New Covenant Theology: Good Teaching gets a Bad Rap.

Firstly, the Lord Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28), not its executioner. It was His custom to attend the synagogue on the sabbath (Luke 4:16).
Secondly, Paul is talking about feast days and festivals which were part of the ceremonial law, fulfilled in Christ (Colossians 2:16). This includes special 'sabbaths' (eg. Leviticus 23:24). The weekly sabbath is firmly embedded in the Moral law (Decalogue) and it's not for us to take it out. It is found in the O.T. before the Sinaitic covenant (Genesis 2:3; Exodus 16).

 

I didn't do that; I gave my view of what NCT does.

Christ fulfills the whole law (Matthew 5:17), but that does not mean that the whole moral law is thrown out. He is our sabbath rest, but 'there remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God.' And this is not some dreadful thing that we have to do in order to be right with God. 'His commandments are not grievous.' 'If you........call the Sabbath a delight, and the holy day of the LORD honourable, and shall honour Him, not finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words, then you shall delight yourself in the LORD, and cause you to ride on the high hills of the earth.......' (Isaiah 58:13-14).

Well obviously I deny that the Sabbath is an ordinance that is against us. It is a blessing, as indeed all the commandments are. 'Make me walk in the path of your commandments, for I delight in it' (Psalm 119:35). "If you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:15; cf. John 14:21). Psalm 119 is obviously written by someone saved by grace, and he loves God's righteous laws. As I pointed out earlier, there were other sabbaths which were part of the ceremonial law which have gone, but the moral law remains and the Sabbath is embedded within it.

I disagree. Again, as I pointed out, the Lord Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath. He has the right to move the day, and interpret its observance (see below) but I see no evidence that He has 'done away with' it, nor that it is restricted to the Jews.

What the Lord of the Sabbath did do was to show that works of mercy and necessity were permitted on the sabbath (Matthew 12:1ff; Mark 3:1-4), but He did not abolish the sabbath, taught that one should assemble for worship and teaching on that day (Luke 4:16) and His earliest followers did not feel that they should abandon it (cf. Mark 16:1). Clearly they did not interpret His teaching the way you do.

The stoning of adulterers is part of the Judicial law. Christians follow our Lord's example by no longer stoning adulterers but calling upon them to repent and sin no more (John 8:2-11). That does not mean, of course that those who break the Decalogue and do not repent will not face God's wrath in due course. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of the three-fold division of the law, have a browse through this https://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/the-threefold-division-of-the-law.pdf There is also a much more detailed exposition of this: From the Finger of God by Philip Ross (Mentor Books. ISBN 978-184550601-8).

Of course, it is entirely possible to pervert the Christian Sabbath with legalism, asceticism and other self-centred practices which do not glorify God and which 'are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh' (Colossians 2:23), but in my experience, to observe the Lord's day is as Isaiah described it: 'a delight.' The commandment tells us to 'remember the day and keep it holy.' That should be a blessing, not a bind.

 

If a Saturday sabbath was MORAL for Moses, how is Saturday not moral for us today? Do morals change?

Where in scripture did Jesus change the Saturday sabbath to Sunday if He in fact did so? (I would prefer a verse not an inference)

The idea Jesus can or would change MORAL principles at whim is nonsensical.

If one day in seven is MORAL, and morals do not change (are eternal), then eternity future would also require one day in seven observance. I find that idea absurd.

How did Enoch obey the MORAL Saturday sabbath thousands of years before the sabbath command was given?

In my view the PERFECT place to assert a Saturday or Sunday sabbath for NEW GENTILE converts would have been Acts 15, yet it's not there!

Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

In fact this would also have been the perfect place to reassert the continuing duty to observe the 10 commandments.

I think there is little doubt a Sunday sabbath is a contrived idea, if covenant theology was consistent they would bite the bullet and observe a Saturday sabbath.

 

Welcome to the BB, Dan. It's good to have you here.
Just to take Acts 15:28-29 first: there are only two commandments mentioned here -- idolatry (sort of) and adultery (porneia). If the apostles weren't worried about the Lord's day, then also they weren't worried about honouring parents, murder, lying etc. In fact, the rules laid down seem to have been those necessary for table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians, not as a code of righteous living.

Now, in the book of Acts, we see on the one hand, Paul going into synagogues and witnessing to Lydia on the Jewish sabbath (Acts 13:14,42; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4), but on the other hand we see the Christians assembling for worship on the 'first day of the week' (Acts 20 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; cf. also Revelation 1:10). The seventh day was not their preferred day of meeting. So even with their high regard for the Fourth Commandment, the disciples had no problem in re-arranging their week so as to place their day of rest and worship at the beginning of the week rather than at the end. It is still, for the early church, a case of labouring six days and resting one. The commandment remains in force, but now the day has been changed.

