I'm suddenly all over the place again but--especially because I recently sought to look things up NOW, of all times...
but I read it's still important to keep the sabbath day holy and churches nowadays give praise to God on sundays when it's obvious pagans used to give worship to the sun god on those days. So if this is a man-changed date and not what God wants doesn't it mean we have to keep the sixth day of the week holy even though obviously keeping the sabbath alone doesn't grant sufficient salvation, as I'm reading up--but God still said to keep the commandment. This brings me to realize then the church I'm attending, offer their prime worship on sunday solely as others do. It's so striking to me how saturday, the day of the holy sabbath to be kept, in modern times is the day where you rest and play, and how sunday, the pagan day of sun worship, in now modern times has the illusion where everyone needs to give praise to God on this day. Everything's backwards. It's like a parade of real irony that managed to slip by my head until now. I should've known the 'sun' in SUN-day stood for sun god!
Now that I know saturday is the sabbath instead of sunday I don't feel like it's right to offer my time to Jesus on sunday because that's what I did all this time without knowing. Wouldn't it be vain in his eyes since that's only paganism and their worship of the sun god on that specific day? And here I had no clue until I started to open the doors of scattered findings on the internet to my appall.
I know I haven't gone to read the word as much as I need to confirm details like this if they're presented there in the first place, but pastors in churches who know the word more than anyone, aren't they responsible therefore not have people coming to worship on sundays? Or do they not know like everyone else. (It seems that way) Sunday should be the rested day set for spending time with family or recharging (or any other day BUT saturday; those other days we need to work so that leaves sunday a convenient day for the day of rest) and Saturday should be the day of worship set aside for God.
Read that churches have changed to worship on Saturday, but the church I attend hasn't....Do I stop going to this church? Because like I said, it doesn't seem right. It's hard to see then walk right in this age with all the errors blinding the truth and what I'm supposed to do on account of my faith. So if brothers and sisters have the knowledge please pass it to me and I'll do the right thing of what I believe to be a proper choice if what I'm thinking to be the proper action to take is the right action to take. I'm still confused and I still have so much to study again from scratch. Much thanks and God Bless!
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 9:17 am
Like most theological errors, it's because of an unstable handling of Paul's epistles that people start negating other parts of the bible. In this case, Colossians 2, what mainstream Christianity claims is Paul teaching not to judge any believer for the day they want to keep: I exposed the lie of that interpretation here: [Details in Paul's Epistles that Get Ignored]—those details, if ignored, change the interpretation drastically (he does judge believers, elsewhere, for the days they want to keep, ergo that's not what Paul is saying in Colossians 2 nor in Romans 14, and I go on to explain what he actually said in light of everything Paul ever spoke and did, as documented in the bible).
That said, about the fourth commandment (remembering the Sabbath and keeping it holy/set-apart); the bible is correct (surprise, surprise) in associating it with the seventh day of the week not the first. Even the New Testament does not mistake which day it falls on:
Matthew 28:1 (NIV)
28 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
Jesus rose on the first day of the week. The first day of the week is not the Sabbath, the first day comes after the Sabbath. Even secular sources acknowledge this:
Time and Date.com
Monday or Sunday first day of the week?
The first day of the week varies all over the world. In most cultures, Sunday is regarded as the first day of the week although many observe Monday as the first day of the week. According to the Bible, the Sabbath or Saturday is the last day of the week which marks Sunday as the first day of the week for many Jewish and Christian faiths, while many countries regard Monday as the first day of the week.
According to the international standard ISO 8601, Monday is the first day of the week ending with Sunday as the seventh day of the week. Although this is the international standard, countries such as the United States still have their calendars refer to Sunday as the start of the seven-day week.
http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/days/
Britannica Encyclopedia
Sunday, the first day of the week. It is regarded by most Christians as the Lord’s Day, or the weekly memorial of Jesus Christ’s Resurrection from the dead. The practice of Christians gathering together for worship on Sunday dates back to apostolic times, but details of the actual development of the custom are not clear. Verse 10 of the first chapter of the Revelation to John (mid-1st century ad) mentions the “Lord’s Day”; this was subsequently interpreted by most commentators as a reference to Sunday. St. Justin Martyr (c. 100–c. 165), philosopher and defender of the Christian faith, in his writings described the Christians gathered together for worship on the Lord’s Day: the Gospels or the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) was read, the presiding minister preached a sermon, and the group prayed together and celebrated the Lord’s Supper.
The Roman emperor Constantine I (died 337), a convert to Christianity, introduced the first civil legislation concerning Sunday in 321, when he decreed that all work should cease on that day, except that farmers could work if necessary. That law, aimed at providing time for worship, was followed later in the same century and in subsequent centuries by further restrictions on Sunday activities. See also Sabbatarianism; week.
The world, and worldly people masquerading under religion, are changing God's reckoning of time. Like King Jeroboam and like an evil ruler/antichrist is prophesied to do:
1 Kings 12:31-33 (NIV)
31 Jeroboam built shrines on high places and appointed priests from all sorts of people, even though they were not Levites. 32 He instituted a festival on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, like the festival held in Judah, and offered sacrifices on the altar. This he did in Bethel, sacrificing to the calves he had made. And at Bethel he also installed priests at the high places he had made. 33 On the fifteenth day of the eighth month, a month of his own choosing, he offered sacrifices on the altar he had built at Bethel. So he instituted the festival for the Israelites and went up to the altar to make offerings.
Daniel 7:25 (NIV)
25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the settimes and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.[a]
Footnotes:
a. Daniel 7:25 Or for a year, two years and half a year
That said, simply going to church on a Sunday is not a sin. Where it becomes sin / transgression of the law is trying to re-assign when the Sabbath happens to a day of your own choosing and calling it the Sabbath when that's not true. First of all, you're lying. Second of all, you're rewriting God's law.
Exodus 20:8-11 (NIV)
8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
The law says it's the seventh, not the first day of the week.
