mary
 

Pierac

Active Member
Nov 15, 2021
756
159
43
61
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Are you speaking in some sort of ancient tongue? (A not nice use of the Lord's name BTW.)
Yea... It's called The LAW.... Eating Bacon is a SIN!!!

Have you ever eatten Bacon... If so stop posting... you Sinner....!

You can't post here and claim you don't eat bacon!!!

BTY.... I love Bacon!!!
 

Cassandra

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2021
2,654
3,016
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yea... It's called The LAW.... Eating Bacon is a SIN!!!

Have you ever eatten Bacon... If so stop posting... you Sinner....!

You can't post here and claim you don't eat bacon!!!

BTY.... I love Bacon!!!
I can post anywhere I want. Everyone sins Bud.But Glad you're back. wondered what happened to you.
I used to eat Bacon, but now I don't because I feel that I shouldn't. I eat Bacos now. and I thought bacon was yummy, too. I don't fault anyone else for doing so, though.
here ya go. Mark and remember: If you feel are doing something wrong and are convicted of it, you ask the Lord for forgiveness, and He forgives, and you don't do it again. The pre forgiveness actions are not held against you.
I could care less if you eat bacon or not. In your case, it probably adds to that crotchety,unpleasant temperament of yours.
 
Last edited:

Pierac

Active Member
Nov 15, 2021
756
159
43
61
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Are you speaking in some sort of ancient tongue? (A not nice use of the Lord's name BTW.)
No... I was simply showing you and others ... eating bacon is no different than you NOT... keeping the Sabboth.... That starts Saturday....

Does a single person here GET THIS POINT... ???
 

Cassandra

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2021
2,654
3,016
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No... I was simply showing you and others ... eating bacon is no different than you NOT... keeping the Sabboth.... That starts Saturday....

Does a single person here GET THIS POINT... ???
I keep the Sabbath--Fri sunset to Sat sunset. God did not write 'thou shalt not consume pig" with His finger into a stone.
Eating unclean things has been known since before Noah.
the unclean foods list was given to help keep man healthy.
 

Scott Downey

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2021
4,856
2,895
113
64
New Brunswick
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I was asked the question on another forum, "What will happen to all those Christians who don't worship on the Sabbath?" I gave the following answer... there are some verses that give a clear answer. Here is what best applies....
Acts 17:24-30
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

When we unknowingly make a honest mistake, Gods grace is sufficient and He winks at our ignorance. But when we in all fullness of understanding knowingly do it.......

Why nothing at all will happen!​

However can't say the same for anyone who judges someone

Colossians 2

Not Legalism but Christ​

11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body [h]of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the [i]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. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a [j]festival or a new moon or sabbaths,
 

GTW27

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2018
876
1,233
93
wilderness
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Perhaps one should listen to The Lord of the Sabbath within.(The Holy Spirit) And then you will know what to do, and what not to do.
 

Pierac

Active Member
Nov 15, 2021
756
159
43
61
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is going to take two post from ELM....

Some people feel the Law can never be changed, even to the crossing of a “t” or the dotting of an “i.” Those who believe this will be shocked at what the Bible says. The Law of God can be changed and parts abolished if God so desires. This is Progressive Revelation in action.

To show that the Law of God can be changed, or even abolished, it is necessary to see how historically the Law of God started, developed, and finally became the Old Covenant. We need to see how the Law was changed and altered from time to time from Adam to Noah. It later changed:

from Noah to Abraham, again

from Abraham to Moses, and

from Moses to Samuel, then

from Samuel to Ezekiel the prophet, and

from Ezekiel to John the Baptist, and finally

to Christ before His crucifixion.

The former Law of God changed quite often, with additions and/or deletions, throughout the various periods associated with the men just mentioned.

Some people, however, have the mistaken notion that the Law of God can never change in any way. That belief is sheer nonsense and has not the slightest validity in the biblical revelation. Why, God can change and alter His Law any time He pleases. He can change whole sections, or He can revise small and minor points. God is not restricted in matters dealing with His Law and assumes all authority to add to, or eliminate precepts from His Law at any time.

The Law of God in the Old Testament was a very flexible piece of legislation that changed dramatically when God saw the need for such alterations. The Law of God is not the universally consistent piece of legislation (with an eternal permanence associated with it) that a few “law-keeping” Christians have erroneously taught. The Law of God changed dramatically, and often, from Adam to Christ.

