How the Law Changed? Heb. 7:12

[Michaeneu]

Could somebody please take a moment to explain to me what the word "obfuscate" means?

Your welcome Claudia. As to the meaning of obfuscate, Eric is correct on his definition. My postion is that if someone uses frivolous arguements they obscure the truth about the main issue.

Michael

 

[Michaeneu]

Let us be clear that motive is not the same as the “substance”. I’m truly not concerned with motive, but the substance of arguments. “Substance” pertains to the significance, weight, importance or relevance of facts to an issue and this is how the term “frivolous” enters the controversy we have concerning the law. Something is “frivolous” if it bears little weight or importance to the controversy and that was the intent of my use of “frivolous” with your continued interjection of “universal law”. That the ethnos knew/know basic morality has little importance or weight concerning the covenant people with Yah; we are dealing with the covenant people and the change in the law as it pertains to them. The ethnos/heathen and there systems of law is a frivolous argument in reference to our controversy on how the law changed regarding Israel’s New Covenant, albeit spiritual Israel.

Notice, the "oracles" you speak of include circumcision. NOT just the decalogue. So passages like this cannot be used to say we are under the law, with the exception of sacrifice rituals "offered daily and yearly". And notice hiow in Heb.9:4, "the tables of the covenent" placed inside the ark are apart of the whole "tabernacle" system that the writer is describing along with the ceremonial shadows. Rather than their place there proving the Decalogue was eternal, it proves that it was art of that whole "law" system being described there.

Your response concerning Romans 3:1-2, 31 does not overcome that the covenant people of Yah where and still are the keepers of His true inspired scripture or the oracles, from which we now quote for purposes of cannon or doctrine; the law being an essential part of that scripture. It is the covenant people of Yah that have and still “establish” His law to the ethnos/heathen, not the other way around. The “universal law” argument is frivolous.

“What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God…. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Romans 3:1-2, 31

We do not derive the law from the heathen/ethnos. Neither are we under the law nor above it either. The covenant people still confirm/establish the law of Yah, which is not being under or above it.

“For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” Romans 13:9-10

Don’t confuse my position with being under the law, which greatly different than establishing and fulfilling the law. Hebrews 9:4 does not help you assertions either because the ark and the testament is seen in heaven after the seventh trump in the Revelation, which supports the evidence that the physical temple was patterned after the true which is still valid (Hebrews 8:5; 9:23).

“And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament…” Revelation 11:19

Clearly, the significance of the ark and what it contained is confirmed as perennial, perfect and profitable.

Yes, the new covenant pertains to SPIRITUAL Israel, so you cannot transfer their physical sign over to us.
That's why it is replaced by the spirit (rest in Jesus, plus LOVE for one another: "by THIS shall you know you are my disciples") In contrast, the sabbath is still associated by the world with the Jews, and even among those "Christian" or "messianic" groups that keep it, they still reject each other as false for other reasons. So it is PROVEN not to be even A sign for the true people of God today. That's why it's unprofitable. Anyone can keep it, and still not be a child of God. It is not even naturally on people's hearts, meaning we are automatically compelled to keep it out of love for God, apart from "just because the Law tells us to". That's what a Law being on the heart means. But no one can feign the love of God and rest in Christ. Just like I point out to the Church of Christ people here, physical signs like that are of the OT, and do not equal the spiritual realities.

That the New Covenant is spiritual does not translate in to any prohibition of the fourth commandment. You’re importing idea that is NOT stated anywhere in scripture. And because men transgress the fourth does not help your assertion either because men transgress the first and have other elohim before Yah, but that does not make the first unprofitable.

You're still repeating two errors here. Nowhere does it say that ONLY "laws that were offered yearly or periodically for the transgression of sin" were cancelled. Even you admit now that the civil laws were set aside, and whether or not they shall be reinstituted in the Kingdom does not pertain to us now.
Also, as I pointed out, your still mistaking the spiritual rest of Heb.4 with a literal physical rest.

You have been at liberty to produce any other scripture that verifies another criterion or classification of the law that has been cancelled, but until you do then the texts in Hebrews suffice as to how the law changed! In fact, you’ve shrunk from your interjection of Rom.2:29, 7:6, 2 Cor.3:6 because spirit verses letter is simply not in the context and is an import into the texts in Hebrews. And the issue of spirit versus letter has nothing to do with any rest from the law of Yah or release from the law as your belief system suggests. The fault or the failure of the first covenant was not with the law but with the people.

“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith…” Hebrews 8:7-8

The ministration of the letter failed because Yah’s people sought salvation by works in the law and not faith and this is why 2 Corinthians 3:6 declared the letter killeth; that is the ministration of the letter exemplified the mistake of salvation by works. That is not to say that faith was not revealed, otherwise Abel would not have found favor with Yah (Hebrews 11:4). It is in this capacity that the ministration of the spirit is superior, because the significance of faith was more fully revealed by Yahshua. As I stated before this text concerns a contrast in the ministration of the two covenants and not the any change in the law. The covenant people of Yah still establish the law.

As to the spiritual rest in Yahshua there is absolutely no reference to any rest from the law in the text; the rest is from works, not the law. You’re adding that idea to the context. Again, an allegory is made between the seventh-day rest and the rest from work in faith, which signifies the two are “a sign” of moral significance and not a ceremonial type or shadow!

 

[Michaeneu]

Once again, the sabbath does not "point out" sin. Not keeping a sabbath is not the same as blasphemy, idolatry, or the laws governing
man's relation to his neighbor, which are universal in nature. God never condemned the "ethnos" for not keeping it. I have also explained to you that the Ten Commandments were not simply the "first ten" of the 613. It was a summary of the whole law(which is why it was given such prominence), which broke down into all the other details. Just like the Ten break down the two.

The fourth commandment was not a periodic offering for the transgression of sin, nor was it a shadow that prefigured something good to come. Therefore it does not fall under the criterion in Hebrews for the law that was cancelled and you have yet to provide and other criterion for the change in the law that meets the forth commandment. And that the Decalogue was a summary of the law does not translated into any rest from the law as you suggest either. The covenant people of Yah still establish, confirm and fulfill the law.