The bible, in both the New Testament and the Old Testament, supports that the Sabbath day (the weekly Sabbath) falls on the seventh-day of the week (according to God's calendar; and so far, that seven day week has not been altered by the Jewish calendar nor Christian calendars, but it has been changed by the International calendar which assigns the first day of the week to Monday, making Sunday be the seventh day on their calendar; they have no authority to change that).
The decision of most Christians to congregate on Sunday does not mean our calendar itself honors Sunday as the seventh day of the week; it's still the first day of the week on Christian calendars, as secular encyclopedias even record.
Even so, let's say most Christians are trying to observe the Sabbath on Sunday: most Christians don't treat Sunday as the Sabbath anyway, as it's commanded by God, nor do they follow the example given by Jesus (how he observed it). First of all, they don't observe it for 24 hours (it's a whole day, biblically, where you don't work/profit/do business/buy or sell (i.e. Exodus 20:8-11; Nehemiah 10:31; 13:15) nor seek to do your own pleasure (i.e. Isaiah 58:13), but dedicate that day to rest and spiritual activity—you can attend to "life and death" emergencies (i.e. animal falls into a ditch, you heal someone of an injury, etc...) but worldly things / worldly topics are set-aside; that's not how I see most Christians treating their "Sunday"; so they're not keeping the Sabbath at all, regardless of what day they're trying to identify it as [which is sin in and of itself if they're changing the date]).
If you feel like you can't correct your pastor and he won't accept the truth, or that you're not strong enough to discern between truth and lies, between sound doctrine and unsound doctrine, then I would leave that congregation and instead commune/communicate with those who are open to the truth.
But to emphasize once again: congregating on Sunday is not the sin. Trying to say the Sabbath falls on a day that it actually doesn't is the lie. And if they try to use Paul as support for their doing so, they're lying and ignoring details in his epistles to make him contradict himself / turn Paul into a hypocrite.
cristobela Vice Captain
Offline
mkjhgfdrsetfyguhm
Offline
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 2:33 pm
cristobela
I looked back to my post and I'm so off the tracks all my ignorance just blatantly showed through and came out everywhere. I'm saved thanks to the reliable information you gave. If I had simply read the Word I wouldn't have had room to think up such ideas by myself. The Sabbath is the day to rest and not worship; and resting on this Sabbath day doesn't mean worship as I claimed. The churches that have changed their services to Saturday, are they wrong for setting it on the Sabbath; Otherwise based on Paul's epistles and the confusion surrounding it about people changing the dates from negating each other proves why everything's different and people are still changing them(?). Going to worship on Sunday was, and is to gather for the service of His memorial for the day of YHWH's resurrection. (Since this is the day of His resurrection it's apparent people should gather in church to service this day with all their heart--my ultimate bad associating sunday with only pagan worship but I just didn't read nor rely on the Word)
Edit: Because it's changed as the seventh day when it's the first day of the week Sabbath is Saturday and it's known to us as a day of rest on our calendars. But is congregation allowed to worship on Sabbath?
And do Christians need to celebrate the Feasts instead of Easter and Christmas? I couldn't clarify since I've never held the tradition and wondering if I need to keep up with it at all. I know I'm not going to celebrate X-mas/Easter/etc. anyway at all anymore but does a Christian have to celebrate dates of the Feasts for YHWH's blessings?
I'll go to your link thanks!
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:20 pm
eastern youth
cristobela
I looked back to my post and I'm so off the tracks all my ignorance just blatantly showed through and came out everywhere. I'm saved thanks to the reliable information you gave. If I had simply read the Word I wouldn't have had room to think up such ideas by myself. The Sabbath is the day to rest and not worship; and resting on this Sabbath day doesn't mean worship as I claimed. The churches that have changed their services to Saturday, are they wrong for setting it on the Sabbath; Otherwise based on Paul's epistles and the confusion surrounding it about people changing the dates from negating each other proves why everything's different and people are still changing them(?). Going to worship on Sunday was, and is to gather for the service of His memorial for the day of YHWH's resurrection. (Since this is the day of His resurrection it's apparent people should gather in church to service this day with all their heart--my ultimate bad associating sunday with only pagan worship but I just didn't read nor rely on the Word)
Edit: Because it's changed as the seventh day when it's the first day of the week Sabbath is Saturday and it's known to us as a day of rest on our calendars. But is congregation allowed to worship on Sabbath?
And do Christians need to celebrate the Feasts instead of Easter and Christmas? I couldn't clarify since I've never held the tradition and wondering if I need to keep up with it at all. I know I'm not going to celebrate X-mas/Easter/etc. anyway at all anymore but does a Christian have to celebrate dates of the Feasts for YHWH's blessings?
I'll go to your link thanks!
About Congregating/Worshiping on the Sabbath
Nope, it's not a sin/transgression of the law to congregate with fellow believers on the Sabbath. In fact, it's commanded (so it's totally fine if you see some congregations moving their worship services to Saturday).
Leviticus 23:3 (NIV)
3 “‘There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, a day of sacred assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever you live, it is a sabbath to the Lord.
And Jesus congregated with fellow believers on the Sabbath too:
Luke 4:16 (NIV)
16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read,
I suppose the confusion arises because of the command to "not leave one's place" / "not go out" on the Sabbath (I'll put up an NIV and KJV translation)...
Exodus 16:29 (NIV)
29 Bear in mind that the Lord has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Everyone is to stay where they are on the seventh day; no one is to go out.”
Exodus 16:29 (KJV)
29 See, for that the Lord hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.
...but seeing that neither Jesus nor the Pharisees conflicted over this, that's not what it means. You can leave your house. The point was not to go out to gather bread (work, labor, prepare food that should've been gathered and prepared the day before); ergo, why he gave out double the day before and it's mentioned in that very verse. Also, use discernment when you leave your house on the Sabbath: is it going to exhaust you? because you're suppose to be allowing your body to rest (and allowing the body of others to rest too). Are you going out to work, do business deals, gather, prepare things that should've been done on the other six days of the week? is it for spiritual rejuvenation? is it to heal someone? or are you seeking to do your own pleasure? What are your motives? Those are all things to consider concerning Exodus 16:29 & whether you're violating it or not. When in doubt, look at Jesus' example. razz
I've summarized the Sabbath like this:
The Sabbath is a day of mercy on our bodies and the bodies of others {Exodus 20:8-11};
It's a call to ensure the physical well-being of the humans and animals around us (yourself included) by passive means (resting) or active means (healing another; saving their life; getting them/yourself out of harmful circumstances [ex: retrieving an animal from a ditch; extinguishing a fire to save your neighbor's life; healing physical ailments]. {Matthew 12:11-12, Mark 3:1-5, John 9:14 }
In the latter two, I cited New Testament examples of how the Sabbath was kept.
