1015. Christ taught out of the Scriptures, Luke 24:27
Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
This verse is found in the account of that most fascinating encounter of two weary and discouraged disciples who were headed home on the road to Emmaus. An apparent stranger joined with them as they were walking, and joined in the conversation.
This is one conversation I wish we had the details in full. There are those who claim to have “the rest of the story,” and assert we must accept the tradition preserved by their church, because the Bible does not give the full record of all Jesus said and did.
I have publically challenged those who make this claim to give full proof of it by sharing with the rest of us poor benighted souls that information their church possesses which they claim we do not. Furnish a link to that recorded Tradition, so I and I’m sure many others who are most interested can read “the rest of the story.” Since this message of our Lord Jesus Christ was given twice on that day, surely the “One True Church” has not lost the full account so briefly given by Luke.
No one has ever yet furnished me that all-important link. To me that is proof enough that this church does not have what it claims to have, “The Rest of the Story.”
But Luke does furnish an amazing key to what the rest of the story must have been on that Road to Emmaus in Luke 24:26,
Luke 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
The lesson our Lord Jesus Christ taught out of the Scriptures that day can be given under a two-point outline: (1) First the suffering, (2) then the glory.
This is the divinely provided key that unlocks Messianic Prophecy.
Peter makes reference to this crucial key in his first letter,
1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
A careful study of the Messianic Prophecies alluded to by Christ and Peter fully substantiates the validity of this key. The key comes straight out of the Bible itself in what we call the Old Testament. I have given those references most fully in Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible at this very passage. A number of the prophecies specify exactly this order–first the suffering, then the glory–in the context of a single literary unit, such as Psalm 22, where verses 1-21 speak of the Suffering Messiah, but verses 22-31 speak of the Glory of the Messiah. Again, in Psalm 69, verses 1-21 speak of the Suffering Messiah, while verses 30-36 speak of His future Glory. You can learn much more by consulting the cross references given at 1 Peter 1:11 in either The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible.
Very clearly, the Bible is a self-explanatory Book. It is understandable. By comparing Scripture with Scripture, we can learn just what it is that our Lord Jesus Christ must have taught the two disciples on the Road to Emmaus from the Bible itself.
Have you ever noticed that Christ appeals to the Bible, the Scriptures, as the basis for His teaching? He never appeals to Tradition. We need to be sure that we follow His example.
Make sure you are deriving your spiritual food from the right source! Any other source outside the Bible itself is spiritual poison, and most definitely will lead only to spiritual death.
I have used strong words because this is a most crucial issue. It is a matter of spiritual life or spiritual death. You must choose spiritual life if ever you are to have it. If you disagree with me, please leave a comment and I will be most pleased to discuss this further. If you agree, you are also encouraged to leave a comment if you wish.
hello jerry i appreciate your points on lk 24, i pe 1/11. the lord went to the old testament to show how his resurrection was clearly taught by moses and the prophets. that is great example for us to remember because the world system, the devil, and our old fleshly nature tries to take us away for the main issue of the gospel i jn 2-15-17. paul in i cor 15/1-4 the core of the gospel is the lords death,burial and ressurection that is the true gospel. i cor 15/17 ” and if christ be not raised,your faith is vain; ye are yeat in your sins.
hello jerry i really like this poem by martin luther, ” gods unchanging word”for feelings come and feelings go,and feelings are deceiving; my warrant is the word of god,naught else is worth believing. though all my heart should feel condemned for want of some sweet token,there is one greater than my heart whose word cannot be broken. i’ll trust in gods unchanging word till my soul and body sever, for,though all things shall pass away, his word shall stand forever.” psm 119/89 forever,o lord,thy word is settled in heaven.
Jerry said:Have you ever noticed that Christ appeals to the Bible, the Scriptures, as the basis for His teaching? He never appeals to Tradition. We need to be sure that we follow His example.
Why do MOST Christians today subscribe to tradition instead of what the Law of God commands?
Dear A. Way,
You ask a very good question.
I suspect most Christians today simply go by what they have been taught by their pastor or Sunday school teacher, and perhaps what they have been taught from denominational literature.
I am not so sure that Robinson Crusoe on his lonely desert island would ever run into that problem with his three good plain text Bibles, even after years of careful study on his own.
But some who would criticize other Christians about subscribing to “what the Law of God commands” are themselves entangled in a soul-destroying and damning Tradition of the opposite sort (Galatians 5:4), and adamantly and utterly close their minds and hearts to the truth of the Word of God in the New Testament which teaches they are enslaved to a more damaging error than those they criticize.
