Keeping the Saturday Sabbath.

Notice that you added "in the unit;" Paul did not say that. I would be hesitant to add it. I would think that Paul would not contradict his other writings with this. I think it was the first in terms of primary, illustrating its importance. However, I have not studied it in depth.

I am not arguing that it doens't have authority. However, its authority for the NT church is not inherent in its inclusion in the Law but rather its timeless moral principle of the authority that God established in the garden of Eden. That is "is binding" is not what I am arguing. Of course it is. It is what makes it binding that we are talking about. Paul does not say it is binding because it is the in the 10 commandments, the Law. To do so would be to expressly contradict the fact that we are not under the Law. It is binding for Paul and for us because its roots are in the authority structure that God ordained at creation.

I don't see why this is a problem. The 10 commandments were only a part of the Law. It was an indivisible Law. Paul is not saying that we are free to live apart from God's law, but rather apart from Israel's Law.

Not atl all. Paul is saying that the Law is made invalid by faith. He is saying that the Law is not shown to be bad or evil because of faith but rather our faith shows that the Law was perfect; we were imperfect. The problem was not with the Law; it was with man's ability to keep the Law.

But you see no condemnation of this by the apostles. Paul in fact encouraged meeting on the first day of the week. It was not contrary to the commandment of God in any way. If it were, Paul would have condemned it.

What it does is refute the notion that "one day" (such as the Sabbath) is more important than the rest. All days belong to God. There is no "one day" that is more important than any other This was a direct refutation of the OT Sabbath worship in which the Sabbath day was set aside as more important. The whole context of Rom 14 shows that Paul is refuting those who make the claim that one day is more important.

Well you better point it out because I have missed it. The vast majority of references to Sabbath day meetings in the NT are in teh context of evangelizing those who were not saved. Since they met on the Sabbath, the apostles went to them on teh Sabbath. 1 Cor 16:1 clearly shows that the habit of the NT church was to meet on teh first day of the week.

I would argue that you have misapplied the scriptural teaching on teh Law when you expand it to more than Scripture expands it to.

But I believe the case here as been made for both positions so unless there are further direct statements or questions, I will probably bow out.

Thanks

 

Paul's own statement that the 5th commandment "is the First commandment with a promise" appeals explicitly to the unit IN which it is found. Obviously.

And of course God Himself identifies the unit as "the 10 commmandments" many times in scripture.

Deut 5:22, 4:12-13, Exodus 34:28, 24:18... I just don't see a good way out of seeing that God Himself labeled them as a unit.

Moses emphasizes "And He add no more" when speaking of the unit of 10 commandments Deut 5.

It is too late now to "un - unit" what God specifically identifies.

Paul's reference "The First commandment with a promise" is an obvious refrence to the group in which it occurs. Obviously.

Trying to get that to mean "the first command in the books of Moses with a promise" simply does not work.

And we both agree that the use PAul makes of it - is as the Authorotative Word of God.

ON that point we are agreed.

Paul is consistent in is continued use of God's Word as the authorotative law defining sin and commanding obedience.

In Romans 7 it is the 10 commandments that he identifies as "defining sin".

In Ephesians 6 - it is consistently the 10 commandment unit that is referenced by Paul and the fact that within that unit alone - the first commandment with a promise is the 5th commandment - and that this is authorotative for NT saints.

IN Romans 3 Paul consistently states that our faith "establishes the law " of God.

And in Romans 2:13 he consistently connects obedience and justification.

There is no question - Paul is not "contradicting his other writings" when he strongly supports God's Spoken Word - His Ten Commandments - spoken directly to the people and then written "on tablets of stone - AND He Added No More" . Deut 5:22

Well - you just might find this part of God's Word as fascinating as the rest.

In christ

Bob

[ November 05, 2002, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Speculating that God's Law is not "authorotative" for NT authors EVEN as we see Paul quoting it in support of his own statement in Eph 6:1 -- or that whatever God said in the 10 commandments is not authorotative for the NT authors EVEN as we see them quote them in Romans 7 and James 2 -- or that the NT authors ever argued that the statements of the Sovereign God in speaking His own 10 commandments "are not authorotative", or speculating that the NT authors rejected the authority of God's Law as we see them quoted and reference it (see Romans 7, James 2, Romans 8, Romans 2 - the entire chapters) does not stand up to a review of the NT text.