So, in a nutshell: yes, spend your day with believers, with family, and chill. That will take up your whole day. You can teach about God, you can learn about God. The synagogue is essentially what the church is today (except they made it a point to read a portion from the law and the prophets every time they met, and then any other words of spiritual edification anyone wanted to say i.e. Acts 13:15)
Acts 13:15 (NIV)
15 After the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the leaders of the synagogue sent word to them, saying, “Brothers, if you have a word of exhortation for the people, please speak.”
About Keeping Feast Days
I answered this more in-depth in the thread I linked to (about details in Paul's epistles that get ignored). But essentially, without a temple you can't keep certain holy days of YHWH even if you wanted to. You can commemorate those divine appointments the day they fall on, but we literally can't keep most of them as they are written / commanded. Again, you'll find more detail in the thread I linked to.
I don't keep things like Easter (and there's already a biblical holy day that coincides with Jesus' resurrection: First Fruits. For more info, click here: [Timing of the Feast of Firstfruits][Time: Our Creator's Calendar - How to Calculate First Fruits]; this year it actually coincided with the day everyone else was celebrating the typical Easter) and of course I avoid anything "easter ham" [pig] because it profanes his unclean/clean distinctions. And I avoid egg-laying-rabbits [which denies that "a kind brings forth after its own kind"]; it conveys a sense of macro-evolution instead of creation.
Christmas I want nothing to do with; it obscures / nullifies details of the Gospels with respect to the night of Jesus' birth. There's no way he could've been born on December 25th because that would mean wintery, snow-falling Jerusalem. On the night of his birth, scripture says the shepherds were out watching over their sheep. Shepherds don't leave their sheep out in the middle of winter. So, December 25th is a date chosen arbitrarily; it's not biblical. Also, the whole reason behind Mary and Joseph going to Bethlehem (Joseph's home town) was because of the census being conducted. The King is not going to make people walk/travel in the middle of winter just to do a census. I will not associate the Messiah's birth with that lie of a date nor associate him (or myself) with the traditions that have come to define December 25th: the evergreen trees, candy canes, the elves, rudolph, the wreaths, the tinsel, the yuletide carols, the holly, the baubles, the lights, Santa Claus (an idol, a replacement god who brings you what wish for / pray for), etc... For sure that is pagan, and I will not offer my neck, as God's living sacrifice, to be yoked to those traditions. I'm probably preaching to the choir; from the sound of it you reject Christmas for the paganism as well (you're my sister in Christ for sure heart—I'm assuming you're female because of the avatar; otherwise, if I'm wrong, then you're my brother in Christ, no doubt heart).
Yeah, not much to say here since I explained more in-depth about the Feasts in the thread I linked to (and why we can't keep certain aspects).
cristobela Vice Captain
Offline
mkjhgfdrsetfyguhm
Offline
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 7:22 pm
cristobela
I'm really so amazed again by all the information! Makes me rejoice inside. Finally I can understand the part on Sabbath. Now that I think about it, rings so true you can't keep certain aspects holy to begin with without the temple.....I seriously need to keep myself from stepping in all the way and going under before automatically embracing the truth behind every concept for real. Me neither. I don't want to have anything to do with Christmas ever again, that Santa idolatry = the literal Satan. emotion_bandaid Was never really hyped about that stuff in the first place even before I wasn't in the definite know about it, and never got into the flow of celebrating it with my family whose attitudes are just as indifferent as mine is when it comes to being hyped on holidays. It's all onslaught of inception in the devil's established deception House. Putting this spell to be cast on souls with his mockery is just hilarious to him.
Once again, bless you and thanks a ton my Sister in Christ! You're right, it's the girl avatar, and I'm your sister in Christ deeply engaged in the Spirit of the Lord in you! emotion_bigheart
After I finish looking at the thread, I know I'll get the chaos out and find comfort on knowing the knowledge I absorbed gave me peace. I want to give thanks, sister, from the bottom of my heart! ~*emotion_hugheart
Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2015 6:15 pm
The law of the old testament is still valid. But we aren't required to follow it anymore. I'll explain this. If you accept one of the laws, such as the sabbath laws, then you're forced to accept the other laws as well; you can't just pick and choose the bible, you have to follow it consistently. But we already know that most of the laws aren't to be followed anymore. But some denominations believe that certain laws should be followed while others shouldn't be. And all this comes down to is more divisions in the body of Christ, when Christ prayed that we would be one just as He and the Father are one. The law is still valid because Christ says it's still valid. But it's not valid in the way it used to be, before the new covenant with Christ. The law has been spiritualized and the spirit of the law is to be followed. Or in other words, to follow the meaning behind the laws. For example, the spirit of the sabbath is to honor God and recognize His works. We don't need the strict laws that were followed like not to walk a certain amount of distance or do any work or whatever because we can spend not just one day but every day honoring God and recognizing his works and so forth. Jesus said it's not what goes into one's mouth that defiles a person, but what goes out of their mouth that defiles them. So does that mean we're supposed to still follow the dietary laws of the old testament? Of course not. We're not supposed to commit adultery but do we stone those who do, according to the law, even though Jesus said that he who is without sin cast the first stone? Of course not. If we don't follow those laws literally, then why the heck would we follow sabbath laws? The sabbath itself and all the other laws have been spiritualized, and through the Holy Spirit, bible study, prayer, and so forth, we can be guided to be the people that God wants us to be without being under the old covenant restrictions of following these strict laws which were meant to create the same type of people. I hope this answered your question. I'm a bit rushed so sorry if this is sloppy and doesn't provide bible verses. But I know this answer is the true answer, even if I might've (hopefully not) explained it badly.