It is no doubt a “tradition” to make one’s central focus “what the Law of God commands.”
The New Testament surely emphasizes obedience (Check the cross references carefully given for Luke 11:28; John 13:17; and Hebrews 5:9). But that obedience is not focused on the Ten Commandment Law, or the Mosaic Law, or the Ceremonial Law, but the Law of Christ. The New Testament emphasizes obeying the “commandments of Christ.”
There has been a serious shortcoming in all denominations, far as I am aware, in failing to place an emphasis upon obedience to the commands of Christ.
One of my brightest high school Sunday school pupils, a girl named Peggy, asked a very thought-provoking question when we read from 1 John, chapter 2, particularly verse 3. She asked, “Jerry, just what are the commands of Christ?” She commented further that she was aware of Christ’s “new commandment,” that we love one another, but couldn’t pinpoint in her mind just then what the rest of the commandments of Christ must be. She noted that there must be more than just one commandment of Christ, since in 1 John 2:3 it speaks of keeping “his commandments,” and “commandments” is plural. John himself gives the answer in 1 John 3:23, “And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.”
I told her I would bring an answer the next Sunday, supposing it would be easy to find a comprehensive listing of the commands of Christ in one or another of the many reference works I have on the Bible.
I checked every source I had, and at least at first, found no such listing of Christ’s commandments.
I decided to find them on my own by studying the New Testament. I thought the task ought to be very easy, since a commandment would normally be given in the imperative mood in the Greek text. I listed all the imperatives found in the words of Christ himself that I could find. But I wasn’t entirely satisfied.
Dake in his Annotated Study Bible employs special markings at each verse which help identify commands, prophecies, etc. I checked out the verses he had marked as commands. I seem to recall that he also listed them all elsewhere in his study Bible.
I think I found the best listing in Nave’s Study Bible. This is a different work than Nave’s Topical Bible, and is a most valuable work.
I finally made my own list by reading the red letter text in the four Gospels and noting the commands I found.
I think it must have been well over ten years later that I completed the study, and presented my results in the note at 1 John 2:3 in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge.
Traditionally, Evangelical Bible believing Christians have not emphasized this Bible study topic because of their stance against the errors of the Roman Catholic Church, for it essentially teaches a works-based salvation. That may explain why no such complete listing of the commandments of Christ is presented in the sources one might expect to contain the list. It is the result of a false doctrine called “antinomianism” which has crept in unawares into many otherwise good Bible believing circles.
This has been a problem for a good while. Somewhere in my collection of reference works here I have Fletcher’s lengthy work, Checks to Antinomianism.
But the proper balance is to be found by carefully heeding what our Lord Jesus Christ personally revealed to the Apostle Paul. In his day Paul was severely criticized by some of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, Pharisees, for teaching against the Mosaic Traditions. The Council of Jerusalem reported in Acts 15 exonerated him of this charge.
Most crucial in the Acts 15 account is verse 5,
and the judgment rendered as reported in verse 24,
Most certainly, keeping the Seventh-day Jewish Sabbath is part and parcel of what was condemned regarding the alleged requirement, and keep the law, and the answer is just as clear when the Apostles responded, “to whom we gave no such commandment.”
This false charge of teaching against Moses leveled against Paul was later urged against him by Jews (not Christian Jews) who were the enemies of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Paul was personally commissioned by Jesus Christ Himself as His witness to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15). Paul got his teaching content directly from Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11, 12).
Paul wrote at least 13, probably 14 of the books in the New Testament. His most substantial theological writing is to be found in the book of Romans. But all his writings are important to study. We must take care not to run afoul of the balance of truth presented in the writings of Paul.
Among other things of great importance, we must not miss the truth that Paul declares the Gospel of Christ “is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16). Paul follows that statement immediately by citing the Old Testament truth, “The just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:17).
Those who have placed their faith in Christ have been made new creatures. For them, old things have passed away, all things are become new (2 Corinthians 5:17). They have experienced this regenerative change wrought by the Holy Spirit when they truly placed their faith in Christ.
The focus of this new life in Christ is not upon obedience to law, whatever law might be named, but the change in inner character and disposition wrought by the power of Christ when we place our faith in Him and become “a new creation.”
This new life in Christ and the accompanying indwelling of the Holy Spirit produces the fruit of the Spirit, “against such there is no law.”
That is the Biblical focus, our new creation in Christ, our new life in Christ, our “union with Christ.”
That does not mean, as some who over-emphasize the law so often falsely and slanderously charge, that this must mean we are free to break the remaining nine commandments, seeing that the Fourth Commandment has effectively been disposed of.
