Commandments of God

[Brakelite]

There is no New Covenant command to meet on Saturday.

Why do you need a Commandment from God to be refreshed just to suit you? You have already admitted that Paul didn't need to repeat the 5th Commandment in Ephesians 6:2, as you said...

Paul wrote was already being taught as a New Covenant command.

But not written right, but was most assuredly practised. No Christian in those times was going to abandon the 5th Commandment and start dishonoring and advising God's parents on account of what Jesus did on Calvary right? No more than they were going to start murdering people, lying to one another, and committing adultery. They knew those things were wrong, that's why Jesus died... because of the transgression of the law, aka sin. But does Fred believe that Jesus didn't die for those who had broken the Sabbath because it wasn't part of the law? Does Fred believe that the early church casually abandoned the Sabbath after 1500 years of Jewish sacred tradition simply because no-one happened to mention it in any of the letters to the churches? No. They didn't. They continued to observe the Sabbath for several centuries, well after the apostles, well after Pentecost, well after decades of Roman pagan persecution, and even well into the era of papal persecution. And one reason Christians were persecuted by the papacy, was because they continued to observe the Sabbath. And guess what. The papacy accused those Sabbath keepers of the same things you are accusing Sabbath keepers today of doing. Rebelling against church authority. Because Fred that's all you've got. A fake authority that claims precedence over the commandments of God. Just like Rome. Continued....

 

[Brakelite]

You are promoting what would be an illegitimate change to the covenant that was ratified by the blood of Christ 2 days before Sunday, a day you claim was made holy by the resurrection, even though there is not a shed of evidence to support such an idea.. No testament once ratified by the death of the testator can be altered. You are 2 days too late. Go back to the plain reading of scripture without your Sunday tinted spectacles clouding your vision. The whole of God's law, without any exceptions, all ten commandments, has been written on the fleshly tables of the heart of those willing to render obedience to the authority of God over their lives. It wasn't half a law, or 3/4, or 9/10ths.

You claim there is no commandment for Sabbath observance in the NT?
The whole law is enforced in the New Testament. James 2:10, 11. "For whosever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said, also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law."
Not a transgressor against just one or two commandments, but a transgressor against the whole law. The "whole law" referred to in this text is the one that says, Thou shalt not kill, and, Thou shalt not commit adultery, and the same law said Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.
To prove again that a stand alone whole law given at Sinai is brought over, we refer to the sermon of Stephen, the martyr who preached this side of the day of Pentecost, when the New Testament was fully in force.
Acts 7:38. "This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel, which spake to him in the mount Sinai and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us."
This shows that the "lively oracles" received on mount Sinai were to be "given unto us," Christians. Stephen takes this law to show men their sins in this dispensation: hence, it must be in force. (See 1 John 3:4) Proof: "Who have received the law by the disposition of angels and have not kept it." This applies equally to the modern church today. They have the scriptures. They freely admit that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God", they quote the scriptures to prove they are "Christian", they have the "lively oracles", they have received the scriptures and had been preserved for them by miracles and the providence of God, "but have not kept it".

 

[Fred]

Why do you need a Commandment from God to be refreshed just to suit you?

Because if it isn't in the New Covenant then it does not have to be obeyed. You focus on the 7th day Sabbath which is never commanded in the New Covenant, but the others are -and that multiple times!

 

[Fred]

You claim there is no commandment for Sabbath observance in the NT?
The whole law is enforced in the New Testament. James 2:10, 11. "For whosever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said, also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law."

No command to obey the 7th day Sabbath Commandment.

Thos who try to obey the 7th day Sabbath (which has been abrogated cf. Hebrews 8:13) as well as any other commands of the Old Covenant will always fall short. (James 2:10)



SDA's make a big deal about the 7th day Sabbath. but when the other 9 Commands are repeated in the New Covenant it is VERY CLEAR.

Acts 7:38. "This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel, which spake to him in the mount Sinai and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us."

This shows that the "lively oracles" received on mount Sinai were to be "given unto us," Christians. Stephen takes this law to show men their sins in this dispensation: hence, it must be in force. (See 1 John 3:4)

God's word is alive, but the Jews rejected it (as Stephen makes clear). Thus, God abrogated the Old Covenant (Hebrews 8:13).

1 John 3:4 is in reference to sinning by breaking a law or laws of the New Covenant,

 

[koberstein]

Because if it isn't in the New Covenant then it does not have to be obeyed. You focus on the 7th day Sabbath which is never commanded in the New Covenant, but the others are -and that multiple times!

So where is the free " get out of Hell" card?

 

[Fred]

So where is the free " get out of Hell" card?

Acts 20:21

 

[Brakelite]

No command to obey the 7th day Sabbath Commandment.