The Law of God Starts in Genesis​

To understand this matter clearly, we need to be reminded that when the apostle Paul talked about the Law of God, he plainly stated that Christians were no longer “under the law.” He then gave an illustration from that Law, of Sarah and Hagar recorded in Genesis (Galatians 4:21–31). This reference of Paul to the Law was long before Moses established the Old Covenant at Mount Sinai. The Book of Genesis itself was reckoned by Jews and by biblical authorities as the first book of the Law. The Law of God, commands of God given to man, begins with the first chapters of Genesis, not with the twentieth chapter of the Book of Exodus where the Ten Commandments and subsidiary laws were given for the nation of Israel.

What is the very first Law of God found in Holy Scriptures? The first Law is found in Genesis 2:16–17, with both a positive and a negative command. It is,

“And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil [bad], you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die.’”

Genesis 2:16–17

God also recorded a judgment upon man if he would ever disobey God’s command and eat of the forbidden tree. That was “For in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die.” Paul said that mankind found that this Law (indeed, any Law of God) was impossible to keep or to save a person. Before long, Adam and Eve were eating of the forbidden fruit and the Law, meant to keep them alive, espoused death for them. Spiritually that “death” of Adam spread to embrace the whole human race (Romans 5:12–21). This doctrinal fact is a prime teaching of the apostle Paul.

In the period from Adam to Noah, there were a few other laws of God recorded in the Holy Scriptures. There were laws against

murder (Genesis 4:15, 23; 9:6),

immodesty (Genesis 9:23),

wrong marriages (Genesis 6:1–4), and

wickedness in general (Genesis 6:5).

Jewish theologians put these early laws into one package, with a few other laws and called them the “Laws of Noah.” These laws, mentioned especially around the time of Noah, were the only ones that Jews in Christ’s time (and even today) felt that all Gentile nations were specifically required to observe for a right relationship with God. In the time of Noah, no other laws were mentioned in the Scriptures as necessary to be kept. For example, the Sabbath was not a requirement during the first 2,500 years of man’s existence. There was no command in Genesis 2 that said that humans were required to observe the Sabbath day as God did on the seventh day of creation.

From the records found in the Bible, there were very few requirements in the worship of God until the time of Abraham, and even then it was only when Abraham was given the circumcision covenant at 99 years of age that real physical ritual became a necessity. However, the selection of Abraham and his family as a special group demanded that distinct laws regulate their lives before God.

Thus Abraham and his family (along with his later descendants) came into a unique relationship with the creator. No longer could Abraham or his seed act like their neighbors around them. They were set apart and sanctified as special people in the eyes of God. This meant that the simple laws revealed before the time of Abraham which allowed mankind to be in a proper relationship with God were no longer sufficient to please God as far as Abraham and his family were concerned. This is a clear example of God changing His mind about His Laws. The Law of God began to take on new proportions with extra and different commands and laws from the time of Abraham to Moses. The differences are very great.

With the introduction of the covenant of circumcision between God and man (specifically with Abraham and his seed), religious requirements became more ritualistic and distinctive. Later, when Moses was commissioned by God to give the Israelites His Old Covenant revelation, elaborate ceremonialism became even more pronounced with a vast amount of new laws coming into existence.

Let us look at the dissimilarities and see how God altered His laws many times. So, when you ask about the need to keep God’s Law, you first must determine what period of Law (and what laws) you mean. In no way are “laws of God” eternal or for application at all periods of time or for all people. One must be careful and not make such erroneous evaluations. Note some major differences.

The Vast Differences between the Patriarchal and Mosaic Legal Systems​

Under the Abrahamic covenant, God allowed his people to offer sacrifices anywhere they pleased (Genesis 12:7, 35:1; Job 1:5). Moses changed this law by commanding only the family of Aaron to attend to the sacred rites (Exodus 40:1–16) and those sacrifices could only be offered on the altar in the Sanctuary (Deuteronomy 12:13–14).

Abraham planted a grove (or sacred tree) in Beersheba (Genesis 21:33), but under Moses the use of groves became prohibited (Exodus 34:14; 2 Chronicles 14:3; Isaiah 17:8).

Jacob set up a pillar (Genesis 28:18), but this was later forbidden by Moses (Deuteronomy 16:22, margin).

God said in the time of Noah: “Every moving thing [i.e., all animals] that lives shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things” (Genesis 9:3), but with Moses only the beasts mentioned in Leviticus chapter 11 were allowed or disallowed.