Anyone who says or thinks that has the wrong focus spiritually to start with. Paul clearly said “Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh” (Galatians 5:16) and “if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law” (Galatians 5:18).
The New Testament focus is upon regenerative change, which produces a new life in Christ, a life where the Holy Spirit indwells the believer, and produces the fruit of the Spirit.
It is the work of Christ by His Atonement and by his work in us by means of regenerative change that produces godly living and true holiness by means of the power of the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. True life in Christ overcomes sin and the devil. Christ not only forgives our sins, He removes the power of sin from our lives. Actually, the Greek text seems to emphasize repeatedly that our sins are not merely forgiven, they are removed.
This great truth will be much clearer when my scholar friend Dr. Malcolm Lavender completes and publishes his Lavender New Testament which is designed to address these truths more accurately than has been done before.
Dr. Lavender wrote a significant book titled The Fallacy of the “Sinning Christian” which is his “call to reform.” I think the title says it all. It is no doubt available from http://www.crisispub.com, along with his other works, all of them important. One need not agree with every nuance of his theology, but his central emphasis is most Biblical and therefore correct.
Now the question you must address is, is your focus the focus of the New Testament, in accordance with the balance and emphasis of its total teaching, especially the teaching found in the writings of Paul?
hello jerry i really enjoy your website because i always learn something and its from the word! my understanding is that” i was saved from the penalty of sin by believing that christ died for me and rose again icor 15/1-4 i rested in his finished word jn 19/30 rom 4/5. i can be saved from the power of sin by believing that i died with christ rom 6/6,6/3,col2/20,gal 2/20 and that he is my life col 3/1-4 gal 2/20, ph 1/21,rom 6/11 i cor 15/22. as a saved person i must rest upon his finished work heb 4/9-11. the great truth of substitution is that christ died for me. to be justified i must believe this truth. the great truth of identification is that i died with christ. to grow in holiness and christ-likeness[santification] i must believe this truth”. notes from george zeller, mtbc “living by faith” . faith is the key to victory in the christian life i jn 5/4-5, gal 2/20. i received christ as my saviour by faith jn 1/12 and in the same way i am to walk and live the christian life col 2/5-6 ii cor 5/7, gal 3/1-3 it is not by fleshly trying or struggling,but is by faith. its is not my working heb 4/10 but its god working in me ph 2/13, heb 13/21. it is for me to actively and whole-heartedly trust in him to do his great working in and through me. george zellers note have been a great blessing and want to share it with others and always search the scriptures to see if these things are so act 17/11.
Jerry said:Jerry said:Have you ever noticed that Christ appeals to the Bible, the Scriptures, as the basis for His teaching? He never appeals to Tradition. We need to be sure that we follow His example.
You said, we need to be sure to follow His example! And most Christians do not.
Jerry said:It is no doubt a “tradition” to make one’s central focus “what the Law of God commands.”
Jesus said:
Exodus 20:6 AKJV And showing mercy to thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Deuteronomy 5:10 AKJV And showing mercy to thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.
Deuteronomy 7:9 AKJV Know therefore that the LORD your God, he is God, the faithful God, which keeps covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;
Deuteronomy 19:9 AKJV If you shall keep all these commandments to do them, which I command you this day, to love the LORD your God, and to walk ever in his ways; then shall you add three cities more for you, beside these three:
Joshua 22:5 AKJV But take diligent heed to do the commandment and the law, which Moses the servant of the LORD charged you, to love the LORD your God, and to walk in all his ways, and to keep his commandments, and to hold to him, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul.
Nehemiah 1:5 AKJV And said, I beseech you, O LORD God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keeps covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments:
Daniel 9:4 AKJV And I prayed to the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;
John 14:15 AKJV If you love me, keep my commandments.
John 14:21 AKJV He that has my commandments, and keeps them, he it is that loves me: and he that loves me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
John 15:10 AKJV If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.
1 John 5:2-3 AKJV By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
Revelation 12:17 AKJV And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Tradition to keep the Law of God? I think not. He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches…
Dear A. Way,
Nowhere in the Bible are the Ten Commandments said to have been given for or to the Gentiles.
Nowhere in the Bible are the Ten Commandments said to have been given to or for the Church, particularly the Church of this age or dispensation.
The Ten Commandments were given to the Hebrew nation alone.
Does that mean we are free to ignore or disobey the morality those commandments require of the Jews? That has not been affirmed on my part, though your comments never acknowledge this fact. But those commandments, in and of themselves, are nowhere said in the New Testament to be the focus of our Christian life, and they are certainly not a means to our receiving eternal life.