Paul quotes from the unit of 10 in Romans 7 identifying them as the "law" that defines sin - still.

In Galations 3 he states that the law places ALL mankind "under sin" - (not just those that lived before the cross". The SIN problem exists because sin is STILL defined - man is STILL a sinner and the Law of God (according to Romans 7) is Still authorotatively pointing that out.

So Paul's refernce to the LAw is in SUPPORT of His statement in Eph 6:1 commanding obedience and using the Law as His support.

Acts 17:11 shows that it was the practice of NT saints to test the statements of Paul (and the others) by the scriptures - the Word of God was essential to supporting their doctrine and testing it. How can that be missed?

Using that model - it is the authority of God's Word that is being used by Paul to endorse the Eph 6:1 statement.

HE does not write in the form" IF I say it - then don't look for God's Word to support it - my word is the final one".

The term "scripture" as used in the NT refers primarily to the written Word as they had it - the OT. (The references in support of that fact are many in the NT - I am assuming you are already familiar with that.)

In fact the commandments have "no authority" outside of the fact that God spoke them - They are His Word - spoken directly and in this unique case audibly. When we see the term "LAW" used in the NT and examples are given from that Law - to show what God's Law is - (post cross) we find quotes from the 10 commandments - the unit of ten to which "He added no more"

IN fact that wording of the 4th commandment refers explicitly to that Gen 2:3 statement of God.

Even more interesting - the 4th commandment turns out to be nothing more than a summary of Genesis chapter 1 through 2:3. The entire basis for the command to rest on God's own Holy Seventh-day of creation week derives its reasoning solely from the facts of Genesis 1-2:3.

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 05, 2002, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Not obviously.

Show a place where God called them the ten commandments.

Lastly, I am not denying that they are a unit. What you fail to realize apparently is that they are a unit with the other 600+ commandments that you do not keep.

When you say that it is the first in the unit with promise, are you suggesting that "The Lord will not hold him guiltless" is less than a promise? It should be clear that whatever Paul is saying, it is significantly different than what you are saying.

I maintain, with Paul, that the NT Christian is no longer under Israel's Law as the Law. I think you are minimizing Paul's writing to make the point you want to make.

 

Your supposition is not supported by the NT text.

Paul repeatedly appeals to the ongoing authorotative application of God's Law.

In Romans 2 he goes so far as to connect obedience to God's law Romans 2:13 with justification (in the explicit context of repentance and perserverance Romans 2:4-10).

Supposing (as you do) that Paul can not possibly endorse the ongoing authorotative application of God's Own Holy law - can not be supported from Romans 2 and in fact - his statment in Romans 3 refutes that supposition "Do we MAKE VOID the law through faith - God forbid! In fact we Establish it" Romans 3:31

=============================================

Actually When God said murder is wrong in His own Spoken Word at Sinai - it is authorotative. That set of 10 continues to "define sin" as Paul states in Romans 7. Murder is declared by God Himself to be wrong - and we can not "void that statement" as if - "well it used to be wrong but now we need a better reason than - God said it is wrong at Sinai in the 10 commandments".

There is just no good way to "make void the law through faith" as Paul points out.

Actually - you just made that very argument against PAuls statement in Ephesians 6.

Pastor Larry
Paul does not say it is binding because it is the in the 10 commandments, the Law. To do so would be to expressly contradict the fact that we are not under the Law.

Obvisouly you are saying It is "a problem" because once you go down the wrong road of supposing that "Not being under the law means that not one of the 10 commmandments of our sovereign God may be accepted as authorotative" then you must reject them and any appeal to their authority - not just one of the 10 - all of the 10.

Compare your assumption above - to Paul -

Romans 3
31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

================================

Paul never calls the ten commandments "Israel's Law" - but rather - God's Law. And he also never quotes from any part of the unit of Ten and says that they were "Israels but not authorotative for anyone else". That unit of Ten that God himself labels as "The Ten commandments" and then says that He "Added no More" - is quoted from repeatedly by PAul as "authorotative" -- Notice



Ephesians 6
1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.
2 HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER (which is the first commandment with a promise),
3 SO THAT IT MAY BE WELL WITH YOU, AND THAT YOU MAY LIVE LONG ON THE EARTH.