You just claimed above that the Law was given specifically to Israel. In any case, since there were the seven universal laws I have been discussing, and you denying, these are the "commandments" Abraham kept.

Be careful how you quote me. My position is that the law was/is established and confirmed by Yah’s covenant people. The issue of universal law is a frivolous argument because we are dealing with the covenant people of Yah and the change in the law as it pertains to them. It is Yah’s covenant people that are the keeper of the oracles and the law is an integral part of the oracles.

Yes, we always had spiritual rest, which is faith, as well as all the rest of the spiritual principles of the Law, like lust equaling adultery in the heart. But because of sin, God added and focused on the "letter" until the new covenant. Now, the true spiritual intent of the Law is focused again. I never said that SPIRITUAL rest was a "shadow" or
"weak", but rather have always pointed to that as the true spiritual reality the literal rest was to point to. You seem to be confusing the spiritual spoken of in Hebrews for the literal. I haven't failed to show this, you just choose not to recognize it….
Something can be a parallel and contrast at the same time…. So God's rest from Creation parallels the literal sabbath rest of the Law of Moses, as well as the spiritual rest of faith.

Let me reiterate the very thing that you continue not to recognize. An analogy does not involve a prediction of something but merely a comparison of similarities (that does not preclude contrasts as you state, but analogies emphasis similarities by the very meaning of the word, not contrast). We know there is an analogy used between Yah’s rest and the rest from works in FAITH by the use of “JUST AS” in verse ten. The theme or object of Hebrews chapter four is this analogy of Yah’s rest and the rest from works in FAITH, which Adam or Abel was able to enter and every man since, including now. Again, my support here is Hebrews chapter eleven. Consequently, Yah’s rest did not point forward to anything to come; the rest from works runs concurrently with Yah’s rest. Again, because of this truth the seventh-day rest from Genesis did not prefigure anything but ran concurrent with the rest from works in FAITH. Moreover since an analogy is used we are introduced to the parallel that the seventh-day rest is profitable and perfect, which is “a sign” of moral significance and not a ceremonial type or shadow!

The shadows prefigured Yahshua: “the law having a shadow of good things to come.” Passover, sin offerings and etcetera all prefigured Yahshua. Yah’s rest did not prefigure anything; it was not a shadow that prefigured Yahshua and does not fulfill the criterion in Hebrews concerning the change of the law. Again, you need to show me these texts and exegesis that reveals the fourth commandment as a shadow or was typical, or that it pointed forward to anything.

On last thing here I want to point out is your tendency to add to the text. Nowhere is it written in this context that the rest is from the “law of Moses”. The rest is from works, not the law. The covenant people of Yah still establish, confirm and fulfill the law.

Still, "least" in Matthew does not correspond to the "weak" of Hebrews. You are reading too much into that. Just because you see two words that may hypothetically be parallel like that, you can't just paste them together if the context doesn't demand it. Yes, we both agree that some parts of the Law were weaker than others, but the point is, Jesus is not discussing that there. The future cancellation of ceremonial Laws is not the subject of that statement.

Weak and least both refer to standing and standing is confirmed in the same sentence in Matthew.

“Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:19

Standing in the kingdom is right there in the same text. Clearly Yahshua is drawing a parallel, not a contrast. Again, unless one is willing to contest the author of Hebrews that some PART of the law was unprofitable or imperfect then we are left with standing in the law again; some part was perfect and profitable while another was imperfect and unprofitable—some part is/was greater than another.

You're just repeating that same sentence over and over. You have no defense for this liberal view of the sabbath. The sabbath is not for personal recreation,

Again, there is nothing new here but a continuation of a legalist concept of the Sabbath. It simply can’t overcome the testimony and example of Yahshua.


Michael

 

[Eric B]

Let us be clear that motive is not the same as the “substance”. I’m truly not concerned with motive, but the substance of arguments. “Substance” pertains to the significance, weight, importance or relevance of facts to an issue and this is how the term “frivolous” enters the controversy we have concerning the law. Something is “frivolous” if it bears little weight or importance to the controversy and that was the intent of my use of “frivolous” with your continued interjection of “universal law”. That the ethnos knew/know basic morality has little importance or weight concerning the covenant people with Yah; we are dealing with the covenant people and the change in the law as it pertains to them. The ethnos/heathen and there systems of law is a frivolous argument in reference to our controversy on how the law changed regarding Israel’s New Covenant, albeit spiritual Israel.

That's a silly excuse to continue the accusatory tone of some of your responses. To accuse me of being frivolous does get into my motives. That's like making light of the issue, and just because you don;t agree with what I say doesn't mean that's what I'm doing.

Your response concerning Romans

3:1-2, 31 does not overcome that the covenant people of Yah where and still are the keepers of His true inspired scripture or the oracles, from which we now quote for purposes of cannon or doctrine; the law being an essential part of that scripture. It is the covenant people of Yah that have and still “establish” His law to the ethnos/heathen, not the other way around. The “universal law” argument is frivolous.

“What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God…. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Romans 3:1-2, 31

We do not derive the law from the heathen/ethnos. Neither are we under the law nor above it either. The covenant people still confirm/establish the law of Yah, which is not being under or above it.

“For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” Romans 13:9-10

Don’t confuse my position with being under the law, which greatly different than establishing and fulfilling the law. Hebrews 9:4 does not help you assertions either because the ark and the testament is seen in heaven after the seventh trump in the Revelation, which supports the evidence that the physical temple was patterned after the true which is still valid (Hebrews 8:5; 9:23).

“And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament…” Revelation 11:19

Clearly, the significance of the ark and what it contained is confirmed as perennial, perfect and profitable.

Yes, we may still be the "covenant people of God" like the Israelites were, but you fail to realize that this is a different covenant. The laws of the old one do not just transfer over to this one. The old Law was added because of of sin until the seed should come (Gal.3:19), and that's not just the ceremonial laws.
Still, even those are "fulfilled" in Christ, without being "kept" by us, so that's what is mean by "fulfill the Law", not still keeping all the laws of that covenant, with the only exception of "ceremonial" and "civil".