I don’t see anything in what you presented that accounts for the new Revelation given by our Lord Jesus Christ after His resurrection to the Gentile Church through the Apostle Paul. You don’t even mention it. But this is the whole core of the issue.
I don’t recall you EVER ONCE affirming that genuine Christians by grace alone through faith in Christ alone have the Holy Spirit, who produces the regenerative change in the life of each individual believer that produces the fruit of the Spirit, “against which there is no law.”
On what basis do you affirm, “…MOST Christians today subscribe to tradition instead of what the Law of God commands?”
Please explain the basis of this affirmation.
Jerry said: they are certainly not a means to our receiving eternal life.
We are not saved by works of law. You cleverly try to bring that argument in. Those that keeps the commandments are trying to be saved by doing those commandments. NO.
Romans 3:27-28 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? No: but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Does that mean we are now free to break the law? NO.
Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Matthew 5:17-18 “You must not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; 18 I have not come to abolish them but to complete them. Indeed, I assure you that, while Heaven and earth last, the Law will not lose a single dot or comma until its purpose is complete.
The Bible, not tradition, was the watchword of the Reformation. The whole Bible was regarded as God’s holy Word.
Andreas Karlstadt, contemporary and co-reformer with Luther. Karlstadt also emphasized the importance of justification by faith and pointed out that good works are never to be seen as “merits”. But he pointed out to Luther that throwing out the moral law was contrary to scriptural teaching. He strongly asserted that the moral law was still the divine standard by which the obedience of grace is demonstrated in the life. Do we then abolish the law? No! We become “lovers and doers of the law.”
Karlstadt stressed that “the full gospel of Christ” must include not only justification by faith but also sanctification, or a “new supernatural life,” lived in harmony with the commandments of God, as the forgiven sinner gives himself to Christ in complete self-surrender and total commitment.
Karlstadt saw the moral law as the continuing standard of the Christian life, but at first he excluded the Sabbath command. As he continued to study, he realized that God did not place the command in the middle of the Decalogue by mistake. So he began to advocate Sabbath keeping. But he did not associate it with the 7th day.
Luther condemned the whole idea as legalism but pointed out that to be consistent, Karlstadt would have to keep Saturday. Some of Karlstadt’s followers took Luther’s words seriously and searched the scriptures to see if these things were so.
Oswald Glait, about 1529, became the first to point out that the true Sabbath was the “seventh” day. Glait pointed out that the moral law of the Decalogue was as binding on Christians under the new covenant as it had been in the Old. “Either the Sabbath must be kept,” he argued, “or all the other nine commandments must also be rejected.”
He maintained that the ceremonial law was the shadow that passed away, but God’s moral law stands firm. “Sunday,” he said, “is the pope’s invention,” and the abrogation of the Sabbath is none other than “the devil’s work.”
Others took up the message and Sabbath keeping churches sprung up in Moravia, Bohemia and spread to other European countries. The Seventh-day Baptists are direct descendants of this movement.
Tradition? I think not.
It should be noted that the Reformation failed at the Council of Trent in 1562, because the Reformers did not follow Sola Scriptura. On what point did they not follow scripture? The 4th commandment. Most reformers worshiped on Sunday, the Papal day, which is contrary to scripture. On this point Christians today keep tradition or men, and not the Bible.
Oh, my.
That all-important Fourth Commandment again.
This is where you are stuck in a theological “RUT” that does not line up with the balance of Biblical teaching AT ALL.
That Rule 21 of my 21 Rules of Interpretation will catch you every time.
It looks like you are solidly “hooked” on a false doctrine.
Why is it false?
Because, as always, you have once again carefully ignored the truth I established that our Lord Jesus Christ personally commissioned the Apostle Paul to present the Gospel of Christ to the Gentiles.
If you are correct, Paul and Jesus could hardly have omitted specific and repeated warnings and cautions against Sabbath-breaking. They would surely have emphasized again and again the importance of the Ten Commandments.
Paul could NEVER have properly written:
Nor could Paul by the authority and direction of our Lord Jesus Christ have possibly written:
But Paul did.
Therefore, by the law of non-contradiction, your position must be false; my position must be true, carefully following Rule 15. Your position violates Rule 15 and Rule 20.
Furthermore, the subject of this discussion thread is Luke 24:27, Christ taught out of the Scriptures.
Take a careful look at that verse:
Just what those things are, “the things concerning himself,” are specified in Luke 24:26,
And these things are surely found “in all the Scriptures.”