In Christ,

Bob

 

Is it your teaching that we may go through scripture and replace "Establish" with "INVALIDATE"??

At last - a point we can agree on.

You are exactly right here.

THe Law of God - the Sovereign of the Universe - is not the problem.

The problem is that His law - identifies us as sinners - it delcares that we need salvtion. It decares that we are going to burn in the lake of fire - to suffer the second death etc It shows that we are sinners by our very nature.

So in fact it IS wrong to murder whether we accept Christ or not.

It is STILL wrong to commit adultery or to take God's name in vain.

And in fact - it is even wrong to make images of God (or mary or the baby Jesus) and worship God THROUGH those images.

God's Word - His ten spoken commandments - still stand as authorotative - because as you have said - the "problem" is not with God's Law.

==============================================

Your point is that breaking God's commandment with man's tradition was no big deal since Paul does not seem to mind.

That argument should raise a red flag for any pastor on a number of accounts.

#1. Christ Himself explicitly condemns the doctirne that the one true church and its leaderhsip are given the right to transgress the commandments of God in favor of their own tradtions (Mark 7:1-9). This is the very principle you are appealing to.

#2. We don't have any cases of "Sabbath breaking" being "approved" by Paul - OR of its being "practiced" by the NT first century church.

#3. Attendance in church on Wednesday, or Friday, or Sunday - is not a "violation" of the 7th day Creation Sabbath of God - in either the New or Old Testament ages.

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 05, 2002, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Not at all. That was a typing faux pas on my part, a slip of the fingers. I think what I meant to say was "not invalid." It has been a while and in rereading I am not sure what my though in that sentence is. My point overall is that our faith does not show the Law to be invalid because the problem was not with the Law because with our ability to keep it.

Several issues.

1) The Law does not declare that we are going to burn in the lake of fire. I don't know of any place in the Law where that is said.
2) It shows that we are sinners only by our failing to keep it.

However, the problem is that sin existed before the Law so we are sinners with or without the Law. So it was in fact wrong to murder before the Law. It was wrong to commit adultery before the Law. The Law was the Law of Israel.

Let me use an example. Here in the US, you are not bound by the laws of Britain, France, Germany, etc. even though they may have similar laws. For instance, if you commit murder in England, you will be prosecuted by their murder statute, not by ours. To relate that to the discussion, it is wrong to murder under the law of God as well as under the Law of Moses. However, you are not held responsible for the murder under the Law of Israel because you are not an Israelite. Therefore, you see that the basic idea of the law is the same but you are charged under a different jurisdiction. My point is that you are not under Israel's Law because you are not an Israelite.

But here again, Paul said we are not under the Law. How can you disagree with that? I am not sure why you feel the liberty to disregard those clear statements. I do not mean to be inflammatory but that is the express statement of Scripture that you are disagreeing with.

No. My argument is that no one was breaking God's commandment with man's tradition.

No. In that passage, Christ was condemning the Pharisees, not a church. He was not addressing the worship day or the practices of it. And he was saying that the NT Christian should live under Israel's Law. He was addressing the issue of manmade tradition.

The NT pattern was for the church to meet on the first day of the week for worship; not on the Sabbath.

Agreed but that is not the point. The point is that in the NT church, there is no 7th day creation sabbath of God. There was no specified day for worship.

 

Your argument is bold and explicit.

God the creator sets the 7th day apart and makes it holy - a holy day - in Gen 2:3.

Christ says in Mark 2:27 that the 7th day weekly Sabbath was "made for Mankind".

But you say there is "a way" to read Romans 14 such that the NT author is denying that very point for NT saints.

Lets see if that holds up.

A close review of the chapter - because your interpretion argues against Christ's own statement of the matter.

Surely that means we should take "some interest" in seeing what is IN Romans 14.