There were no official feast days commanded in the time of Abraham, but with Moses, ordained festivals became required periods for attendance by all Israelite males (Leviticus 23).

There was no commanded Tithing at first. Tithing was not a law in the patriarchal period.

None of the patriarchs wore phylacteries (at least we have no record of such), but with Moses their use was commanded (Numbers 15:37–41).

The land did not have to rest every 7th year under the patriarchs (Genesis 41:34–35), but with Moses, the land rest was commanded (Leviticus 25:1–7).

Abraham married his half-sister with God’s full approval (Genesis 20:12), but this became illegal in the time of Moses (Leviticus 20:17).

Abraham was confederate with his Canaanite neighbors (Genesis 14:13), but no leagues with the Canaanites were allowed in the dispensation of Moses. Indeed, the Canaanites were to be exterminated (Deuteronomy 20:17–18).

There was also no commanded Sabbath law in the patriarchal period. However, in the time of Moses the Sabbath was first introduced as a law for Israelites to obey (Exodus 20:8; Nehemiah 9:14; Ezekiel 20:12) with stringent requirements that changed the very character of the 7th day of the week. Moses had now emerged on the scene and a profound change in religious essentials had come into existence for Israel.

The differences between the religious system of the patriarchs and that of Moses were dramatic. If a religious Israelite after the time of Moses could have been transported back to Abraham’s time and witnessed Abraham (not knowing who he was) performing his religious duties, he would have called him an unconverted heathen. And though it is made clear in the Scriptures that God knew Abraham “obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws” (Genesis 26:5), those laws (the Law of God in Abraham’s time) were very different from those later laws commanded to Moses and to the Israelites at Mount Sinai.

Part 1
 

Pierac

Active Member
Nov 15, 2021
756
159
43
61
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Part 2

Indeed, for Abraham’s first 99 years of life he was not circumcised, later

he built altars anywhere he pleased,

he raised up groves,

he offered no lamb at Passover,

he kept no weekly Sabbath,

he attended no holy feasts,

he wore no phylacteries,

he married his half-sister,

kept no land sabbath [that is, no Sabbatical Years], and of all things

he was allied with the Canaanites.

What God did in the time of Moses was to rescind the religious requirements of the Patriarchal period in favor of stricter laws ordained in the time of Moses. The two religious systems were so completely different that if one were to mix the teachings together, utter contradiction and confusion would result. There is no compatibility at all between the two systems.


However, some people today are so conservative in their views that they will not allow God to establish new religious systems different from previous ones. They cannot believe God would ever change ritualistic or ceremonial teachings that He once gave to His people. In no way is this true biblical teaching. Certainly God does not change His mind in overall philosophical matters that dominate His character and personality (Malachi 3:6), but He most decidedly changed His own religious systems in the past when He saw fit.

God uses the principle of Progressive Revelation throughout the Bible. God has introduced new and progressively more mature systems of worship adding and deleting them as He pleases. This is seen when we distinguish the essential differences between the Patriarchal System of religious requirements and the Mosaic System, two patterns of conduct dissimilar and utterly distinct.

The other prime example of such vast changes in God’s laws, commandments, and teachings is God’s change from the Mosaic System to the advanced Christian System which depends not on Mosaic Law, but on the merits of grace. Diversities between the Mosaic and the Christian Systems are so pronounced that the two cannot be compared in a systematic sense. There is as much difference between the teachings of Christianity and Moses as there is between the Mosaic and the Patriarchal Systems.

People should recognize this biblical teaching of Progressive Revelation and apply the newer teachings if they ever hope to understand what God now requires of them.

Further Changes or Exceptions in the Laws of God​

Now, this is a major change in one of the Ten Commandments. Further, the command of passing down the iniquity of the father to the fourth generation did not apply in New Testament times. Paul said:

“And the woman which has a husband that believes not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.”

1 Corinthians 7:13–14

Children were reckoned as “holy” even if one of the parents was not. Iniquity was not automatically passed down to the children any longer. These statements by Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the apostle Paul represent a clear alteration in the strict wording and and command of the Second Commandment.

The Second Commandment also stated dogmatically that there was to be no “graven image” and no “likeness of anything in heaven,” in earth, or “in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:4). But this command did not have universal application, as so many believe today. There were clear exceptions to this command.