It appears to me, comparing your Tradition with the New Testament Scriptures, that your Tradition widely misses the focus stressed in the Bible itself.
Your Tradition is clearly contrary to the explicit teaching of Paul, quoted above from Romans 14:4, 5 and Colossians 2:13-17, and what’s more, if you’ve read my responses to you posted many times over, you know your Tradition is absolutely contrary to the Gospel of Christ and the message of the Gospel that our Lord Jesus Christ personally entrusted to Paul.
Answer this, is the keeping of Sunday sacred, a Biblical teaching or a tradition of men? What is your answer? If it is Biblical, please give the reference commanding it to be so. There is none. Thus, it is a tradition.
Interesting you focus on my supposed “tradition” and not on what I spoke about where the majority of Christians today follow the traditions of men. You also have ignored the difference between the ceremonial laws where were nailed to the cross and the moral law which existed before the giving the 10C which you have acknowledged in the past. My quotes about Karlstadt shows the reformers knew the difference. But today, most protestant denominations are no longer protestant.
As for the Sabbath, it does not save a person, I have shown this repeatedly. Keeping the 10C does not save. It is Jesus Christ that saves. Paul says, we are not to go on sinning. What is the definition of sin? 1 John 3:4, sin is transgression of the law. Paul says, he would not have known what sin was without the law, Romans 7:7! What law is he talking about? The 10C. Romans 7:7 AKJV What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. No, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, You shall not covet. So if the 10C is still important as the Reformers believed, then that means all the commandments are important, the 4th included which you hate.
What is important about the 4th commandment? Exodus 10 tells us that it a memorial to creation, which atheist deny. BTW – I suspect there are no atheist reading this blog, but I digress. The Sabbath is a sign that points to the Creator. Exodus 31:13 AKJV Speak you also to the children of Israel, saying, Truly my sabbaths you shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that you may know that I am the LORD that does sanctify you. Ezekiel 20:20 AKJV And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that you may know that I am the LORD your God. Look how The Message Bible quotes Exodus 31:13, Exodus 31:13 MSG “Tell the Israelites, ‘Above all, keep my Sabbaths, the sign between me and you, generation after generation, to keep the knowledge alive that I am the GOD who makes you holy. Joe Blow can no commit adulter, and steal and lie. But the 4th commandment is the point that directly points to the Creator.
Jesus said, if love Me, keep My commandments, John 14:15,21. Paul agrees! Romans 3:31 AKJV Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yes, we establish the law.
So, is Sunday keeping by Christians tradition? Yes or No???
Dear A. Way,
I always enjoy your challenging comments, so kindly continue to keep them coming!
You stated:
My Answer, Part 1
To answer this question Biblically, we MUST agree with the validity of Rule 22 of my now 22 Rules of Interpretation:
22. Much important truth found in the Bible can only be derived from the Bible by means of necessary inference derived from a careful study and comparison of related Bible passages.
The doctrine of the Trinity is a clear example for those who believe in the Trinity, but it is not clear to those who do not, because the doctrine is derived from a careful comparison of statements throughout the Bible and is derived as the logical conclusion by necessary inference. The practice of infant baptism in New Testament times by the original apostles and meeting as Christians for specifically Christian worship on the First Day or Sunday and not the Seventh Day Sabbath of the Jews are likewise doctrines derived from the New Testament record by necessary inference.
Therefore, in answer to your question, the keeping of Sunday as a time for specifically Christian worship is a practice reported in the New Testament incidentally, but it is there and proven by necessary inference.
But the keeping of Sunday sacred is nowhere the teaching of Scripture, that I am aware of.
Paul explicitly directs us, commands us, not to make this an issue. Therefore, that is the standard for New Testament believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, both by necessary inference and by direct command, no days are to be regarded as more or less sacred than any other.
Otherwise, Paul could never have been divinely inspired to write:
Both attitudes toward the sacredness of any specified day are permissible, but in context Paul definitely prefers and insists upon the second option, namely, to esteem every day alike.
By permission in grace to weaker brethren in the faith (see Paul’s argument from Romans 14:1, “Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions. [2] One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables.” NET Bible) Paul allows for diversity of practice.
Note that by necessary inference Paul identifies those as “weak in the faith” with those who have the most scruples, and by necessary inference Paul identifies as those “stronger brethren in the faith” those who walk in the freedom wherewith Christ has set us free and do not observe or regard such scruples, whether scruples regarding what to eat or the sacredness of specific days or choice of day of worship. Paul allows weaker brethren in the faith to maintain their preference of regarding “one day holier than other days” (Ro 14:5).
