Posted on 06/27/2017 7:15:05 PM PDT by imardmd1
Some groups today, such as the Seventh-day Adventists, teach that keeping the seventh-day Sabbath is a perpetual moral law meant for all people, and that not keeping it is a sign of apostasy and disloyalty to God. They base their belief on Genesis 2:1–3, which tells of God resting after His creative work and then sanctifying the Sabbath day, and on the fourth commandment. They also argue that the New Testament teaches the continuity of seventh-day Sabbath observance by Christ’s followers, even after Christ’s death. These beliefs, however, are misguided. There is no universal moral obligation given in Genesis 2 to keep the Sabbath. Christ’s finished work on the cross, moreover, abrogated the Mosaic law, and thus the fourth commandment no longer applies to Christians.
< snip >
What would be possible on the Sabbath? Jesus attended synagogue, worshiped God, taught and applied the Scriptures, performed deeds of mercy and encouraged others to do the same, and He no doubt rested from some of His usual labor.
If there is a principle that one day in seven belongs to God, then it should be used to arrest us from our normal pursuits and allow us to devote more attention to God’s Word and work, but Christians are not obligated to observe the Sabbath, nor are they committing apostasy if they exercise their Christian liberty not to observe the Sabbath.
*****
This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 26, number 2 (2003)
(Excerpt) Read more at equip.org ...
Luke 22:36 wasn’t a general rule for the population but it was a certain circumstance occurring at the time. The other “commands” were common sense or generic in nature. Forgiving and praying and other things weren’t exactly new concepts but He was re-enforcing them for the trials ahead.
He did. He said so. You must have skipped over it.
John 13:34-35
That's only because you're viewing it through the prism of the modern day notion that Jesus abandoned the sabbath that he created.
Genesis 1:14 shows that one of the primary reasons for the creation of heavenly bodies was to allow man to know WHEN God's sabbaths are. The Good News Bible puts it this way:
(GNB) Then God commanded, "Let lights appear in the sky to separate day from night and to show the time when days, years, and religious festivals begin;
You may be familiar with something like the King James where it says:
(KJV) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
The word translated "seasons" isn't winter, spring, summer and fall...but is indeed the very same word which refers to God's holy days...including his sabbath. Literally it's "appointed times".
Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
Joh 13:35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.
Lev 19:18 You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.
Lev_19:34 The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Same stuff. What's NEW is it's application...a spiritual love that surpasses physical love that can only exist under the new covenant. John sums up this "new" commandment:
The New Commandment
1Jn 2:7 My dear friends, I am not writing to give you a new commandment. It is the same one that you were first given, and it is the message you heard.
1Jn 2:8 But it really is a new commandment, and you know its true meaning, just as Christ does. You can see the darkness fading away and the true light already shining.
1Jn 2:9 If we claim to be in the light and hate someone, we are still in the dark.
1Jn 2:10 But if we love others, we are in the light, and we don't cause problems for them.
John 13:34,35 wasn’t exactly a new concept. Jesus is putting positive dynamics into what had became a negative concept. Instead of not killing my neighbor and stealing from him and bearing false witness against him, we are to do something positive for him. The Golden Rule was not a new concept because eastern religions had incorporated it into their ideals. Jesus was emphasizing that His life had been dedicated to others and to emulate that was the way to direct mankind to God by this example. The way to mens souls is to show this compassion daily.
To amplify on Luke 22:35, 36 Here Jesus is taking them on Memory Lane. Remember when I sent you two by two? Of course they did. Many great things happened on their tour and they were cordially received. Jesus was at the height of His popularity. Now things were different. Jesus was putting a more somber mood in them because they would be subject to persecution and suspicion. The sword symbolized to be “on their guard”. An hour or two later (this very night) Peter would use a sword and Jesus rebuked him.
Luke 22:36 is good for all Christians in this kingdom of Satan, priest, pastor, nurse, teacher, pope, or whoever that is accountable enough to have been regenerated. Had my first real gun at 12, although my Methodist minister Dad didn't insist that take it to Sunday school.