That the New Covenant is spiritual does not translate in to any prohibition of the fourth commandment. You’re importing idea that is NOT stated anywhere in scripture. And because men transgress the fourth does not help your assertion either because men transgress the first and have other elohim before Yah, but that does not make the first unprofitable.

I didn't say prohibited. It's no longer an obligation. And I didn't say it was unprofitable simply because man transgresses it. God always judged men on the first commandment. He never judged anyone outside Israel for the fourth.

You have been at liberty to produce any other scripture that verifies another criterion or classification of the law that has been cancelled, but until you do then the texts in Hebrews suffice as to how the law changed! In fact, you’ve shrunk from your interjection of Rom.2:29, 7:6, 2 Cor.3:6 because spirit verses letter is simply not in the context and is an import into the texts in Hebrews. And the issue of spirit versus letter has nothing to do with any rest from the law of Yah or release from the law as your belief system suggests. The fault or the failure of the first covenant was not with the law but with the people.

“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith…” Hebrews 8:7-8

The ministration of the letter failed because Yah’s people sought salvation by works in the law and not faith and this is why 2 Corinthians 3:6 declared the letter killeth; that is the ministration of the letter exemplified the mistake of salvation by works. That is not to say that faith was not revealed, otherwise Abel would not have found favor with Yah (Hebrews 11:4). It is in this capacity that the ministration of the spirit is superior, because the significance of faith was more fully revealed by Yahshua. As I stated before this text concerns a contrast in the ministration of the two covenants and not the any change in the law. The covenant people of Yah still establish the law.

As to the spiritual rest in Yahshua there is absolutely no reference to any rest from the law in the text; the rest is from works, not the law. You’re adding that idea to the context. Again, an allegory is made between the seventh-day rest and the rest from work in faith, which signifies the two are “a sign” of moral significance and not a ceremonial type or shadow!

Still accusing. I didn't "shrink" from the discussion of those passages, but the discussion moved on to the underlying issues surrounding spirit and letter. Unlike you; I'm not going to repeat the same thing over and over when we haven't come to a common understanding of certain things.
But suffice it to say, we have gone in corcles over "standing" in the Law with some cancelled, etc. yet every single law is "fulfilled" in spirit, in some way. All of the ceremonies you say were canvelled because they pointed to Jesus are not just thrown out, but rather fulfilled IN SPIRIT when we look to JEsus whom they foreshadowed. Hebrews is plainly telling us that rest from our "works" (I didn;t say "Law") is the true spiritual rest, not rest from literal work on a day of the week.

 

[Eric B]

The fourth commandment was not a periodic offering for the transgression of sin, nor was it a shadow that prefigured something good to come. Therefore it does not fall under the criterion in Hebrews for the law that was cancelled and you have yet to provide and other criterion for the change in the law that meets the forth commandment. And that the Decalogue was a summary of the law does not translated into any rest from the law as you suggest either. The covenant people of Yah still establish, confirm and fulfill the law.

Be careful how you quote me. My position is that the law was/is established and confirmed by Yahs covenant people. The issue of universal law is a frivolous argument because we are dealing with the covenant people of Yah and the change in the law as it pertains to them. It is Yahs covenant people that are the keeper of the oracles and the law is an integral part of the oracles.

On last thing here I want to point out is your tendency to add to the text. Nowhere is it written in this context that the rest is from the law of Moses. The rest is from works, not the law. The covenant people of Yah still establish, confirm and fulfill the law.

Answered above. As I just said, Covenant people, yes, same exact covenant, no. You seem to think there was only one covenant, and it simply transfers over to us, but only with the sacrifices replaced by Jesus, and the civil laws suspended for a while until Israel gets the Kingdom back. (Which you have not answered me on)

Let me reiterate the very thing that you continue not to recognize. An analogy does not involve a prediction of something but merely a comparison of similarities (that does not preclude contrasts as you state, but analogies emphasis similarities by the very meaning of the word, not contrast). We know there is an analogy used between Yah's rest and the rest from works in FAITH by the use of JUST AS in verse ten. The theme or object of Hebrews chapter four is this analogy of Yahs rest and the rest from works in FAITH, which Adam or Abel was able to enter and every man since, including now. Again, my support here is Hebrews chapter eleven. Consequently, Yahs rest did not point forward to anything to come; the rest from works runs concurrently with Yahs rest. Again, because of this truth the seventh-day rest from Genesis did not prefigure anything but ran concurrent with the rest from works in FAITH. Moreover since an analogy is used we are introduced to the parallel that the seventh-day rest is profitable and perfect, which is a sign of moral significance and not a ceremonial type or shadow!

The shadows prefigured Yahshua: the law having a shadow of good things to come. Passover, sin offerings and etcetera all prefigured Yahshua. Yahs rest did not prefigure anything; it was not a shadow that prefigured Yahshua and does not fulfill the criterion in Hebrews concerning the change of the law. Again, you need to show me these texts and exegesis that reveals the fourth commandment as a shadow or was typical, or that it pointed forward to anything.

OK, you're getting it all mixed up. You seem to think I'm saying God's original rest was the shadow. That's not what I'm trying to say. It is man's literal rest on a particular day of the week that is the shadow. God rested, but as I said, that was totally different from what man could do, because man was not creating, and God did not go back to work creating the next day. Yes, spiritual rest in God was the ideal all along, but because of man's sin, God added the Law, and raised up the physical nation of Israel to proclaim it to the world. This is when the sabbath becae a physical restriction, with the original rest of God made the example, so it would be the sign that they were His people. But this was still under that covenant only. In the New Covenant, we go back to the original spiritual rest, with love as the sign of His people, and while the literal sabbath of the OC pointed back to the original creation, it would also look forward to the spiritual kindgom when true spiritual rest would be restored. That is what Heb.4 is teaching.

Weak and least both refer to standing and standing is confirmed in the same sentence in Matthew.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:19

Standing in the kingdom is right there in the same text. Clearly Yahshua is drawing a parallel, not a contrast. Again, unless one is willing to contest the author of Hebrews that some PART of the law was unprofitable or imperfect then we are left with standing in the law again; some part was perfect and profitable while another was imperfect and unprofitable some part is/was greater than another.