He utterly trashes the idea that IF you keep EVEN one of the 10 commandments as "authorotatve" then you are placing yourself back under the condemnation of the law and falling from Grace - by going so far as to approve EVEN of the "Shadow" sabbaths - the annual feast days.

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 05, 2002, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

YOu may have said something interesting in all that. It is far too long for me to read and find out. However, I have read the published works (read recognized as credible) that take your position and find them utterly unconvincing. I can't see their point in Romans 14. It seems too clear to me.

Your last statement however caught my attention. You said that he (meaning Christ I suppose) utterly trashes the idea that keeping one meant you had to keep them all.

I would only quote Paul, under the inspiration of the Spirit, who said, And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision [in context as a part of keeping to Law to be righteous or holy], that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit would lead Paul to make an explicit statement that contradicted something Christ said. I neither think Christ trashed something that the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to say. On that basis, I contend that your understanding of what Christ said, and what Paul said in Romans 14 is wrong.

 

sorry about the long posts -

I will shorten them up from now on.

Bob

 

When sufficiently isolated - the statement of Paul in Galations 5 regarding circumcision can quickly be construed into condemnation of Timothy in Acts 16 whom Paul required to be circumcised, as well as a condemnation of almost everyone listed in Hebrews 11.

Bob

 

I would respond that Acts 16 was not a case of fulfilling the Law for righteousness but rather removing a stumblingblock. Hebrews 11 refers to people under the Law and therefore circumcision as a part of the Law was perfectly appropriate. It seems to me that the isolation of Gal 5 is the only way to support your point.

 

So, completely seperate from Biblical analysis, my understanding of the Jewish Sabbath is that it went from Sundown on Friday Night to Sunday on Saturday night instead of the arbitrary midnight to midnight designation us moderns use for days. Do all of you Sabbath followers go from sundown to sundown or pretty much just Saturday as we understand it now.

 

If you are assigned to work on a base in Antarctica near the South Pole (at least south of the antarctic circle) there will be days in the winter in which the sun does not appear at all. Similarly, there will be days in summer that the sun is never hidden (though it does "move" from the perspective of the one stationed there, of course). If the sabbath is "sundown" on the 6th day until sundown on the 7th day, then there will be sabbath that last for calendar months, and there will be calendar months without sabbaths. Are you claiming the sundown-to-sundown sabbath is something that is required of NT Christians in consideration of this?

In my view, as you probably presume, this is just another authentication that the sabbath is not something required for all time for anyone. The Israelites were very limited in their space of the earth from the time of Moses until the time of Christ, and many of the laws reasonable and accurate then fall on hard times in the expanded modern world. So I don't think it is any coincidence the sabbath is included in Colossians 2:16 as among those things which are a "shadow of things to come."

 

Indeed in Gal 5:3-4 Paul condemns the practice as "falling from Grace" and "Being severed from Christ". Because - as Galations 3:3 points out the error being addressed is begining by faith but then pursuing salvation apart from faith and the spirit -> legalism.

When Paul insists that Timothy be circumcised in Acts 16 - he shows that he does not consider it to be true that "Anyone circumcised must be saved by Works - obligated to sinless obedience or else lost". Though some try to make Paul say this in Galations 5.

The context of the legalism described in Galations 5 - is law-keeping apart from "Faith working through Love" Gal 5:6 and the Spirit of Christ (as we see from Galations 3:3 "Having begun by the spirit are you being completed by the flesh"?

Gal 5:4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace

The sin Paul is addressing would be failure EVEN for those saints in Hebrews 11 - the OT saints living BY Faith IF they had tried to be "Justified by Law" . Just as the previous post showed for Colossians 2.

Keeping the context of Galations 5 in mind (see Gal 3:1-5) and remembering that Paul repeatedly shows himself to be in harmony with the OT laws - and observing that Paul defends EVEN the keeping of annual feast Sabbaths in Romans 14 -- makes it impossible to argue that IF you honor the creator's Seventh-day Creation Memorial - "Holy day" you can not be saved by grace but are instead "fallen from Grace and under obligation to keep the whole law - severed from Christ, without a savior - sinless" Gal 5:3-4

For not only is Paul honoring and appealing to the 10 commandment UNIT in Eph 6:1-2 "The FIRST commandment with a promise" (in that unit obviously) But HE even DEFENDS the annual feast days in Romans 14 with BOTH the cases of ONE who observes ONE above another AND in the case of one who OBSERVES ALL. (Paul is not defending being 'Severed from Christ' in Romans 14).