The first day (or the 'eighth day') has a pedigree in the Mosaic law. The sheaf of the firstfruits of the harvest were waved before the Lord on 'the day after the sabbath' (Leviticus 23:11-12). And of course, Christ 'the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep' (1 Corinthians 15:20; cf. Acts 26:23) rose on the first day of the week. Likewise, the 'Festival of Weeks,' aka Pentecost, occurred 50 days later (Leviticus 23:16), on the first day of the week. See also 2 Chronicles 7:9; Nehemiah 8:18 when sacred assemblies were held 'on the eighth day.'

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, but without a doubt Adam was placed under God's moral law. Imagine if he had built an altar to the sun in the garden, or strangled Eve; do you suppose that God would have said, "Oh, that's alright, Adam. just so long as you don't eat that apple!" The idea is ridiculous. Some exegetes see a sabbath observance in Genesis 4:3. the phrase 'in the fulness of time' is literally 'at the end of days' and could refer to the sabbath at the end of the week. At all events, the sabbath, like all the commandments, is found in Scripture before the Law was given (Exodus 16:23ff).

 

I haven't read the entire thread, so this may have been stated beforehand. If so, I apologize for bringing it up again.

The Sabbath--as part of the Law given at Sinai--was the sign of that covenant, as the rainbow was the sign of the Noahic covenant and as circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant. So, it follows, that the Old Covenant now being obsolete, the Sabbath itself--as the sign--is no longer binding.

Of course, the argument will be made that the Sabbath precedes the Law, which is, of course, true. However, though I may be mistaken, I'm not aware of any penalty for not observing the Sabbath before Sinai. So the enforcement of the Sabbath day as a day of mandated rest was a part of the now-fulfilled Old Covenant. The remaining nine of the Ten Commandments were not designated as a sign of the Sinai Covenant.

So, I conclude that while we may choose to observe a Sabbath (usually on a Sunday, or Lord's Day) it is by no means enforceable on other individuals or congregations--unless we intend to say Sinai is still in effect.

That's my $.02.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

The Decalogue is as much a sign of the Sinaitic covenant as the sabbath (Exodus 34:27-28; Deuteronomy 5:2; 9:11) --all of it (especially idolatry -- Deuteronomy 29:25-26), not just the sabbath -- and it is clear that the moral law as a whole remains binding upon Christians (Romans 13:8-10; 1 Corinthians 9:21; James 2:8-12), not indeed as something that we are pardoned or condemned by, but out of love (John 14:15) for our Saviour and respect for the One who gave the commandments (Matthew 5:17-19).

The judicial law came after the Moral Law. I am not aware of any penalty for lying or not honouring one's parents before Sinai, but you find them afterwards.

I do not believe that Sinai is still in effect, but I do believe that the Decalogue is. I believe in the independence of the local church, so I would not enforce the sabbath even if I could, but I will commend it as both the command and the blessing of God.

 

The NCT denies that we are under the moral obligations of the Law of God, and deny the principle of the Sabbath Day rest to us, so not really something to be that commended!

 

I think you'll find it does.

This is not so. Right at the very start there was a difference between the Decalogue and the rest of the law.
Deuteronomy 5:22. 'These words the 10 Commandments] the LORD spoke to all your assembly, in the mountain from the midst of the fire, the cloud and the thick darkness, with a loud voice. And He added no more. |And He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me.'
The summary of the Moral law which is the Ten Commandments was spoken by God Himself in the hearing of the Israelites and written by Him on tablets of stone. The rest of the law was given to Moses and mediated by angels (Acts of the Apostles 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2). In addition, there are several places where the ceremonial law is described as worthless in the absence of moral rectitude (eg. 1 Samuel 25:22; Proverbs 21:3; Isaiah 1:10-17; Hosea 6:6; Amos 5:21-27). I hope people who are in doubt about this issue will click on these verses so that they will understand.

If this is so then the other nine commandments are also abolished, for they would then be part of the Law, which, whether you admit it or not, you have abolished. But in fact it is not so. Matthew 9:13, referencing Hosea 6:6 is one place, but in fact your whole premise is faulty. The word 'law' is used in different ways in the NT, and the job of the exegete is to distinguish between them. When the Lord Jesus says in John 10:34, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods?"'" He is quoting from the Psalms and speaking of the law as the whole O.T. In Romans 2:25-27, Paul contrasts circumcision and the law, even though, to the Jews circumcision was the very essence of the law (Acts of the Apostles 15:5; 21:20-21). When Paul says in Romans 7:22, 'For I delight in the law of God according the inward man,' he is not saying he delights in God forbidding the eating of shellfish! No, he delights in the righteousness of God's moral law and wishes that he could keep it better (especially the 10th Commandment).

Now then,
Matthew 5:17-19:

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill [Gk. 'pleroo']. For assuredly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, one jot, or one tittle will by no means pass from the Law until all is fulfilled [Gk. 'ginomai']. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

The law of which not one jot nor tittle will disappear is the one summarized by the 'commandments.' It must be so because soon afterwards our Lord abolished the dietary laws (Mark 7:18-19) and abrogated the judicial laws (John 8:3-11).