But notice Paul’s command regarding this issue of scruples:
Romans 14:4. Who are you to pass judgment on another man’s servant?….
Romans 14:10. But you who eat vegetables only–why do you judge your brother or sister?
The subject arises once again in Paul’s writings, where he gives the explicit COMMAND,
Colossians 2:16. Therefore do not let anyone judge you with respect to food or drink, or in the matter of a feast, new moon, or Sabbath days–[17] these are only the shadow of the things to come, but the reality is Christ!
And, by necessary inference, those Paul recognizes as brethren weaker in the faith are COMMANDED not to pass judgment upon or criticize those brethren stronger in the faith who refuse to be restricted in their freedom in Christ by issues pertaining to what to eat or when to worship.
Therefore, by necessary inference, the only valid and correct conclusion is that the day one chooses to worship, if any day at all, is purely a matter of personal preference, not Biblical command, for Paul teaches us that stronger brethren in the faith are free to “regard every day alike.”
So you say it makes no different, and that there is no command to keep Sunday. There for, I conclude, the keeping of Sunday IS tradition.
It is interesting that you in the past have taken stances such as Revelation 1:10, and defined “Lord’s Day” as Sunday, based on no facts from the Bible. In fact, you have ignored the repeated Bible statements that the 7th-day Sabbath is the Lord’s. In fact, the only day that the LORD blesses was the 7th-day Sabbath, Exodus 20:10-11. Or said this way in Exodus 31:15, the Sabbath is holy to the LORD. In fact, the 7th-day is consistently referred to as the Sabbath of the LORD. You have denied that the Sabbath was given before there were Jews. Yet, Exodus 16 shows the Sabbath existed before Sinai. And Jesus Himself said, that the “Sabbath was made for man”, Mark 2:27. He did not say, the Sabbath was made for Israel. Jesus also said, He was
“LORD of the Sabbath”, Matthew 12:8; Luke 6:5. So, which day is the LORD’s day? Hint: Not Sunday. Additionally, the ceremonial laws were just for the Jews, not the gentiles. The 7th-day Sabbath was for ALL. Exodus 10:20, “…your stranger that is within your gates:”. Again pointing to the difference between the ceremonial Sabbaths and the 7th-day Sabbath.
In our brief discussions, I have not seen from you any understanding of the Jewish feast days. Their purpose, their pointing to the Messiah and His work. The whole Jewish worship system revolved around this theme. I’ve not seen any acknowledgement from you on the difference from the Jewish ceremonial law, and the 10C. The 10C were written by the finger of God on stone, and then put INSIDE the Ark of the Covenant. What do you think that means? The ceremonial law was written by Moses’ handwriting and put BESIDE the Ark. Is this significant? The typology is very interesting. Putting the 10C inside the Ark indicates that the law was to be written on the heart and in the mind. It was permanent, being written on stone. The ceremonial system had a purpose. It directed the people to the coming Messiah and His work. When Jesus came, he fulfilled those things the ceremonial system was pointing to. Thus, it was done away, nailing it to the cross. The ceremonial Sabbaths of the people and the land were not referred to as a “Sabbath of the LORD”, but as “Her Sabbaths”. Hosea 2:11; Lamentations 1:7; 2 Chronicles 36:21; Leviticus 26:34. The 7th-day Sabbath was no more nailed to the cross then any of the other 10 commandments. If the 4th commandment is gone, then ALL of them are gone. But Paul confirms that they are not. Thus they all remain. But the ceremonial law came to fulfillment. Passover being the first feast of the year pointed to the Lamb of God, Jesus and His crucifixion. Immediately following Passover was the Unleavened Bread feast, pointing to the first fruits, the resurrection. Jesus was the first fruits from among the dead, 1 Corinthians 15:20. Bingo, two of the ceremonial Sabbaths gone, fulfilled. The next feast day was Pentecost. This pointed to the out pouring of the Holy Spirit. Is that one now fulfilled? Yes. The first feasts were for the Lord. The remaining feast were for the people. The feast of Trumpets, a warning. Was there a warning given? Yes, at the close of the 2300 day prophesy. Next, the Day of Atonement, pointing to Judgement. The only remaining feast is that of Tabernacles. The gathering of the harvest, the second coming. In Jesus is the fulfillment of the ceremonial law. It was done away with. A Colossians 2:16 says, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:”. The ceremonial Sabbaths were shadows of the Messiah and His work. The 7th-Day Sabbath is not a shadow! This is not being talked abut in Colossians 2:16.