Swegkid908
Offline
mkjhgfdrsetfyguhm
Offline
Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2015 6:43 pm
Swegkid908
The law of the old testament is still valid. But we aren't required to follow it anymore. I'll explain this. If you accept one of the laws, such as the sabbath laws, then you're forced to accept the other laws as well; you can't just pick and choose the bible, you have to follow it consistently. But we already know that most of the laws aren't to be followed anymore. But some denominations believe that certain laws should be followed while others shouldn't be. And all this comes down to is more divisions in the body of Christ, when Christ prayed that we would be one just as He and the Father are one. The law is still valid because Christ says it's still valid. But it's not valid in the way it used to be, before the new covenant with Christ. The law has been spiritualized and the spirit of the law is to be followed. Or in other words, to follow the meaning behind the laws. For example, the spirit of the sabbath is to honor God and recognize His works. We don't need the strict laws that were followed like not to walk a certain amount of distance or do any work or whatever because we can spend not just one day but every day honoring God and recognizing his works and so forth. Jesus said it's not what goes into one's mouth that defiles a person, but what goes out of their mouth that defiles them. So does that mean we're supposed to still follow the dietary laws of the old testament? Of course not. We're not supposed to commit adultery but do we stone those who do, according to the law, even though Jesus said that he who is without sin cast the first stone? Of course not. If we don't follow those laws literally, then why the heck would we follow sabbath laws? The sabbath itself and all the other laws have been spiritualized, and through the Holy Spirit, bible study, prayer, and so forth, we can be guided to be the people that God wants us to be without being under the old covenant restrictions of following these strict laws which were meant to create the same type of people. I hope this answered your question. I'm a bit rushed so sorry if this is sloppy and doesn't provide bible verses. But I know this answer is the true answer, even if I might've (hopefully not) explained it badly.
No I understand, thanks so much. Bless! (You can't condemn one or another for these written laws and any more than should they be used to condemn yourself for not abiding to it now in this time or age because no one is held to them anymore on account of this, and your response has really helped me see again: Jesus' demonstration of the first stone unable to be cast at someone else other than themselves because of inherent sin in everyone--it's one's own sins that are everyone else's sins as well. Because of what He was drawing out, there, it's the same basis for His example being laid down to be set in place with the Sabbath Laws. That there's no more conviction to be brought in except for being aware of this new possible law He made through the Body of His. So as being said, I understand how Old Covenant is no more, and the New Covenant can be proclaimed in its place and override it in all its history since it's given to newly push that loving encouragement from Him to each of us to come to honor and praise Him every and any time of the day wherever we're willing in our hearts and not of any such of the needless which is being tied down by His worded pronouncement of the law.)
Everything falls together perfectly in your explanation. I'm relieved in hearing I can be guided by the Spirit, the Word, and prayer in just these three great miraculous things. In fact deep down I already felt it and now, that this was simply what it is that was with the Sabbath also! Much love in the Lord, Sister, and thanks for bearing!
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:40 am
Biblically speaking, it seems that Christian worship services should be kept on Sunday. This is because Sunday is the day of Jesus' resurrection. That is why Christians meet for service on Sunday rather than Saturday--we commemorate Jesus' resurrection. Every week. It isn't just for Easter Sunday. It's every week. It is also for this reason that I think churches should hold communion every week.
I could go into eschatological reasons for why Sunday could be considered the Sabbath for Christians, but such a thing is a little complicated if you're not very familiar with the Sabbath, the symbolism of and link between Eden and the New Jerusalem, and so on and so forth.
Scarlet_Teardrops
Sparkly Genius
Offline
mkjhgfdrsetfyguhm
Offline
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 11:08 am
Scarlet_Teardrops
Biblically speaking, it seems that Christian worship services should be kept on Sunday. This is because Sunday is the day of Jesus' resurrection. That is why Christians meet for service on Sunday rather than Saturday--we commemorate Jesus' resurrection. Every week. It isn't just for Easter Sunday. It's every week. It is also for this reason that I think churches should hold communion every week.
I could go into eschatological reasons for why Sunday could be considered the Sabbath for Christians, but such a thing is a little complicated if you're not very familiar with the Sabbath, the symbolism of and link between Eden and the New Jerusalem, and so on and so forth.
I think I know what you're saying! idea
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 12:59 pm
cristobela
My eyes are opened with the replies above but I still have the deep desire to read through the thread with all your commentary below each of the points of the information to see if anything else pertains to your response on the importance of those Laws; as I know there will be much more to absorb what I come across because it reflects how you came to put it out there from having known the familiar evidence on the Sabbath yourself and I'm fully interested in going to the roots of the entire thing. Like I know I need, I'll also be reading the Word, the main source, as my primary tool from now on. So bless you plus everyone for your wisdom and intellect because I'll have the basic/whole idea while reading the Word and I can meditate on it again. Thank you eternally, brothers and sisters!
mkjhgfdrsetfyguhm
Offline
cristobela Vice Captain
Offline
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 2:28 pm
Swegkid908
The law of the old testament is still valid. But we aren't required to follow it anymore. I'll explain this. If you accept one of the laws, such as the sabbath laws, then you're forced to accept the other laws as well; you can't just pick and choose the bible, you have to follow it consistently. But we already know that most of the laws aren't to be followed anymore. But some denominations believe that certain laws should be followed while others shouldn't be. And all this comes down to is more divisions in the body of Christ, when Christ prayed that we would be one just as He and the Father are one. The law is still valid because Christ says it's still valid. But it's not valid in the way it used to be, before the new covenant with Christ. The law has been spiritualized and the spirit of the law is to be followed. Or in other words, to follow the meaning behind the laws. For example, the spirit of the sabbath is to honor God and recognize His works. We don't need the strict laws that were followed like not to walk a certain amount of distance or do any work or whatever because we can spend not just one day but every day honoring God and recognizing his works and so forth. Jesus said it's not what goes into one's mouth that defiles a person, but what goes out of their mouth that defiles them. So does that mean we're supposed to still follow the dietary laws of the old testament? Of course not. We're not supposed to commit adultery but do we stone those who do, according to the law, even though Jesus said that he who is without sin cast the first stone? Of course not. If we don't follow those laws literally, then why the heck would we follow sabbath laws? The sabbath itself and all the other laws have been spiritualized, and through the Holy Spirit, bible study, prayer, and so forth, we can be guided to be the people that God wants us to be without being under the old covenant restrictions of following these strict laws which were meant to create the same type of people. I hope this answered your question. I'm a bit rushed so sorry if this is sloppy and doesn't provide bible verses. But I know this answer is the true answer, even if I might've (hopefully not) explained it badly.