Thos who try to obey the 7th day Sabbath (which has been abrogated cf. Hebrews 8:13) as well as any other commands of the Old Covenant will always fall short. (James 2:10)



SDA's make a big deal about the 7th day Sabbath. but when the other 9 Commands are repeated in the New Covenant it is VERY CLEAR.

The whole ten Commandment law was continued in the NT as the benchmark of righteousness, and will be the measure used in the judgement. There is NO suggestion anywhere, (remember not one tittle or dot) that any commandment would be changed, done away with, cancelled.
KJV Ecclesiastes 12:13-14
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

 

[TomL]

I agree that Jeremiah 31:31-33 is speaking about the New Covenant, furthermore, it states that God will put the Torah in our minds and write it on our hearts, and Hebrews 8:10 quotes Jeremiah 31:33, so you should not interpreted Hebrews 8:10 and 8:13 as contradicting each other.

In Exodus 33:14-17 and Leviticus 24:8, the Mosaic Covenant is eternal, so the only way that the New Covenant can replace it is if it does everything that Mosaic Covenant does plus more, which is what it means to make something obsolete. So the New Covenant still involves following the Torah (Hebrews 8:10), plus it is based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6).


Nowhere does any of the NT authors state that we should only follow the commands that they repeated. Jesus was not in disagreement with the Father about which commands we should follow, so he did not need to repeat any of His commands in order for us to know that we should still obey the Father. Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Torah, so he still would have taught full obedience to it by example even if he hadn't repeated any of its commands, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6). The NT instructs us to repent from our sins and it is by the Torah that we have knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20).

Is it not clear sacrificial law has been abolished

Ceremonial law is no longer obligatory

Galatians 4:9–11 (KJV 1900) — 9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

Colossians 2:16 (ESV) — 16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.

Romans 14:5 (ESV) — 5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

 

[Fred]

There is NO suggestion anywhere, (remember not one tittle or dot) that any commandment would be changed, done away with, cancelled.

Hebrews 8:13 refutes your heresy.

If the entire law (remember not one tittle or jot, not 'dot') has been changed then OT sacrifices are still valid...remember again, not one tittle or jot.

 

[Soyeong]

Is it not clear sacrificial law has been abolished

Ceremonial law is no longer obligatory

There is plenty of room to interpret God's word as promoting rebellion against God if someone is determined to do that, but it is unwise. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus said that he came not to abolish the law and warned against relaxing the least part of it or teaching others to relax the least part of it, so you are calling him a liar and disregarding his warning. Likewise, in Romans 3:31, our faith does not abolish God's law, but rather our faith upholds it.

Galatians 4:9–11 (KJV 1900) — 9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the law is to teach us how to know God and Jesus, which is the content of God's gift of eternal life (John 17:3). In Galatians 4:8-11, Paul addressed those who formerly did not know God, so he was not addressing those who were formerly obeying God's instructions for how to know Him and were returning to following those instructions, but rather he was addressing those who were not formerly obeying those instructions and who were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods, also known as former pagans. As such, they were not formerly keeping God's holy days and Paul could not have been criticizing them for returning to them, so whatever he was referring to them observing in verse 10 is within the context of paganism.

Colossians 2:16 (ESV) — 16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.

That verse leaves room for two possibilities:

1.) They were not keeping God's holy days, they were being judged by Jews for not keeping them, and Paul was encouraging not to let anyone judge them for not keeping them.

2.) They were keeping God's holy days in obedience to God, they were being judged by pagans because they were keeping them, and Paul was encouraging them not to let any man judge them for not keeping them.

In Colossians 2:16-23, Paul described the people who were judging the Colossians as promoting human teachings and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, so they were being judged by pagans, which means that #2 is the case. Those teaching asceticism and severity to the body would not be judging people for refraining from celebrating feasts, but rather they would be judging people for celebrating them. So it is ironic when people try to use this verse as justification for refusing to obey God.

Romans 14:5 (ESV) — 5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

In Romans 14:1, the topic of the chapter is in regard to how to handle disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no command, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow God's commands, not nothing in the chapter should be interpreted as promoting rebellion against God. For example, in Romans 14:2-3, they were judging and resenting each other based on whether someone chose to eat only vegetables even though God gave no command to eat only vegetables. In Romans 14:4-6, Paul spoke about those who were eating or refraining from eating unto the Lord, so he was speaking about those who esteemed certain days for fasting as a disputable matter of opinion. It has become a common practice the 1st century to fast twice a week and people were judging and resenting each other based on whether they chose to do that even though God gave no command to do that. Paul was not suggesting that we are free to rebel against God's commands to keep the Sabbath holy or to refrain from committing murder, idolatry, adultery, theft, rape, kidnapping, favoritism, or any of God's other commands just as long as we are convinced in our own minds that it is ok to rebel against God, but rather that was only said in regard to things that are disputable matters of opinion in which God has give no command. It is important to distinguish between what is said about following the teachings and options of men and what is said about following the commands of God.