You're still pasting together two unrelated passages because you see similar terms of diminuation. No one has to "contest" Hebrews here. It is not talking about the same thing.
Still, what does this mean to you, taken your way, then? That if someone broke a ceremonial command, that's what will make them "the least"?
So does that mean if someone breaks 'the greatest' command, they will be "greatest" in the Kingdom??? That right there ought to show you you are reading way too much into this "parallelism". There is such a thing as Hebrew poetic language that uses parallels and contrasts that are not often to be taken literally.

Again, there is nothing new here but a continuation of a legalist concept of the Sabbath. It simply can't overcome the testimony and example of Yahshua.


Michael

Notice you omit the rest of my last statement on this, and repeat the same 26 words verbatim. Now if I was like you, I would accuse you of "shrinking", "dodging" or "frivolity".
Again, you have to show from scripture where your activities on the sabbath are permitted, esp. In light of Is.58. If you can't prove your recreation is still in keeping with the testimony and example of Jesus, and think you can just get out of it by calling me a 'legalist', then don't come accusing anyone of breaking the law for doing work on the day.

 

[Eric B]

I ewas running out the door when I made the first post today, and now that I had more time to further digest what I was responding to, I need to clarify.

You made the same mistake Bob made with his "law of the Philistines" remark, earlier. It wasn't "the ethnos/heathen's SYSTEMS of law" I am calling "universal law". As I said, those could be corrupt, or incomplete. It is that "knowledge of BASIC morality" you mentioned. These show us which laws are universal, because they are written on man's conscience, (BY God, and despite their inclination to violate them) and now also in our hearts. That is why they continue apart from the Old Covenant, and are "magnified" in the Spirit while [the letter of] others are cancelled.

 

[BobRyan]

Adam and Eve were "ALL MANKIND" in Gen 1-2:3 and they were given the "Holy Day" of God "sanctified by God on creation week "day 7".

That is why they had 7 days in a week.

Christ said in Mark 2:27 "the Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND not mankind MADE for the Sabbath" -- speaking of the "MAKING" of both.

if the question on "universal law" is what would MANKIND have taken as morally "obligating" from the Garden -- then the answer has to be the law on Marriage and the Law on the Sabbath - the Creator's own Holy Day "Sanctified" - made Holy on Creation-week day 7.

Seeing that SAME day "continued" in the "New Heavens and New Earth" of Rev 21 (See Isaiah 66) is "a hint" to all that imagine that the "Day Made FOR mankind" is abolished by the MAKER of that day!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I have very little time for the internet, and havn't followed this thread through. Nontheless, here's my view of 'the law' or 'law' in Christian context.

The OT Law is but a dim reflection of the Living Law the Christian is privileged with in Christ. Christ Jesus to the believer IS, 'The Law' - God's Word of authority, and rule for faith and deed.

The Law of the OT - which is the ENTIRE OT - never is at variance with the essence of the NT 'Law' - the 'example' and 'inspiriation' of Christ Jesus, although it can be in competition with Christ - and in which case the Law becomes Christ's enemy. Christians worship Jesus - they do not worship the Law; they are not Jews of unbelief, but Jews of Faith - 'spiritual Israel'.

There remains "The Body of Christ's (Own)" - Col.2:17, and sole because of this Body and of its Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ, "there remains for THE PEOPLE OF GOD (the Christians - true Christians) a (or thier) keeping of the Sabbath Day" - where Hebrews 4:9 means by "sabbatismos", "the Seventh Day God THUS CONCERNING SPAKE".

Clearly nothing pertaining the lord Sun's day is supposed left valid for the People of God today; it is and for ever 'remains' a heathen and idolatrous thing.

So, first the Lord of the Sabbath Day, and second the People of God shall have to be removed before the Sabbath Seventh Day could be removed. Or everything shall have to be falsified, and Sunday could be understood for being the day of worship-rest of the Christians.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I ewas running out the door when I made the first post today, and now that I had more time to further digest what I was responding to, I need to clarify.

You made the same mistake Bob made with his "law of the Philistines" remark, earlier. It wasn't "the ethnos/heathen's SYSTEMS of law" I am calling "universal law". As I said, those could be corrupt, or incomplete. It is that "knowledge of BASIC morality" you mentioned. These show us which laws are universal, because they are written on man's conscience, (BY God, and despite their inclination to violate them) and now also in our hearts. That is why they continue apart from the Old Covenant, and are "magnified" in the Spirit while [the letter of] others are cancelled.

Eric, you echo the 'age of the enlightenment's' 'natural' and 'moral' 'laws'-differentiation which falls far short of explaining Law in Biblical terms and concepts.

I believe the Bible considers all its laws as spiritual and moral laws were they ceremonial or spiritual. I have before said it on this Board and here says it again, that what made OT 'law' 'spiritual' or 'moral', was what it portrayed - and that was jesus Christ to come, in each and every case of Law. The 'ceremonial' laws in this respect were even more 'spiritual' and 'moral' than the behavioural laws like honouring parents or worshipping no other gods - because they showed forth Jesus the Lamb of God for the sins of men.

 

[Eric B]

I would agree with that, but I did not say "natural law", and it has nothing to do with any enlightenment concept. That's related to the same mistake the other two made. I said universal law, meaning the laws God has written on man's conscience (whether he obeys them or not).

Also, Heb.4 contrasts "the 7th day spoken in this wise" with the spiritual rest he is speaking about (the "rest" Joshua didn't give them, even though they had the 7th day rest). Even you have acknowledged that the true sabbath rest is not necessarily the same as under the old covenant Law.

Bob,
Genesis is still not giving a command for 'all mankind'. Adan and Eve were not creating with God, and God did not go back to creating (or working, with them) afterwards. Isaiah says nothing about us today. You are pasting unrelated passages together to try and equate a universal command, and it doesn't work.

And if man was created to love God, and the sabbath is the sign of that love, then man was created for the sabbath. "Made for mankind" is not an "obligation", but you are turning it around into one. And all of mankind after Adam were not obligated to become married, so that disproves your reasoning for good.