Those common misinterpretations occur when details are glossed over in the text. But when you slow down and notice a few details, that interpretation is impossible to hold. For instance, under the new covenant—after Jesus died, resurrected and ascended—we find Paul keeping Old Testament laws literally, not just spiritually. The logic you used would require that Paul be obligated to keep the whole law to get saved/justified, but that's not true. Note: the book of Acts describes believers under the New Covenant. And here we find:
1) that Paul is keeping Sabbaths in the synagogue:
Acts 17:2 (NIV)
2 As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
2) that Paul is circumcising Timothy:
Acts 16:1-3 (NIV)
16 Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was Jewish and a believer but whose father was a Greek. 2 The believers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3 Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
& 3) that Paul is scheduling animal sacrifices (after Jesus' once and for all sacrifice) to prove he's still living obedient to the law—under the New Covenant. The unbelieving part of the Jews had started a false rumor: that Paul was teaching not to live in obedience to the law (a rumor he attempted to put to death):
Acts 21:19-26 (NIV)
19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
26 The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.
note: the reason they were shaving their heads is because of the Nazirite Vow; upon the completion of that vow, animals get sacrificed. If you want more detail on the Nazirite Vow and its requirements, you can read Numbers 6
They're keeping the law by the literal, not just the spiritual, under the New Covenant. And despite that, neither Paul nor Timothy are obligated to keep the whole law to be justified.
Same for the dietary laws. If they're null and void, there should be no prohibitions against eating blood and strangled meats found in the New Testament. And yet those same laws in Leviticus, literal applications, are the starter commands given to the Gentiles (why I say "starter commands": they're weren't just expected to keep four commands for life; they would learn the rest eventually because the Law of Moses was read every Sabbath in the synagogues; ergo, they would be keeping Sabbath the same way as Jesus and Paul).
New Testament
Acts 15:19-21 (NIV)
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
Old Testament
Leviticus 17:12 (NIV)
12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood.”
Leviticus 17:15 (NIV)
15 “‘Anyone, whether native-born or foreigner, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then they will be clean.
Verse 21 (in Acts 15) is highly ignored.
About Stoning to Death
The reason we can't stone people to death is twofold;
1) because the whole nation hasn't agreed to come into covenant with YHWH and there is no Sanhedrin. That's necessary to carry out God's form of capital punishment. Worldly governments have their own take on how to eliminate criminals for committing capital crimes (and their own ideas of what is considered a capital crime; obviously God's standards are different and morally superior).
But also,
2) our goal is to reconcile people to God. We can't reconcile people if they're dead. Ergo we choose mercy. The most we do is separate from people if they choose to stay unrepentant; but Jesus will cast them into fire upon his return.
1 Corinthians 5:12-13 (NIV)
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”[a]
6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might
The reason Jesus didn't stone the adulteress to death is because:
1) he would have actually violated the law, and acted unjustly, had he stoned the woman. The law requires that you bring both the adulterer and the adulteress to be stoned. The Pharisees only brought the adulteress.
Leviticus 20:10 (NIV)
10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
2) Jesus chose mercy, instead of condemnation, because he came to reconcile people to the Father during his first coming, not condemn them to death. But they are required to turn away from sinning (which is the transgression of the law).
John 8:10-11 (NIV)
10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
1 John 3:4 (NIV)
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
Those are just some of the many details that Christians are not paying attention to, either because commentary they've heard in the past has blinded them to these passages, so when they actually get around to reading the bible for themselves, they don't see it; or they haven't read it for themselves ever. I addressed all this (& more) in the: [Details in Paul's Epistles that Get Ignored] thread. Though mainly dealing with Paul, it naturally branches out to the passages that people commonly refer to (Mark 7, Acts 10, 1 Timothy 4, etc...), words they gloss over, and passages that they unstably twist, in order to say we can live lawless lives.
So, no, keeping the commands literally, as much as the circumstances allow, does not obligate you to keep the whole law. If you're doing it for justification's sake sure, but that's not what Paul and Timothy are doing. And what's leading to this false interpretation is how people take verse 3 alone and disregard the immediate details in the surrounding verses of Galatians 5:
Galatians 5:3-4 (NIV)
3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
Considering Paul, who wrote the letter to the Galatians, is the one who circumcised Timothy, they're not keeping the law to be justified—nor did he just alienate Timothy from Christ nor obligate Timothy to keep the whole law by circumcising him. Paul and Timothy just keep the law as saved sinners because they're no longer hostile towards it.
Romans 8:7-9 (NIV)
7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.
Ezekiel 36:25-27 (NIV)
25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 2:40 pm
eastern youth
cristobela
My eyes are opened with the replies above but I still have the deep desire to read through the thread with all your commentary below each of the points of the information to see if anything else pertains to your response on the importance of those Laws; as I know there will be much more to absorb what I come across because it reflects how you came to put it out there from having known the familiar evidence on the Sabbath yourself and I'm fully interested in going to the roots of the entire thing. Like I know I need, I'll also be reading the Word, the main source, as my primary tool from now on. So bless you plus everyone for your wisdom and intellect because I'll have the basic/whole idea while reading the Word and I can meditate on it again. Thank you eternally, brothers and sisters!
Much to absorb indeed, lol.