I'm beginning to think you like to put your own selectivity on what is imperative, prescribed, or conditional. What Jesus said to his disciples in Luke 22:36 has exactly the same construction as in Luke 9:23 to "take up his cross and follow"
Context shows that carnal means are not to be used to advance the gospel, but for defense of one and others against animals, human or otherwise, is not forbidden but rather recommended.
The other “commands” were common sense or generic in nature. Forgiving and praying and other things weren’t exactly new concepts but He was re-enforcing them for the trials ahead.
This seems to be a casual treatment of four of Christ's ordinances that are a part of that fifty, and not meant for anyone but His Own:
o Water baptism (Mt. 28:19, Acts 2:38)
o Participating in the Remembrance Supper (Mt. 26:26-28, 1 Cor. 11:23-26
o Recruiting, inducting, and training more disciples (Mt. 28:18-20, Jn. 15:16)
o (Jn. 13:34-35, 1 Jn. 3:11, 16)
Matthew 26:52-54 AV:
"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take
the sword shall perish with the sword.
Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me
more than twelve legions of angels?
But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?"
That's a rebuke? He just said to put the sidearm away, not get rid of it. A rebuke would be like this when Peter reprimanded Him for prophesying His crucifixion:
Matthew 16:23-25 AV:
"But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me:
for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself,
and take up his cross, and follow me.
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life
for my sake shall find it."
Now, that's a rebuke, and before all Peter's associates.
Same stuff.
No, it is not the same stuff.
Your neighbor is not your brother.
Your fellow faithful disciple is your brother, more even than another issue of your mother's womb, should he/she be unsaved and content in that state.
Your neighbor is your enemy, still obedient to the god of this world, sometimes bitterly so. You cannot love them with disciple love, for they do not have the spiritual faculty to receive it, sadly.
Respect and love them as a neighbor, yes; but as a brother/sister in Christ, not possible.
And that is why John's Gospel is written to the neighbor, in a loving way (Jn. 20:31), but John's first epistle is written only to those born-again believers whom he can call "brothers" (1 Jn. 1:3,4; 5:18-20).
So don't misapply them, as does the paraphrase you cite here. And I may say, if a citation is to be made, let me suggest that you acknowledge it, or it will just be taken as your opinion, not as the infallible inerrant, verbally and plenarily inspired preserved and faithfully translated Word of God.
They cannot give or take this kind of love. To think otherwise is to expect too much of them. They need first to be converted, then regenerated.
But we're getting a long way from the topic at hand: Should we keep the Sabbath?
"If" is a big word. God can love and hate at the same time. He hates Sin as a human's master, and sinning as its outcome. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, obtain forgiveness of sins, and fight Satan. That's work, and none of them stop on Shabbas.
And neither does he claim to be God.
No? Isaiah, prompted by Jehovah prophesied to Israel, to the House of David (one of hundreds in the Bible):
"Therefore the Lord1 himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin2 shall conceive,
and bear a son3, and shall call his name Immanuel4" (Isa 7:14 AV).
---------
Notes:
1 Adonai (used as a proper name of God only in Tanakh)
2 LXX παρθένος (parthenos, noun, feminine, truly virgin, )
3 not "a son," but "Son" as proper title of "The Only Begotten of God the Father"
4 Immanuel; transliterated from Hebrew, and into Greek LXX as "Εμμανουηλ"
The preparation for the sign, the birth of (Beloved) Son, came about four hundred and forty-five years later to Joseph of Nazareth, a son of David:
"Behold, aThe virgin2 shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son3, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, TheGod with us5" (Mt. 1:23 AV).