 

[BobRyan]

You post a nice contradiction to what God says in Exodus 20 where HE goes back to Gen 2:3 and HE argues THAT the Gen 1-2:3 events ARE demanding, defining and establishing God's Holy Day as HOLY?

Gen 2:3 says "HE MADE it HOLY".

Trying to "pretend" -- "OH no He did not"!

Or "The Holy Day of Christ the Creator was NOT MADE for MANKIND" can not survive the test of scripture - though you seem to prefer that it did.

 

[Eric B]

Ex. 20 goes back to Genesis to tell THEM (Moses and Israel) why THEY should now follow it. He does not say "keep it because ADAM kept it", or "as I commanded Adam". That is to just read overgeneralized inferences into the passages, and not how to build sound doctrine.

"Made holy"+"made for mankind does NOT equal "all were always obligated". Once again, you have the example of marriage. Else, why do men not automatically know to rest on a specific day of the week, apart from hearing the Law of Moses?

 

[Michaeneu]

That's a silly excuse to continue the accusatory tone of some of your responses. To accuse me of being frivolous does get into my motives. That's like making light of the issue, and just because you don;t agree with what I say doesn't mean that's what I'm doing….
You made the same mistake Bob made with his "law of the Philistines" remark, earlier. It wasn't "the ethnos/heathen's SYSTEMS of law" I am calling "universal law". As I said, those could be corrupt, or incomplete. It is that "knowledge of BASIC morality" you mentioned. These show us which laws are universal, because they are written on man's conscience, (BY God, and despite their inclination to violate them) and now also in our hearts. That is why they continue apart from the Old Covenant, and are "magnified" in the Spirit while [the letter of] others are cancelled.

If you want to take it personally, that’s your prerogative, but clearly stating that your argument is frivolous is not the same thing as stating YOU ARE frivolous. Again, we are not dealing with “natural law” written in the heart of all men in the context of Hebrews. There is absolutely no mention of extraneous precepts or ordinances in the context of the book; the only law system that is the object of exposition is that given to the covenant people of Yah. Moreover, it is not an arbitrary matter that Yah chose to reveal Himself through a covenant people to restore the world back to Himself. The covenant people were and still are the keepers of the oracles and Yah’s laws. This is exactly why your argument upon “natural law” bears little weight or importance to the controversy; it is frivolous.

Yes, we may still be the "covenant people of God" like the Israelites were, but you fail to realize that this is a different covenant. The laws of the old one do not just transfer over to this one. The old Law was added because of of sin until the seed should come (Gal.3:19), and that's not just the ceremonial laws.
Still, even those are "fulfilled" in Christ, without being "kept" by us, so that's what is mean by "fulfill the Law", not still keeping all the laws of that covenant, with the only exception of "ceremonial" and "civil".

Come Eric, you state the most obvious and then imply that I contradict it and then cry foul about me offending you? The very object of my thread is “how the law changed” as it pertained to the New Covenant. And I stated up front that the law of the first covenant DID not just SIMPLY transfer over; it is more involved than that and this is where we disagree. The moral laws of the first covenant certainly transferred over and this is supported very clearly when the author of Hebrews quotes from the promise to Israel in Jeremiah where Yah declares he would write HIS LAWS in the heart and mind of the New Covenant people of Israel. The context prohibits any type of extraneous interpretation of the term “law” outside of what was given to the covenant people. This is why your argument about natural law is frivolous.

Moreover, the moral laws of the tables of stone are CONFIRMED thought the New Testament and we establish and fulfill them. It is simply non sequitur to assert that “fulfill” and “establish” mean NOT to KEEP; these are contradictory terms. It is an erroneous argument to attempt to assert two diametrically points of view as true at the same time. Yahshua did not come to save us in our sins but from sin.

“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” Romans 6:1-2

Fulfill and establish can mean nothing other than TO KEEP and grace covers where we are weak, but the moral laws of the Decalogue are neither weak, unprofitable or imperfect. They transfer over into the New Covenant because they are still vital, perfect and profitable. And you have yet to show that the forth commandment was a weak shadow, that was imperfect and unprofitable.

Still accusing. I didn't "shrink" from the discussion of those passages, but the discussion moved on to the underlying issues surrounding spirit and letter. Unlike you; I'm not going to repeat the same thing over and over when we haven't come to a common understanding of certain things.
But suffice it to say, we have gone in corcles over "standing" in the Law with some cancelled, etc. yet every single law is "fulfilled" in spirit, in some way. All of the ceremonies you say were canvelled because they pointed to Jesus are not just thrown out, but rather fulfilled IN SPIRIT when we look to JEsus whom they foreshadowed. Hebrews is plainly telling us that rest from our "works" (I didn;t say "Law") is the true spiritual rest, not rest from literal work on a day of the week.

My original point is that there simply isn’t another criterion given outside of Hebrews for how the law changed, your spirit versus letter not withstanding. Again, you are attempting an erroneous argument in the assertion that two diametrically points of view as true at the same time. Something that is cancelled cannot be said to carry on at the same time. Yah cancelled the offering for sin and the ordinance that revolved around them when Yahshua offered himself once for all. He doesn’t have to continually offer himself every time we look to him and Hebrews is very clear about this. Yet, the covenant people of Yah still establish, confirm and fulfill the law through grace, which means the moral law transferred over into the New Covenant.

Moreover, the spiritual rest from works in Hebrews chapter four is not a comment upon the law, but an exposit upon the truth that we are saved by faith and not works. You are still attempting to import the element of the law in a context where it’s not addressed. There is no mention of the law or any commandment in Hebrews chapter four; what it does concern is Yah’s rest on the seventh-day of creation and the rest in Yahshua. In truth, the Israelites under the first covenant were able to enter into the rest in Yahshua while keeping the seventh-day Sabbath, which also makes your assertion erroneous. And you have yet to show that the fourth commandment was a weak shadow that was imperfect and unprofitable.

You seem to think I'm saying God's original rest was the shadow. That's not what I'm trying to say. It is man's literal rest on a particular day of the week that is the shadow.... This is when the sabbath becae a physical restriction, with the original rest of God made the example, so it would be the sign that they were His people. But this was still under that covenant only. In the New Covenant, we go back to the original spiritual rest, with love as the sign of His people, and while the literal sabbath of the OC pointed back to the original creation, it would also look forward to the spiritual kindgom when true spiritual rest would be restored...