“infant baptism”. The Anabaptist got this right. Rule 22 – nice try… Unless there is a clear “thus saith the Lord”, let the reader be very careful.
One statement you made that I think needs repeating:
Have you ever noticed that Christ appeals to the Bible, the Scriptures, as the basis for His teaching? He never appeals to Tradition. We need to be sure that we follow His example.
Did Jesus regularly worship and teach on the 7th-day Sabbath? Yes. Did He ever command His followers to keep Sunday holy? No. Do the scriptures tell us which day is to be kept holy? Yes, the 7th-day. Did the disciples after Jesus ascension regularly come together to worship and teach on the 7th-day Sabbath? Yes! On Sunday? No.
Conclusion – the christian churches of today keep sunday by Tradition, not by scripture. Scripture clearly teaches that the 7th-day is the Sabbath of the LORD. Never does scripture say that the 1st day is the Sabbath.
Tradition says to keep sunday. Scripture says to keep the 7th-day.
Why was the 7th-day Sabbath given? That is a question all followers of God need to ask. The answer is in the Bible. Tradition wants to change the Bible.
Dear A. Way,
As a result of a locally severe thunderstorm (21,000 are still without power), I’ve had my computers shut off since I last posted. Power was unstable here, and interrupted constantly. In the interim I went to Robinson Crusoe’s Deserted Island and spent my time carefully studying these issues afresh. I have learned some new things which I hope now to share, though having studied so much in concentrated form I may not express it as well or as completely as I could wish. But it helps in careful Bible study to put in writing what we learn. So here is
My Answer, Part 2
In the Gospel of John we have what may be one of the most important clues to understanding the New Testament to be found anywhere in the pages of the Bible:
For the attentive Bible reader, this passage clearly calls attention to two contrasting principles, the reign of law, replaced now by the reign of grace.
The reign of law extends from Moses until the death of Christ on the cross.
The reign of grace extends from the death of Christ until the return of Christ.
Those who believe in Christ by grace through faith are no longer under law of any kind.
Notice 1 Corinthians 9:20 carefully. By Rule 22, necessary inference, Paul indicates that he is not under the law, though he may in some circumstances, in order to win those who are under the law, appear to place himself on the same ground to gain a hearing for his witness.
This passage is tougher to understand. Paul is not under the law, but yet he says he is “under the law to Christ.” But by following the established cross references, from this passage one is immediately led to 1 Corinthians 7:22,
Paul as one who is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman, and being free, is Christ’s servant.
In any case, Paul, commissioned to communicate the Gospel to the Gentiles, yet “to the Jew first” (Romans 1:16), is thus under the law to Christ in fulfilling his commission, and is free to assume the stance required to reach the lost by taking steps to avoid being a stumbling block to them in order to gain a hearing.
Thus, by necessary and logical inference, any person who places themselves under obligation to keep any part of the law is obligated to keep the whole law, for “Cursed is everyone that continueth not IN ALL THINGS which are written in the book of the law to do them.”
Of course this is confirmed by James 2:10,
By necessary inference, since “faith” has now come, we are no longer under the law. While “under the law,” we had no access to “the faith which should afterwards be revealed.” Since that faith has now been revealed in the Gospel of the grace of God, we are no longer under the law.
During His earthly ministry before the Cross, our Lord Jesus Christ placed Himself entirely under the law, and kept the law perfectly, and thus totally fulfilled the law by meeting all its requirements, something no other person has ever managed to do. Once Christ died on the Cross and subsequently was buried and rose again on the third day, the Law was utterly dead, and no longer in force whatsoever in any of its parts, for those who believe in Him and receive His grace.
So we also, who truly believe in Him and are redeemed by His grace, are now dead to the Law,
With reference to the “body of Christ,” the following two cross references supply a sufficient clarification of Paul’s meaning:
By necessary inference, those who believe by grace in Christ unto salvation have been redeemed from under the law, and therefore are no longer under the law.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, and very clearly, by necessary inference, Paul is severely CRITICIZING and surely not approving those that desired to be under the law. Therefore, by necessary inference we learn that it is possible to personally choose to place oneself under the law, and unfortunately, very many persons out of ignorance of the Scripture still do so, but it is very wrong in the extreme to do so because if we place ourselves under the law in any form to even the least degree we have lost our position of freedom and liberty under grace which the work of Christ on the Cross provides for us.