Even worse in Acts 21:2-26, 23:4-9, 24:14-18, 25:8,10-11 26:20-23 28:17 Paul insists that BOTH in his post-cross Practice AND in His doctrine he taught nothing contratry to the commandments found in the OT.

As was the case with Colossians 2, it can be shown that the sin being addressed in Galations 5 was sin in BOTH OT and NT. Being "Severed from Christ" (Gal 5:3-4) was never the "means of salvation" in either OT or NT. In fact, as Paul points out in Galations 3:21 - the LAW of God itself was Never a means of salvation in ANY age. In all ages there has been only One Gospel Gal 1:6-9

Gods own law was ALways (as we see in Romans 7) to convict us of our sin and need of a savior when apart from Christ, and to be written on the tablets of the heart (as we see in Heb 8) under the New Covenant.

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 09, 2002, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

The NT authors take the opposite approach - they say that it is "Gods Law" instead of "The Law of ISrael" and that it places "All under sin" not just those alive after Sinai.

Paul says that ALL (not just those that lived after Sinai) are placed "Under Sin" by the Law - Gal 3:22-24, Romans 3:9-10, 19-20. All are in "need" of a Savior because the Law of God declares that ALL have sinned - and it "defines" what sin "is".

And the penalty for transgression of the law Romans 6:23 is death - the second death. Rev 20:4-6 tells us that only the righteous raised in the first resurrection just before the 1000 years are "exempt" from the second death.

John states that sin is By Definition transgression of God's Law itself (1John 3:4) "Sin IS transgression of God's Law"

Paul Agrees that God's LAw defines sin in
Romans 7:7
What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "" YOU SHALL NOT COVET.''

There is no escaping it - Paul says he is quoting the law - the 10 commandments from the OT and using it to explain "Sin" generically.

Instead of arguing "OF all sins I happened to find one also listed here in the 10 commandments"

His argument is that the law ITSELF is defining sin - just as John argues "Transgression of the Law IS sin" 1John 4:3.


Romans 4:15 "Where there is no law Neither is there violation"

And this principle works with "ALL" both before and after Mt sinai - because the law on stone - does not mean this is Gods FIRST introduction of that law that defines sin. In Genesis 4 it is "Sin" that is crouching at the door of Cain's heart - pre-Sinai - God is showing that Murder is "sin".

But surely we can "assume" the Law of God did not exist before written in stone at Sinai right?

In Gen 26:5 Abraham centuries Before Sinai is obedient to God and God says Abraham Obeyed "My charge, My Commandments, My Statutes, and My Laws"

Paul insists - Romans 4:15 "Where there is no law Neither is there violation"

God's Law is said by the NT authors to "Define Sin" and places All - even after the cross or before Sinai - in need of a Savior.

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 09, 2002, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

As can be seen from these posts - the NT support for God's Law is extensive. Even the New Covenant has God's Law as a central part.

But here is the question - what if in all this support for God's Law those are wrong who observe that God still validates the authority of His own 10 commandment law that defines sin? IF they are wrong then they keep His Law of their own free will and conscience in faith - and they Then fall into the category of Romans 14 regarding the annual feast day. It is simply six of one half-dozen of the other - both sides to be vigorously defended - not condemned.

Now lets consider the alternative - what if those are wrong who suppose that God has abandoned His own 10 commandments? What if He is still as supportive of them today - as He always was? What if the Isaiah 66 vision of God endorsing the 4th commandment for "all mankind" - is true for all eternity - in the "New Heavens and the New Earth"? What if the 10 commandments remain valid and authorotative as James 2 seems to indicate? What if the unit remains in tact as Eph 6:1-2 seems to require. What IF it remains JUST like the Deut 6:5 law of "Love the Lord your God with all your heart" - valid and binding on all the saints? Are we allowed to consider that possibility? If so what are the consequences?

Then what?

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 11, 2002, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]