In the Tabernacle (and Temple), God ordered Moses to make statues of Cherubim (angelic creatures) and place them in the holiest part of the Sanctuary (Exodus 25:18–22).

Cherubs were also commanded to be placed on the veil of the Temple (Exodus 26:31) and on the curtains (Exodus 36:8).

God also commanded Moses to make an image of a brazen serpent some 39 years after He gave Israel the Ten Commandments (Numbers 21). This brazen image eventually became idolatrous and had to be destroyed (2 Kings 18:4).

Solomon placed the images of twelve bullocks to support the laver in the Temple at Jerusalem (1 Kings 7:25, 44) without the slightest condemnation by the prophets or God.

These things, of course, were done inside the Tabernacle or Temple. This shows that the part of the Second Commandment forbidding any kind of images does not apply within the House of God itself. So, God does modify His commands for certain circumstances, or He gives exceptions to the rule if He is the One who is doing it. These changes, however, do not show the eternal and universal inviolability of the Ten Commandments as some people imagine.

There is more. Look at the Third Commandment. It says that God “will not hold him guiltless [the person will be guilty] who takes God’s name in vain.” But Christ said that all blasphemy can now be forgiven (Mark 3:28–29), except that against the Holy Spirit.

The Eighth Commandment said “Thou shalt not steal,” but God told the Israelites a few years later to take spoil of the Midianites (steal the property of the Midianites, Numbers 31:1, 9–11, 25ff). Taking booty of war from non-Israelites was not considered as having an application in the Eighth Commandment.

The Tenth Commandment said, “Covet not thy neighbour’s house.” But God told Israel to take over the whole land (houses and all) of the Canaanites and uproot them totally. Again, in war with non-Israelites these commands were not to be in force.

Even the Seventh Commandment must be interpreted within the framework of the society that then existed. Its interpretation varied quite extensively even within the period of the Bible. For example, though the command said, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” Abraham (and others including Moses himself) had more than one wife and/or concubines. These sexual encounters with various women were not looked on as adultery. King David had several legitimate wives, but he did not commit adultery by sleeping with all of them until he took Bathseba, another man’s wife.

Later, however, the apostle Paul made it a clear teaching of God that no leader of an ekklesia (that is, a congregation of Christians) should have more than one wife at a time (1 Timothy 3:2), though Paul did not forbid plural marriages for other Christians. If, on the other hand, the custom of Christian congregations at the time of Paul was to forbid any Christian man to have more than one wife at a time (like we normally do today), no matter if he were laity or ordained, then the limit of one wife at a time that Paul placed on a leader in the Christian community would have been irrelevant. The early New Testament ekklesia allowed plural marriages (though not for leaders of congregations).

The implied point I wish to make by introducing this subject is to show that a man with four wives (as Muslims are permitted in Islam), in applying the words of the Ten Commandments, would not commit adultery until he had sex with a fifth woman who was not his legal wife. These allowances are all within the boundaries of meaning and intent within the Ten Commandments. In mentioning this, let me state categorically that I have no ulterior covert motives in referring to these proper interpretations of God’s holy laws. The sad fact is, though, this true understanding is often disregarded by preachers, priests, and ministers who give their own judgments as to what constitutes adultery in our present societies. This is wrong.

What About Sabbath-Keeping?

There is also the command to keep the Sabbath. We will discuss the Fourth Commandment (the Holy Sabbath day) at length in due course. But for now, let me say that when God commanded that “thou shalt not do any work,” God meant “any work”! We find later legislation in the Holy Scriptures which shows that God meant not to perform any business whatever. Even the striking of a match to light a fire — which, by extension, means not to turn on the heat in your home, use the lights, make up the beds, wash a single dish or utensil.

People who claim to be ardent “Sabbath keepers” today violate almost all these commandments of God on how to keep His Sabbath day and they have not the slightest shame in breaking them. Their church authorities have made up their own “Talmud” of what a person can or cannot do on the Sabbath. And in most cases, what the church authorities “allow” are opposite the plain statements of the Holy Scriptures on Sabbath-keeping.

People continually change the meaning of the laws of God to make them adaptable to modern societies. This happens in so-called law-keeping groups all the time. I am pointing out the biblical fact that even the Ten Commandments have been changed by God (with several exceptions being granted within the meaning of the laws).

It is folly to say that God cannot change any law or command that He wishes if circumstances have changed from those that required the former legislation. Not even the Ten Commandments are eternal or of universal application because they have undergone revisions made by God.

Now you know....