& no problem.
May our Heavenly Father continue to feed your hunger for biblical truth and open your eyes to things you've never noticed before. There's always some new detail to discover. That's my prayer for us all.
cristobela Vice Captain
Offline
mkjhgfdrsetfyguhm
Offline
Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 12:26 pm
cristobela
eastern youth
cristobela
My eyes are opened with the replies above but I still have the deep desire to read through the thread with all your commentary below each of the points of the information to see if anything else pertains to your response on the importance of those Laws; as I know there will be much more to absorb what I come across because it reflects how you came to put it out there from having known the familiar evidence on the Sabbath yourself and I'm fully interested in going to the roots of the entire thing. Like I know I need, I'll also be reading the Word, the main source, as my primary tool from now on. So bless you plus everyone for your wisdom and intellect because I'll have the basic/whole idea while reading the Word and I can meditate on it again. Thank you eternally, brothers and sisters!
Much to absorb indeed, lol.
& no problem.
May our Heavenly Father continue to feed your hunger for biblical truth and open your eyes to things you've never noticed before. There's always some new detail to discover. That's my prayer for us all.
I'm so engrossed and in such awe of your lessons; I'm brought to the truth even more each time and that fills me with total relief in the Lord. Almost like a paradise I can grab onto in the words being said. The truth is shining. I have to pray it in my heart (also out loud on my knees) to Him for more so that my faith can keep growing!
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 12:28 am
cristobela
Swegkid908
The law of the old testament is still valid. But we aren't required to follow it anymore. I'll explain this. If you accept one of the laws, such as the sabbath laws, then you're forced to accept the other laws as well; you can't just pick and choose the bible, you have to follow it consistently. But we already know that most of the laws aren't to be followed anymore. But some denominations believe that certain laws should be followed while others shouldn't be. And all this comes down to is more divisions in the body of Christ, when Christ prayed that we would be one just as He and the Father are one. The law is still valid because Christ says it's still valid. But it's not valid in the way it used to be, before the new covenant with Christ. The law has been spiritualized and the spirit of the law is to be followed. Or in other words, to follow the meaning behind the laws. For example, the spirit of the sabbath is to honor God and recognize His works. We don't need the strict laws that were followed like not to walk a certain amount of distance or do any work or whatever because we can spend not just one day but every day honoring God and recognizing his works and so forth. Jesus said it's not what goes into one's mouth that defiles a person, but what goes out of their mouth that defiles them. So does that mean we're supposed to still follow the dietary laws of the old testament? Of course not. We're not supposed to commit adultery but do we stone those who do, according to the law, even though Jesus said that he who is without sin cast the first stone? Of course not. If we don't follow those laws literally, then why the heck would we follow sabbath laws? The sabbath itself and all the other laws have been spiritualized, and through the Holy Spirit, bible study, prayer, and so forth, we can be guided to be the people that God wants us to be without being under the old covenant restrictions of following these strict laws which were meant to create the same type of people. I hope this answered your question. I'm a bit rushed so sorry if this is sloppy and doesn't provide bible verses. But I know this answer is the true answer, even if I might've (hopefully not) explained it badly.
Those common misinterpretations occur when details are glossed over in the text. But when you slow down and notice a few details, that interpretation is impossible to hold. For instance, under the new covenant—after Jesus died, resurrected and ascended—we find Paul keeping Old Testament laws literally, not just spiritually. The logic you used would require that Paul be obligated to keep the whole law to get saved/justified, but that's not true. Note: the book of Acts describes believers under the New Covenant. And here we find:
1) that Paul is keeping Sabbaths in the synagogue:
Acts 17:2 (NIV)
2 As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
2) that Paul is circumcising Timothy:
Acts 16:1-3 (NIV)
16 Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was Jewish and a believer but whose father was a Greek. 2 The believers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3 Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
& 3) that Paul is scheduling animal sacrifices (after Jesus' once and for all sacrifice) to prove he's still living obedient to the law—under the New Covenant. The unbelieving part of the Jews had started a false rumor: that Paul was teaching not to live in obedience to the law (a rumor he attempted to put to death):
Acts 21:19-26 (NIV)
19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
26 The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.
note: the reason they were shaving their heads is because of the Nazirite Vow; upon the completion of that vow, animals get sacrificed. If you want more detail on the Nazirite Vow and its requirements, you can read Numbers 6
They're keeping the law by the literal, not just the spiritual, under the New Covenant. And despite that, neither Paul nor Timothy are obligated to keep the whole law to be justified.
Same for the dietary laws. If they're null and void, there should be no prohibitions against eating blood and strangled meats found in the New Testament. And yet those same laws in Leviticus, literal applications, are the starter commands given to the Gentiles (why I say "starter commands": they're weren't just expected to keep four commands for life; they would learn the rest eventually because the Law of Moses was read every Sabbath in the synagogues; ergo, they would be keeping Sabbath the same way as Jesus and Paul).
New Testament
Acts 15:19-21 (NIV)
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
Old Testament
Leviticus 17:12 (NIV)
12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood.”
Leviticus 17:15 (NIV)
15 “‘Anyone, whether native-born or foreigner, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then they will be clean.
Verse 21 (in Acts 15) is highly ignored.
About Stoning to Death
The reason we can't stone people to death is twofold;
1) because the whole nation hasn't agreed to come into covenant with YHWH and there is no Sanhedrin. That's necessary to carry out God's form of capital punishment. Worldly governments have their own take on how to eliminate criminals for committing capital crimes (and their own ideas of what is considered a capital crime; obviously God's standards are different and morally superior).
But also,
2) our goal is to reconcile people to God. We can't reconcile people if they're dead. Ergo we choose mercy. The most we do is separate from people if they choose to stay unrepentant; but Jesus will cast them into fire upon his return.
1 Corinthians 5:12-13 (NIV)
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”[a]
6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might
The reason Jesus didn't stone the adulteress to death is because:
1) he would have actually violated the law, and acted unjustly, had he stoned the woman. The law requires that you bring both the adulterer and the adulteress to be stoned. The Pharisees only brought the adulteress.