 

[Brakelite]

If the entire law (remember not one tittle or jot, not 'dot') has been changed then OT sacrifices are still valid...remember again, not one tittle or jot.

So Hebrews contradicts Jesus? This isn't my heresy. If you are pitting Jesus against Paul, then you are actually saying it is one of their heresies. Care to explain that? Perhaps you need to give both Jesus and Paul some more thought and try to harmonize them? They can be harmonized you know, but are you willing to do that and risk having to change your ideas in order to do so?

 

[TomL]

There is plenty of room to interpret God's word as promoting rebellion against God if someone is determined to do that, but it is unwise. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus said that he came not to abolish the law and warned against relaxing the least part of it or teaching others to relax the least part of it, so you are calling him a liar and disregarding his warning. Likewise, in Romans 3:31, our faith does not abolish God's law, but rather our faith upholds it.

Well it seems to me there is no obligatory need to continue to follow either sacrificial or ceremonial laws in the New covent

Dietary laws, Circumcision, animal sacrifices, laws concerning feast days have all been abolished

In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the law is to teach us how to know God and Jesus, which is the content of God's gift of eternal life (John 17:3). In Galatians 4:8-11, Paul addressed those who formerly did not know God, so he was not addressing those who were formerly obeying God's instructions for how to know Him and were returning to following those instructions, but rather he was addressing those who were not formerly obeying those instructions and who were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods, also known as former pagans. As such, they were not formerly keeping God's holy days and Paul could not have been criticizing them for returning to them, so whatever he was referring to them observing in verse 10 is within the context of paganism.

Well the fact is Paul did in fact criticize them and context shows he was speaking of the law

Galatians 4:8–11 (NASB 2020) — 8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles, to which you want to be enslaved all over again? 10 You meticulously observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.......

Galatians 4:21–31 (NASB 2020) — 21 Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the Law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24 This is speaking allegorically, for these women are two covenants: one coming from Mount Sinai giving birth to children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is enslaved with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. 27 For it is written: “REJOICE, INFERTILE ONE, YOU WHO DO NOT GIVE BIRTH; BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR; FOR THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE ONE ARE MORE NUMEROUS THAN THOSE OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND.” 28 And you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But as at that time the son who was born according to the flesh persecuted the one who was born according to the Spirit, so it is even now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “DRIVE OUT THE SLAVE WOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE SLAVE WOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN.” 31 So then, brothers and sisters, we are not children of a slave woman, but of the free woman.

It is quite clear the old Covenant is in view

In Colossians 2:16-23, Paul described the people who were judging the Colossians as promoting human teachings and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, so they were being judged by pagans, which means that #2 is the case. Those teaching asceticism and severity to the body would not be judging people for refraining from celebrating feasts, but rather they would be judging people for celebrating them. So it is ironic when people try to use this verse as justification for refusing to obey God.

Colossians 2:16–17 (NASB 2020) — 16 Therefore, no one is to act as your judge in regard to food and drink, or in respect to a festival or a new moon, or a Sabbath day—17 things which are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

compare

Romans 14:5–6 (ESV) — 5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Such observances are not obligatory

In Romans 14:1, the topic of the chapter is in regard to how to handle disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no command, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow God's commands, not nothing in the chapter should be interpreted as promoting rebellion against God. For example, in Romans 14:2-3, they were judging and resenting each other based on whether someone chose to eat only vegetables even though God gave no command to eat only vegetables. In Romans 14:4-6, Paul spoke about those who were eating or refraining from eating unto the Lord, so he was speaking about those who esteemed certain days for fasting as a disputable matter of opinion. It has become a common practice the 1st century to fast twice a week and people were judging and resenting each other based on whether they chose to do that even though God gave no command to do that. Paul was not suggesting that we are free to rebel against God's commands to keep the Sabbath holy or to refrain from committing murder, idolatry, adultery, theft, rape, kidnapping, favoritism, or any of God's other commands just as long as we are convinced in our own minds that it is ok to rebel against God, but rather that was only said in regard to things that are disputable matters of opinion in which God has give no command. It is important to distinguish between what is said about following the teachings and options of men and what is said about following the commands of God.

Context as shown above disputes that

 

[Fred]

So Hebrews contradicts Jesus?

You contradict Jesus because He loves what Hebrews says.

How are your animal sacrifices? - remember, "not one tittle or jot."