 

The point is that 'commandments' in verse 19 explains the meaning of 'law' in verse 18. BTW, 'Law and/or prophets' in the N.T. always means the whole of the O.T.

You sound like a hyper-dispensationalist. Romans 15:4. 'For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the learning and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.' [/QUOTE]

You make it sound like some sort of imposition! 'The sabbath was made for man......' by a heavenly Father eager to pour blessings on His people. But if you want a text, try John 14:15; 1 Corinthians 9:21 & 1 Timothy 1:8-11 (understood properly).

I am surprised that, having said that one cannot divide the law, you have decided that you can divide the Commandments. God didn't give nine commandments, He gave ten. The idea that there has been some sort of falling out between Father and Son over the number is not something I want to countenance. But we are told that Jesus Christ is Lord of the Sabbath. He is my Lord and Lord of my sabbath. And you can find no text that abolishes the fourth commandment.

'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD your God......................For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day......' God made the heavens and the earth for everybody, not just Jews. As for binding consciences, I bind no one's conscience with anything but Scripture.

 

In the New Covenant, 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus,' who just happens to be Lord of the Sabbath.

Who on earth is Jeff? If you call me Jeff, can I call you Mutt? But the Exodus is a type of our redemption in Christ (1 Corinthians 10:1-13).

First of all, the ten Commandments all precede the giving of the Law in Exodus 20. Secondly the Decalogue is for Christians.

Deuteronomy 5:22. 'These words [the Decalogue] the LORD spoke to all your assembly, in the mountain from the midst of the fire, the cloud and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me [Moses].'

Jeremiah 31:33; Hebrews 8:10; 10:16 . '"But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days," says the LORD. "I will put My Law in their minds and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they will be My people."'

So this verse, which is from the only O.T. pericope which speaks of the New Covenant, is repeated twice in the New Testament where 'There is neither Jew nor Greek.' But which law is being spoken of? Which laws are written on the hearts of all Christians?

2 Corinthians 3:3. 'Clearly you are and epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart.'

Here the law written on the heart under the New Covenant is identified with the law written upon stone under the Old Covenant. The Fourth Commandment was written on stone; it is also written on the heart of Christians. 'Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.' 'For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble at one point, he is guilty of all.'

I am aware of not having answered your post #55. I will do so as I have time, but it may not be until Monday; I have a busy time this weekend.

 

This is an pretty obvious smear since you do not give any proof or documentation for your comment. I draw your attention to what I wrote in post #50.

The question is, has the Lord Jesus had a disagreement with His Father and changed the Commandments? I don't believe He has. The Lord Jesus gave one new commandment to His disciples in John 13:34, and in John 14:15 he tells them to obey His commandments, plural. Where do you see that He gives any others, which are not those given in Exodus 20? To be sure, in Mark 12:29-31 He quotes Deuteronomy 6:4 and Leviticus 19:18, but they are simply an epitome of the Decalogue.
If we love God with all our heart etc., how can we
Have other gods before Him,
Bow down to idols,
Take His name in vain or
Desecrate the day which He has given us to keep?
If we love our neighbour as ourselves, how can we
Dishonour our parents,
Kill or hate our neighbour,
Seduce his wife,
Steal from him,
Bear false witness against him or
Covet his possessions?
No wonder the scribe came to see that keeping the moral law was 'more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices' (v.33).

That is not a call I get to make. I just give you the Scriptures. We are not saved by observing the law, but that does not mean that we can play fast and loose with the Commandments of God.

You misunderstand Paul's meaning.
When Paul was witnessing to Jews, he acted like a Jew, observing the dietary and other laws. He was prepared to undergo a purification ritual in the Temple (Acts 21:24). But when he was witnessing to Gentiles, he put aside all that, and ate whatever they were eating, so long as he was not told that it was meat offered to idols; in short, he would not act like a Jew. But obviously he would not go to a pagan temple and offer sacrifices, or involve himself in religious orgies. He still kept the Decalogue.

! Tim. 1:8ff I will deal with in a day or two. Now, I'll just deal again with Romans 14:5. I pointed out in post #57 by linking Deuteronomy 5:22, Jeremiah 31:33 and 2 Corinthians 3:3 that it is the whole Decalogue that is written on the hearts of believers. So what does Rom. 14:5 mean? It means that some, especially Jewish, believers were still observing the various Jewish festivals. While Paul was dead against Gentile believers observing such days (Galatians 4:9-11), he was far more relaxed about Jewish Christians doing so. What he's doing in Romans 14:5 is trying to promote harmony between Jew and Gentile within the church at Rome.

Unfortunately you seem to have no idea what liberty in Christ means. It means, amongst other things, calling the Sabbath a delight (cf. Psalms 40:8; Isaiah 58:13-14).