Notes:
2 as above, but articulate, specifies one particular virgin prophesied; translated should be "The Virgin" as a proper noun; compares to Note 2 above
3 anarthrous, "Son" as title, a proper noun; compares to Note 3 above
4 Emmanuel transliterated from the TR Greek εμμανουηλ, anarthrous, also a title of The Son; compare with note 4 above
5 translation of the Hebrew; "God" is articulate, should be "The God" referring to Jehovah; note "with us"
So the angel instructed for Joseph to marry the pregnant Mary, his Espoused, still physically virgin, and give the baby the Hebrew title Emmanuel, and for the child's name to be Jesus (= Savior in Hebrew). But to Mary, the angel also said:
"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God6" (Lk. 1:35 AV).
Note 6: both "son" and "god" are anarthrous, the words then demonstrate qualities, thus the words consist of a title "God's Son"
Mary is told that her firstborn son's title shall be "Son of God."
At the very beginning of His public ministry, John Baptizer and other men who were to become His disciples identified Him as "God's Son":
"And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God" (Jn. 1:34 AV; both "son" and "god" are articulated).
"Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel" (Jn. 1:49 AV).
Regarding the religious leaders of the day:
"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was,
Before the Sanhedrin, trying Him for a capital offense:
"Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am" (Lk. 22:70 AV). At the Cross:
"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost" (Lk. 23:46 AV).
"And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God" (Mk.15:39 AV; cf Mt 27:54).
Before His ascension, He commissioned the eleven disciples, delegating His authority, and said:
". . . lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Mt. 28:20c,d,e AV). He fulfilled and continued the promise of Isaiah and Gabriel, He is Emmanuel, God with us. He commended the disciples thus: I am with youall, unto the end of this eon.
Is Jesus of Nazareth, born of Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, died on the Cross for us, raised for our justification, ascended to Heaven to obtain reconciliation, sitting at the right hand of the Father--is He God? YES!
Delegating His authority as the highest in Heaven and on Earth: ". . . baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: . . ." (Mt. 28:19 AV). One Name, three manifestations, of the same indivisible substance, and the Name that includes them all as the UniPlural Godhead is:
Sure, the locations and paths of most of the heavenly bodies are very predictable, and give us a benchmark for calculations of times and seasons. But there is still no intimation of Sabbaths in the Bible until the time of Moses.
It will be interesting to see what is the prime reference point for the Hebrew calendar of years and months that are recorded.
Whoa! It isn't recorded that Adam rested on the Sabbath, simply because there was no Sabbath to record. And even if there was, The Holy Spirit provided no recorder of it.
Quad erat demonstrandum.
Like most of God's plan of dealing with mankind, Which was progressively revealed over thousands of years (though we have it all now summed up in our completed record, the Bible), there are lots and lots of things that mankind is not accountable for knowing, but especially not for certifying that which is still not known, and never was divulged to us. On some natural science level, the use of the human mind and marvelous materials have let us discern truths that the Bible does not even consider as affecting our eternal disposition.
God's Holy Scriptures are complete and comprehensive, but not exhaustive.
"The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deut. 29:29 AV)
That's a rebuke.
And to distill it even further, "Should we keep the Law". Most Christians don't have a BIG problem with the other nine, do they? Why keep the Law? We're under Grace, aren't we? The Law of Liberty sets us free to do our desires. God is a merciful God and loves me and wouldn't send ME to Hades, would He?
Same thing the people of Noahs time said. They were ordinary people in an ordinary society. You may think of them as depraved felons but they were in societies. They had jobs. But the ONE thing they did not do was put God first in their lives. They would not submit to His Law. They felt free to do their own thing.
.
>> “Why keep the Law? We’re under Grace, aren’t we?” <<
How can you possibly expect Yehova’s grace if you reject his plan for righteousness?
Matthew 7:21-23 plainly says you can’t.
.
And because it is not recorded, either way, you are wagering your eternal soul on the outcome. You didn't address the other points in the same posting.
>> “He did.” <<
No, really he didn't.
The commandment to love is as old as all of the others, and the only thing that was “new” was the level of love that Yeshua brought, in sacrificing his own life for his sheep.
As John plainly stated:
1John 2:
[7] Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.
[8] Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.
Yeshua's blood is the only new thing, and the thing required to Renew the Covenant
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.