 

[TomL]

So Hebrews contradicts Jesus? This isn't my heresy. If you are pitting Jesus against Paul, then you are actually saying it is one of their heresies. Care to explain that? Perhaps you need to give both Jesus and Paul some more thought and try to harmonize them? They can be harmonized you know, but are you willing to do that and risk having to change your ideas in order to do so?

Jesus put an end to those sacrifices

Daniel 9:25–27 (KJV 1900) — 25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

 

[Brakelite]

Jesus put an end to those sacrifices

Daniel 9:25–27 (KJV 1900) — 25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

No argument there. What most people do not appreciate is that there are 2 laws. God's law contained in the Ten Commandments, and the Mosaic law, the laws governing sacrifices and temple services that was added because of transgressions against God's laws. It is God's laws that Jesus referred to as never being changed... Not one jot or tittle. Not my words, Jesus.

 

[TomL]

No argument there. What most people do not appreciate is that there are 2 laws. God's law contained in the Ten Commandments, and the Mosaic law, the laws governing sacrifices and temple services that was added because of transgressions against God's laws. It is God's laws that Jesus referred to as never being changed... Not one jot or tittle. Not my words, Jesus.

It is my position that laws governing sacrifice, temple service, feast days, and dietary prohibition were all no longer obligatory. The moral law was summed up by Christ to love God with all your heart and your neighbor as your self. That we are to do

 

[Fred]

No argument there. What most people do not appreciate is that there are 2 laws. God's law contained in the Ten Commandments, and the Mosaic law, the laws governing sacrifices and temple services that was added because of transgressions against God's laws.

Nehemiah 8 makes no distinction.

 

[Brakelite]

It is my position that laws governing sacrifice, temple service, feast days, and dietary prohibition were all no longer obligatory. The moral law was summed up by Christ to love God with all your heart and your neighbor as your self. That we are to do

Loving God with all my heart, soul, mind body, means obeying Him in all things. Because there is no scripture suggesting that the 4th Commandment has been removed, then it is reasonable to assume it hasn't been. I agree concerning the sanctuary system and its associated Sabbaths, sacrifices, services etc. The dietary laws however from my point of view weren't a part of the sanctuary system. They were separate again, and were God's revelation to the world, through His servants Israel, concerning good health and healing. It wasn't just diet. It was also sanitation, and hygiene, all sound scientific practical steps to keep a people healthy, alive, and at the their best physical stature that they may serve God and each other with the greatest strength possible. This honours God, but a human race that is dying of heart disease, blood disorders, weakened immune systems, and a general breakdown of organ function dishonors God. What does the NT say about honouring God?

 

[Brakelite]

Nehemiah 8 makes no distinction.

Why would you choose that when God and Moses made the distinction very clear. The Ten Commandments were written by the finger of God in some signifying it's permanence, and placed inside the ark which was a type of the throne of God, signifying that the laws of God written in stone were the foundation of God's government everywhere.
The laws of Moses, those pertaining to the sanctuary and it's associated rituals, which did not include the weekly Sabbath, were a type of the ministry of Christ, were written in a book, and placed on the side of the ark showing their impermanence.

 

[Brakelite]

Nehemiah 8 makes no distinction.

I think you may misunderstand the purposes of each law.
The Ten Commandments, which inform us are based on love, are God's moral code and a reflection/transcript of His character. In the middle of that law is the 4th Commandment that comprises the name, the title, and the extent of the kingdom of the Lawmaker, which acts as His seal on the law. Throw away the seal, and the remaining 9 could belong to any false wannabe god on the planet. When Isaiah said
KJV Isaiah 8:16
16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples
He was mirroring Jeremiah's prophecy of writing the law on the mind and the heart. Any transgression against God's law is sin.
KJV 1 John 3:4
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
We are all guilty of sin. All of us have transgressed God's laws in one way or another. The remedy?

The gospel. The gospel is the solution to the sin problem. The removal of God's law or any part of it is nowhere suggested in scripture as being part of the solution to the sun problem. How could it be? It identified sin. How could the removal of that which identifies sin lead engineer to Christ who forgives and heals? The laws of Moses were the remedy for transgressing. The sanctuary services, the sacrifices, the rituals, the annual Sabbaths, and the priesthood, was the gospel for Israel. It was all that was available in the world, and everyone was invited. Provision was made throughout those laws for gentiles and foreigners to join Israel and submit to the gospel... Which was active until Christ became the true and type met antitype.

The civil laws pertained to Israel as a theocracy. They were destined to order society and become a testimony to the world glorifying God that they were blessed by God and were a well ordered disciplined society worthy of all acceptance and honour.

The health laws were simply that. Honour those laws and live healthy and long. Ignore them and get sick and die.

So. Different laws all with different purposes. And all of them having important and even vital lessons that we would do well to understand and as far as they pertain to us as children of the living God, obey and emulate.