Again, you are still attempting to import the element of the law in a context where it’s not addressed. There is no mention of the law or any commandment in Hebrews chapter four; what it does concern is Yah’s rest on the seventh-day of creation and the rest in Yahshua. And your assertion was that you could show from this context that the forth commandment was a shadow or that is pointed forward to something good to come, which you failed to do again. Again, let me point out what you’re not seeing and addressing.

The theme or object of Hebrews chapter four is an analogy of Yah’s rest and the rest from works in FAITH, which Adam or Abel was able to enter and every man since, including now. Consequently, Yah’s rest did not point forward to anything to come; the rest from works runs concurrently with Yah’s rest. Again, the seventh-day rest from Genesis did not prefigure anything but ran concurrent with the rest from works in FAITH.

The shadow law prefigured Yahshua: “the law having a shadow of good things to come.” Passover, sin offerings and etcetera all prefigured Yahshua. Yah’s rest did not prefigure anything; it was not a shadow that prefigured Yahshua and does not fulfill the criterion in Hebrews concerning the change of the law. Again, you need to show me these texts and exegesis that reveals the fourth commandment as a shadow or was typical, or that it pointed forward to anything.

Moreover since an analogy is used we are directed to a parallel that the seventh-day rest at creation is profitable and perfect, which is “a sign” of moral significance and not a ceremonial type or shadow!

 

[Michaeneu]

You're still pasting together two unrelated passages because you see similar terms of diminuation. No one has to "contest" Hebrews here. It is not talking about the same thing.
Still, what does this mean to you, taken your way, then? That if someone broke a ceremonial command, that's what will make them "the least"?
So does that mean if someone breaks 'the greatest' command, they will be "greatest" in the Kingdom??? That right there ought to show you you are reading way too much into this "parallelism". There is such a thing as Hebrew poetic language that uses parallels and contrasts that are not often to be taken literally.

“…but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:19

I don’t know what you’re reading from but nowhere does it state that: if someone breaks 'the greatest' command, they will be "greatest" in the Kingdom. What it does state that if someone teaches and keeps Yah’s commandments his name will be great in the kingdom, which is a confirmation of standing, not of salvation (salvation being a free gift). Consequently, we have a literal interpretation of rank in the sentence, which supports the literal interpretation the phrase, “one of these least commandments”. Your interpretation of the latter phrase as poetic does not conform to the context.

Notice you omit the rest of my last statement on this, and repeat the same 26 words verbatim. Now if I was like you, I would accuse you of "shrinking", "dodging" or "frivolity".
Again, you have to show from scripture where your activities on the sabbath are permitted, esp. In light of Is.58. If you can't prove your recreation is still in keeping with the testimony and example of Jesus, and think you can just get out of it by calling me a 'legalist', then don't come accusing anyone of breaking the law for doing work on the day.

I omit much of what you state because I’ve already addressed it. My response may be simple but it completely addresses all your legalist argument. Yahshua declared it lawful to testify about the holiness of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, in particular to those who attempt to alter the intent of it. My example went out on the Sabbath and defended it against all who attempted to alter the intent. I don’t even have to go out; I have the blessing of doing it from the comfort of my own home. What a blessing it is to testify about the holiness of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, even to those who attempt alter the intent.

Michael

 

[Eric B]

If you want to take it personally, that’s your prerogative, but clearly stating that your argument is frivolous is not the same thing as stating YOU ARE frivolous.

It still seems to imply making light of the issue, and just because you do not agree with what I say, that is not what I am doing.

Again, we are not dealing with “natural law” written in the heart of all men in the context of Hebrews. There is absolutely no mention of extraneous precepts or ordinances in the context of the book; the only law system that is the object of exposition is that given to the covenant people of Yah.

Well, that just sounds to me like you've just decided for yourself that this one chapter in Hebrews is the ONLY teaching in the change of the Law, and you reject anything else (like the scriptures on the spirit vs. the letter. But that cannot be so, because you still have not explained the scriptural basis for why the "cvivil" laws are suspended, and also circumcision.

Moreover, it is not an arbitrary matter that Yah chose to reveal Himself through a covenant people to restore the world back to Himself. The covenant people were and still are the keepers of the oracles and Yah’s laws. This is exactly why your argument upon “natural law” bears little weight or importance to the controversy; it is frivolous.

Come Eric, you state the most obvious and then imply that I contradict it and then cry foul about me offending you? The very object of my thread is “how the law changed” as it pertained to the New Covenant. And I stated up front that the law of the first covenant DID not just SIMPLY transfer over; it is more involved than that and this is where we disagree. The moral laws of the first covenant certainly transferred over and this is supported very clearly when the author of Hebrews quotes from the promise to Israel in Jeremiah where Yah declares he would write HIS LAWS in the heart and mind of the New Covenant people of Israel. The context prohibits any type of extraneous interpretation of the term “law” outside of what was given to the covenant people. This is why your argument about natural law is frivolous.

Your arguent above, on "covenant people" implies just that. You seem to be implying God's true universal laws were whatever He gave to physical Israel, and since we today are the covenant people, we must keep the same laws (with the sxception of the cancelled sacrifices and suspended national laws). That is transferring their law to us.
I do not use the words "the universal laws transferred over", because of the fact that they were universal. They do not have to transfer over; they were always binding on all, evicenced by their being written on man's conscience (not the same thing as "written on heart" which implies a desire to keep them in those who have been regenerated).

Moreover, the moral laws of the tables of stone are CONFIRMED thought the New Testament and we establish and fulfill them. It is simply non sequitur to assert that “fulfill” and “establish” mean NOT to KEEP; these are contradictory terms. It is an erroneous argument to attempt to assert two diametrically points of view as true at the same time. Yahshua did not come to save us in our sins but from sin.