Leviticus 20:10 (NIV)
10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
2) Jesus chose mercy, instead of condemnation, because he came to reconcile people to the Father during his first coming, not condemn them to death. But they are required to turn away from sinning (which is the transgression of the law).
John 8:10-11 (NIV)
10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
1 John 3:4 (NIV)
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
Those are just some of the many details that Christians are not paying attention to, either because commentary they've heard in the past has blinded them to these passages, so when they actually get around to reading the bible for themselves, they don't see it; or they haven't read it for themselves ever. I addressed all this (& more) in the: [Details in Paul's Epistles that Get Ignored] thread. Though mainly dealing with Paul, it naturally branches out to the passages that people commonly refer to (Mark 7, Acts 10, 1 Timothy 4, etc...), words they gloss over, and passages that they unstably twist, in order to say we can live lawless lives.
So, no, keeping the commands literally, as much as the circumstances allow, does not obligate you to keep the whole law. If you're doing it for justification's sake sure, but that's not what Paul and Timothy are doing. And what's leading to this false interpretation is how people take verse 3 alone and disregard the immediate details in the surrounding verses of Galatians 5:
Galatians 5:3-4 (NIV)
3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
Considering Paul, who wrote the letter to the Galatians, is the one who circumcised Timothy, they're not keeping the law to be justified—nor did he just alienate Timothy from Christ nor obligate Timothy to keep the whole law by circumcising him. Paul and Timothy just keep the law as saved sinners because they're no longer hostile towards it.
Romans 8:7-9 (NIV)
7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.
Ezekiel 36:25-27 (NIV)
25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I was saying that it's not necessary to follow the sabbath. And for those who think it's necessary to follow the sabbath as a way to obtain salvation are wrong. Just attending the sabbath or following some of the law to the letter because of specific circumstances can be fine, as long as it's not thought that those who follow the law or specific laws to the letter are saved and those who don't are not saved. Or were you making a case that it's necessary to follow the sabbath? If I read what you wrote correctly, it seems like we're not in disagreement on this issue.
Swegkid908
Offline
cristobela Vice Captain
Offline
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:02 am
Swegkid908
cristobela
Swegkid908
The law of the old testament is still valid. But we aren't required to follow it anymore. I'll explain this. If you accept one of the laws, such as the sabbath laws, then you're forced to accept the other laws as well; you can't just pick and choose the bible, you have to follow it consistently. But we already know that most of the laws aren't to be followed anymore. But some denominations believe that certain laws should be followed while others shouldn't be. And all this comes down to is more divisions in the body of Christ, when Christ prayed that we would be one just as He and the Father are one. The law is still valid because Christ says it's still valid. But it's not valid in the way it used to be, before the new covenant with Christ. The law has been spiritualized and the spirit of the law is to be followed. Or in other words, to follow the meaning behind the laws. For example, the spirit of the sabbath is to honor God and recognize His works. We don't need the strict laws that were followed like not to walk a certain amount of distance or do any work or whatever because we can spend not just one day but every day honoring God and recognizing his works and so forth. Jesus said it's not what goes into one's mouth that defiles a person, but what goes out of their mouth that defiles them. So does that mean we're supposed to still follow the dietary laws of the old testament? Of course not. We're not supposed to commit adultery but do we stone those who do, according to the law, even though Jesus said that he who is without sin cast the first stone? Of course not. If we don't follow those laws literally, then why the heck would we follow sabbath laws? The sabbath itself and all the other laws have been spiritualized, and through the Holy Spirit, bible study, prayer, and so forth, we can be guided to be the people that God wants us to be without being under the old covenant restrictions of following these strict laws which were meant to create the same type of people. I hope this answered your question. I'm a bit rushed so sorry if this is sloppy and doesn't provide bible verses. But I know this answer is the true answer, even if I might've (hopefully not) explained it badly.
Those common misinterpretations occur when details are glossed over in the text. But when you slow down and notice a few details, that interpretation is impossible to hold. For instance, under the new covenant—after Jesus died, resurrected and ascended—we find Paul keeping Old Testament laws literally, not just spiritually. The logic you used would require that Paul be obligated to keep the whole law to get saved/justified, but that's not true. Note: the book of Acts describes believers under the New Covenant. And here we find:
1) that Paul is keeping Sabbaths in the synagogue:
Acts 17:2 (NIV)
2 As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
2) that Paul is circumcising Timothy:
Acts 16:1-3 (NIV)
16 Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was Jewish and a believer but whose father was a Greek. 2 The believers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3 Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
& 3) that Paul is scheduling animal sacrifices (after Jesus' once and for all sacrifice) to prove he's still living obedient to the law—under the New Covenant. The unbelieving part of the Jews had started a false rumor: that Paul was teaching not to live in obedience to the law (a rumor he attempted to put to death):
Acts 21:19-26 (NIV)
19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
26 The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.
note: the reason they were shaving their heads is because of the Nazirite Vow; upon the completion of that vow, animals get sacrificed. If you want more detail on the Nazirite Vow and its requirements, you can read Numbers 6
They're keeping the law by the literal, not just the spiritual, under the New Covenant. And despite that, neither Paul nor Timothy are obligated to keep the whole law to be justified.
Same for the dietary laws. If they're null and void, there should be no prohibitions against eating blood and strangled meats found in the New Testament. And yet those same laws in Leviticus, literal applications, are the starter commands given to the Gentiles (why I say "starter commands": they're weren't just expected to keep four commands for life; they would learn the rest eventually because the Law of Moses was read every Sabbath in the synagogues; ergo, they would be keeping Sabbath the same way as Jesus and Paul).
New Testament
Acts 15:19-21 (NIV)
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
Old Testament
Leviticus 17:12 (NIV)
12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood.”
Leviticus 17:15 (NIV)
15 “‘Anyone, whether native-born or foreigner, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then they will be clean.
Verse 21 (in Acts 15) is highly ignored.
About Stoning to Death
The reason we can't stone people to death is twofold;
1) because the whole nation hasn't agreed to come into covenant with YHWH and there is no Sanhedrin. That's necessary to carry out God's form of capital punishment. Worldly governments have their own take on how to eliminate criminals for committing capital crimes (and their own ideas of what is considered a capital crime; obviously God's standards are different and morally superior).
But also,
2) our goal is to reconcile people to God. We can't reconcile people if they're dead. Ergo we choose mercy. The most we do is separate from people if they choose to stay unrepentant; but Jesus will cast them into fire upon his return.
1 Corinthians 5:12-13 (NIV)
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”[a]
6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might
The reason Jesus didn't stone the adulteress to death is because:
1) he would have actually violated the law, and acted unjustly, had he stoned the woman. The law requires that you bring both the adulterer and the adulteress to be stoned. The Pharisees only brought the adulteress.
Leviticus 20:10 (NIV)
10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
2) Jesus chose mercy, instead of condemnation, because he came to reconcile people to the Father during his first coming, not condemn them to death. But they are required to turn away from sinning (which is the transgression of the law).
John 8:10-11 (NIV)
10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
1 John 3:4 (NIV)
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
Those are just some of the many details that Christians are not paying attention to, either because commentary they've heard in the past has blinded them to these passages, so when they actually get around to reading the bible for themselves, they don't see it; or they haven't read it for themselves ever. I addressed all this (& more) in the: [Details in Paul's Epistles that Get Ignored] thread. Though mainly dealing with Paul, it naturally branches out to the passages that people commonly refer to (Mark 7, Acts 10, 1 Timothy 4, etc...), words they gloss over, and passages that they unstably twist, in order to say we can live lawless lives.
So, no, keeping the commands literally, as much as the circumstances allow, does not obligate you to keep the whole law. If you're doing it for justification's sake sure, but that's not what Paul and Timothy are doing. And what's leading to this false interpretation is how people take verse 3 alone and disregard the immediate details in the surrounding verses of Galatians 5:
Galatians 5:3-4 (NIV)
3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
Considering Paul, who wrote the letter to the Galatians, is the one who circumcised Timothy, they're not keeping the law to be justified—nor did he just alienate Timothy from Christ nor obligate Timothy to keep the whole law by circumcising him. Paul and Timothy just keep the law as saved sinners because they're no longer hostile towards it.
Romans 8:7-9 (NIV)
7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.
Ezekiel 36:25-27 (NIV)
25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I was saying that it's not necessary to follow the sabbath. And for those who think it's necessary to follow the sabbath as a way to obtain salvation are wrong. Just attending the sabbath or following some of the law to the letter because of specific circumstances can be fine, as long as it's not thought that those who follow the law or specific laws to the letter are saved and those who don't are not saved. Or were you making a case that it's necessary to follow the sabbath? If I read what you wrote correctly, it seems like we're not in disagreement on this issue.
I didn't misunderstand you; but yes, I disagreed. The case that I am making: Jesus expects us to keep the Sabbath, the way the Father actually commanded, not the way in which people end up distorting / adding on / taking away from the command or giving spiritual-sounding justifications for why not to keep the command as it is written.
Matthew 5:17-19 (NIV)
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 15:1-9 (NIV)
15 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[b] 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’[c]”
Footnotes:
a. Matthew 15:4 Exodus 20:12; Deut. 5:16 b. Matthew 15:4 Exodus 21:17; Lev. 20:9 c. Matthew 15:9 Isaiah 29:13
They gave a very pious-sounding, God-centered excuse for why they didn't keep the command the way it is written. That was not acceptable to Jesus. As saved sinners, we're no longer suppose to twist / falsely interpret the commands to avoid keeping them as they literally read.
Jesus commanded to put what's read from Moses' seat into practice even when the Pharisees failed to. So, even when the Pharisees (the spiritual authority in charge of teaching the law to us) don't put the Law of Moses (what they read from Moses' seat) into practice, Jesus expects us to.
Matthew 23:1-3 (NIV)
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
Contrary to popular belief, the Pharisees that Jesus confronted had no genuine desire to please God, act obediently to what's found in the Law of Moses / act in obedience to God's commands when doing so would threaten their self-imposed traditions and traditional interpretations of certain commands. They valued tradition more than God's truth. And when Jesus called them out on it, their hatred for God and his commands was made clear. They didn't really believe nor trust what was written in the Law of Moses. Ergo, they rejected the Messiah, who did everything according to scripture, unlike them who were in hostility towards God's law.
John 5:46 (NIV)
46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
(so, based on the passages in Matthew, not only did the Pharisees not keep the Law as it is written, but here in John's gospel, they also couldn't detect the Law's prophetic implications about the Messiah because they ignored the Law and didn't believe in the Law of Moses, not really, as demonstrated by how they wouldn't keep it and disagreed with it).
The passages commonly used to suggest that Paul taught us,"never to judge a believer for the days they want to keep" are passages that get grossly distorted and butchered—which I addressed thoroughly in the: [Details in Paul's Epistles that Get Ignored] thread. I encourage you to read it because when believers ignore (or worse, refuse to acknowledge) those details, it causes unnecessary division in the body, not just between fellow Christians, but between Jews and Gentiles in the body too. I know there is a healthy time for division to occur, such as...
1 Corinthians 11:18-19 (NIV)
18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.
...but unity in the faith is the goal.
Ephesians 4:11-14N (NIV)
11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming.
That unification can only be achieved by getting an accurate picture of everything Jesus taught, without nullifying a single detail. So, in short, yes: Jesus wants us keeping the Sabbath, not setting aside the commandments of God. The only exception given for breaking the Sabbath is a life and death emergency or if you'll be healing someone. For things like circumcision, if you were demonstrating to the Jews that it wasn't circumcision that justified you, that was also an exception from keeping it. Specific circumstances take discernment to decide what would be the godly thing to do, but those are exceptions / special circumstances, not the norm. In general, we're suppose to live by the law and uphold it, like Paul and Jesus did, because that is what Jesus died to liberate us from: not just from the guilt of our sin, but from the nature that is hostile to God's commands.
Reply