“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” Romans 6:1-2

Fulfill and establish can mean nothing other than TO KEEP and grace covers where we are weak, but the moral laws of the Decalogue are neither weak, unprofitable or imperfect. They transfer over into the New Covenant because they are still vital, perfect and profitable. And you have yet to show that the forth commandment was a weak shadow, that was imperfect and unprofitable.

You're making up your own definition. You admit the ceremonial laws were included (as "the least") in Jesus' "not one jot nor tittle shall pass until all be fulfilled" statement, so you have to acknowledge that the only way they could be cancelled" is because their spiritual intens were fulfilled.

My original point is that there simply isn’t another criterion given outside of Hebrews for how the law changed, your spirit versus letter not withstanding. Again, you are attempting an erroneous argument in the assertion that two diametrically points of view as true at the same time. Something that is cancelled cannot be said to carry on at the same time. Yah cancelled the offering for sin and the ordinance that revolved around them when Yahshua offered himself once for all. He doesn’t have to continually offer himself every time we look to him and Hebrews is very clear about this. Yet,

the covenant people of Yah still establish, confirm and fulfill the law through grace, which means the moral law transferred over into the New Covenant.

He doesn't contiuously offer Himself; because the one sacrifice pays for all the sins, and thus FULFILLS the sacrifices, in the SPIRIT instead of the LETTER. See, all this stuff you deny is there. The PRINCIPLE of the sacrifices still carries on, even though the literal practice of them does not. THIS is how we "establish, confirm and fulfill" that part of the law. Remember, Paul's stement "yeah, we fulfill" was made in response of charges that he was teaching people to break the law. It looks like we are (in the letter), but in its spiritual intent, we are not.

Moreover, the spiritual rest from works in Hebrews chapter four is not a comment upon the law, but an exposit upon the truth that we are saved by faith and not works. You are still attempting to import the element of the law in a context where it’s not addressed. There is no mention of the law or any commandment in Hebrews chapter four; what it does concern is Yah’s rest on the seventh-day of creation and the rest in Yahshua. In truth, the Israelites under the first covenant were able to enter into the rest in Yahshua while keeping the seventh-day Sabbath, which also makes your assertion erroneous. And you have yet to show that the fourth commandment was a weak shadow that was imperfect and unprofitable.

Again, you are still attempting to import the element of the law in a context where it’s not addressed. There is no mention of the law or any commandment in Hebrews chapter four; what it does concern is Yah’s rest on the seventh-day of creation and the rest in Yahshua. And your assertion was that you could show from this context that the forth commandment was a shadow or that is pointed forward to something good to come, which you failed to do again. Again, let me point out what you’re not seeing and addressing.

The theme or object of Hebrews chapter four is an analogy of Yah’s rest and the rest from works in FAITH, which Adam or Abel was able to enter and every man since, including now. Consequently, Yah’s rest did not point forward to anything to come; the rest from works runs concurrently with Yah’s rest. Again, the seventh-day rest from Genesis did not prefigure anything but ran concurrent with the rest from works in FAITH
The shadow law prefigured Yahshua: “the law having a shadow of good things to come.” Passover, sin offerings and etcetera all prefigured Yahshua. Yah’s rest did not prefigure anything; it was not a shadow that prefigured Yahshua and does not fulfill the criterion in Hebrews concerning the change of the law. Again, you need to show me these texts and exegesis that reveals the fourth commandment as a shadow or was typical, or that it pointed forward to anything.

Moreover since an analogy is used we are directed to a parallel that the seventh-day rest at creation is profitable and perfect, which is “a sign” of moral significance and not a ceremonial type or shadow!

So now, there's NO COMMANDMENT mentioned in the chapter? I thought you were sayigng alla long that this chapter is telling us to still keep the sabbath. If that's true, how is there "no commandment" here? In any case, as I said, yes, God's rest was always the ideal, but the full fruition of it was still something they were said to look forward to (after all, it is a rest Joshua did NOT lead them into, and God swore in Ps.95:11 that they would NOT enter it), and this was contrasted with the "seventh day", which obviously was being used to ILLUSTRATE this true rest, and thus was a type of it.

 

[Eric B]

but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:19

I dont know what youre reading from but nowhere does it state that: if someone breaks 'the greatest' command, they will be "greatest" in the Kingdom. What it does state that if someone teaches and keeps Yahs commandments his name will be great in the kingdom, which is a confirmation of standing, not of salvation (salvation being a free gift). Consequently, we have a literal interpretation of rank in the sentence, which supports the literal interpretation the phrase, one of these least commandments. Your interpretation of the latter phrase as poetic does not conform to the context.

What I was saying was, if you take "least" and "greatest" commandment here literally, based on the
parallel with "least and greatest in the kingdom", that that would suggest that since whoever breaks the least is the least in the kingdom, then whoever breaks the greatest would be greatest. Of course, that is ridiculous, but then that shows that the "standing" in the Kingdom does NOT correspond to the "least" commandment. In fact, the "greatest" comandment is not even mentioned there, so there is no comparison of any "standing" in the Law with standing in the kingdom. What He says is that whoever KEEPS the "least" would be greatest in the kingdom. According to you, "the least" are sacrifices that would be cancelled shortly after. Shoudn't h have said "whoever keeps the GREATEST", then?
You must not understand the concept of Hebrew poetry

I omit much of what you state because Ive already addressed it. My response may be simple but it completely addresses all your legalist argument. Yahshua declared it lawful to testify about the holiness of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, in particular to those who attempt to alter the intent of it. My example went out on the Sabbath and defended it against all who attempted to alter the intent. I dont even have to go out; I have the blessing of doing it from the comfort of my own home. What a blessing it is to testify about the holiness of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, even to those who attempt alter the intent.

Michael

That sounds like convenience to me. What you fail to note (which I have pointed out before, but you were so quick to throw back "legalist", which is a great irony, because who is it here who is pitching "Law"?) is that Jesus was OUT in the temple, dealing with PEOPLE (FELLOWSHIP is a very important part of God's will for us), and HEALING people and such, or fedding himself and his disciples (both VITAL tasks) and then the Jews came and confronted him about it, and then he testified about the proper purpose of the sabbath.
That sounds quite different from spending the whole day on the internet, which is basically recreation, even if it's a debate ABOUT God. You have not shown where this is equal to the testimony and example of Jesus; you just keep repeating that it is. This is not something vital that is has to be done on the spot and can't wait until the next day.
I would love to have the day off, and not even my wife could bug me with chores around the house, yet I get to spend all day on the computer. But once again, that is convenience.

 

[billwald]

>Moreover, the moral laws of the tables of stone are CONFIRMED thought the New Testament and we establish and fulfill them.<

Doesn't compute. Does a law enacted in England "confirm" a similar law passed in the USofA?

 

[BobRyan]

You post a nice contradiction to what God says in Exodus 20 where HE goes back to Gen 2:3 and HE argues THAT the Gen 1-2:3 events ARE demanding, defining and establishing God's Holy Day as HOLY?

Gen 2:3 says "HE MADE it HOLY".

Trying to "pretend" -- "OH no He did not"!

Or "The Holy Day of Christ the Creator was NOT MADE for MANKIND" can not survive the test of scripture - though you seem to prefer that it did.

God does not say "God DID NOT MAKE it holy on the 7th day of Creation week" in Exodus 20.

Christ does NOT say "The Sabbath WAS NOT MADE for MANKIND" in Mark 2:27.

Christ says "The Sabbath WAS MADE for mankind and NOt MANKIND MADE for the Sabbath" we see the MAKING of both in Genesis 1-2:3.

Exodus 20 AFFIRMS that in that Gen 1-2:3 7 day week we DO SEE the MAKING of BOTH!

 

[BobRyan]

Exodus 20


In this commandment - the 4th commandment we are drawn back to the Gen 1-2:3 facts themselves and SHOWN how they establish the Sabbath - God HIMSELF SHOWS us this explicitly.

FIRST identifying the duty of mankind - an obligation that brings with it a blessing --(for the Sabbath was made for "mankind" and not "mankind for the Sabbath" Mark 2:27).

THEN the commandment presents the "argument" the facts that demand the obligation of man and establish the first part of the commandment.

Side note: Sometimes you will find believers in atheist Darwinism trying to equivocate between “Law” and apocalyptic writings like Daniel and Revelation”. Hint: The Spoken Law of God is NOT “apocalyptic” literature! At other times they will argue that Moses did not intend that his readers take God literally as God speaks of the literal week to be observed by mankind.

The Duty of Man - that brings with it the blessing:

Exod 20

8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.

Notice - No mention of "I hereby make a holy day - the 7th day will now be a holy day" – since it was already made holy and blessed in Gen 2:1-3. We saw this in Exodus 16 where God said “Tomorrow is the Sabbath” and we saw it in the lesson of manna that literally fell 6 six days and not on the Sabbath. The literal 7 day week – in fact the “exact” 7 day week teaching in this command spoken by God is given a context from Exodus 16 that made the first order primary audience reading Moses’ writing fully aware of just how “literal” this concept is.

So the text begins - "Remember the Sabbath" and then the reader is pointed back in time to when it was made the Holy Day of God. This command demands that the listener “understand” that the 7 day cycle of Creation Week – is the same 7-day cycle at the foot of MT Sinai 1000 years after the flood. Mankind is to follow God’s example “on the very day” of the week He points to.

At no point does Moses add narrative or does God add verbiage to the effect “this is not really true”.. Or “This is just a general idea not really specific to a literal 7 day week”.

In vs 10 we find that the seventh day belongs to God not man. Christ states that the day is “made for mankind” Mark 2:27 but never makes man the author of His Creation memorial. The authority and the honor associated with His day is solely based on His literal role as Creator. It is “because” His word IS trustworthy that we have obligation to honor this command.

In the text it is “The Holy Day of God” it is His to Sanctify and mankind is called to honor and observe what God has set aside and made holy. It is instructive that God tells man to do as he did. To literally work for the literal six days of each literal week and then to literally rest on the literal seventh day.

(Note: The term “exhaustion” is not found in the text though some believers in atheist Darwinism have suggested that God was pretending to be “exhausted” thus conveying the idea of apocalyptic symbolism and freeing the reader to invent any meaning they please as a substitute for the text. This is another case among our evolutionist friends of a “story easy enough to tell but it is not exegesis”)

Exodus 20
11 "" 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; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

[/B]

Again notice past tense action of blessing the Sabbath of God and making it Holy in Gen 2:1-3. .

Note The Action commanded -
Note The reasonthat establishes the commandment

Exodus 20:11

For in six days the Lord... and rested on the Seventh-day
Therefore the LORD blessed, ...and made it holy

Many see creation WEEK as a 6 day week – with NOTHING being done for the world or mankind on THE 7th –day.

But Christ said “the Sabbath was MADE for mankind and not mankind MADE for the Sabbath” – speaking of the “making” of both! And we see the making of BOTH in Gen 1-2:3. Exodus 20:8-11 summarizes that very point emphasized by Christ our Creator! In fact Exodus 20 IS the voice of Christ our Creator!

Oh that everyone would embrace God's Word just as it reads – evolutionism would not be so well accepted among Christians – if they did.

God literally points the reader back to His own literal act in literally creating the world. Indeed God IS our literal Creator friends! The same language is used in Exodus 20:11 as we see in Gen 2:3 stating the very action taken by God on the 7th day of Creation week.

Further the term “Yom” used in Exodus 20 forms a hard and fast contextual link (same author, same topic, same term, same audience) connecting the “Yom” of Gen 2:3 with the “Yom” (day) of Exodus 20:8-11.

Of course these are just the obvious facts seen clearly in scripture.

But suppose your traditions were opposed to this scripture - how would you obfuscate and misdirect away from these texts? Or would you simply "edit them" to say something they do not?

 

[Eric B]

"Make holy" still does not equate "command everyone else to cease from work on that day immediately and forever".

Exodus 16 shows that it had not already been commanded before, because it was something brand new He was telling them for the first time. Manna had not been ceasing to fall on the day all the time before.

And "duty" still implies man was made for it, and simply slapping 'and it brings with it a blessing' does not change it to being made for man instead. It is first and foremost a duty, and if this was the eternal sign for mans's love for God, then man, who was created to love God, was made for the sabbath.