Therefore, by necessary inference, true believers in Christ are absolutely FORBIDDEN to observe the Sabbath Commandment, for to do so removes them from the proper position under grace to the position of being under Law, thus annulling the work of grace Christ did for them when He died on the Cross in their behalf. That is why Paul expresses it elsewhere for those who place themselves under law, “Christ shall profit you nothing.” And again, by necessary inference, that means you have lost your salvation, a truth directly expressed on the same issue and subject by Paul in Galatians 5:4,
This explains most certainly why the Spirit of God by Divine Inspiration directed the writing of our New Testament in such a manner that there is not a single instance of the Fourth Commandment regarding keeping the Sabbath to be found as a command to believers anywhere in the New Testament record.
This most certainly explains why there is not a single example of genuine Christians meeting for the purpose of specifically Christian worship on a Sabbath day, not one.
They knew better than to mix Law with Grace. It can never properly be done, but is a clear violation of the principles taught in the Word of God.
Those who think and practice otherwise show clearly that they have neither studied nor understood the most important doctrine of the grace of God revealed by our Lord Jesus Christ to the Apostle Paul (see especially Ephesians 3:1-12 for a start).
In conclusion,
It is obvious that we are to be led by the Spirit. It is obvious by necessary inference that to place ourselves “under the law” in any manner is to NOT be led of the Spirit. And not to be led of the Spirit is necessarily WRONG.
The Fourth Commandment and its associated requirements UNDER THE LAW were prescribed for the Jews and the nation of Israel from Moses until the death of Christ. The Sabbath, therefore, was an obligation for a specific people who were under the law of Moses.
What has come to be called the Lord’s Day, which in New Testament Scripture is the First Day of the week, is the time designated UNDER GRACE for true believers to gather for worship and service to the Lord Jesus Christ. But unlike the Sabbath, the worship of our Lord Jesus Christ may be extended to any and every day besides under the freedom we have under grace. The Lord’s Day (so called) has no connection with the Mosaic Sabbath whatsoever. It does not replace it. It must not imitate it. It is a day designated by Apostolic practice from the very Resurrection Day until now as a time to gather in joyful remembrance of the Lord Jesus Christ “till he come.”
Is the keeping of Sunday, Tradition YES or NO???? No where is the “Lord’s day” connected with Sunday in the NT. You can not prove that Revelation 1:10 is talking about Sunday from the Bible, and the Bible only. In fact, the ONLY day as being the Lord’s is the 7th day. And THAT is in the Bible.
You make no differentiation of the law in the OT. There were two. Do you deny it? There was the law written on stone by the finger of GOD, place IN SIDE the Ark of the covenant. YES OR NO? There was the law written down by the hand of Moses, which was place beside the Ark. YES OR NO? What is the symbolism? The New Covenant writes the law on the heart and mind. This is symbolized by putting the law inside the Ark. You completely neglect the symbolism of the OT.
Jerry then said this: Therefore, by necessary inference, true believers in Christ are absolutely FORBIDDEN to observe the Sabbath Commandment, for to do so removes them from the proper position under grace to the position of being under Law, thus annulling the work of grace Christ did for them when He died on the Cross in their behalf.
I’m sorry Jerry, IF I were to take your logic, then a true believer in Christ is absolutely FORBIDDEN not to murder. And He MUST commit adultery. And he MUST covet. This is absurd. You eviscerate the ten commandments. What a wonderful world this would be if everyone just followed the 10 commandments. The 10C would truly be the law of liberty. You would not need to lock your doors, or worry about your daughters. You could trust everybody. But no, they are null and void. Why then the 4th? Because it is a mark that says I believe in the God who made the law and created everything, Exodus 31:13, Ezekiel 20:12, Ezekiel 20:20.
As you quoted, Paul asks, should we sin so grace could abound??? GOD FORBID. What is sin? 1 John 3:4, Sin is transgression of the law! Paul is saying NO, we can not transgress the law which is the 10 commandments, the law of love, the law of liberty, as James says, James 1:25, James 2:12.
The Jewish ceremonial law was done away with. The whole system pointed to the coming Messiah and His work. He HAS come! Yet I’m not sure you have any understanding of the Jewish system of worship, at least that you have acknowledged.
Finally, you said that the Sabbath was given to the Jews and the Jews only. Do you not find it interesting that in over 100 languages, that the name of the 7th day of the week is Sabbath, in one form or another? WHY would they have Sabbath for the 7th day, if it were given only to the Jews? The only conclusion I can see is that Sabbath was known in antiquity.
NOTE – If I’m not a murderer, that will not save me. If I don’t commit adultery, that will not save me. If I keep the 7th day holy, that will not save me. I am saved only be Jesus Christ.
FINALLY – Grace. The best definition of Grace I know if given in the Bible. The Bible is its own expositor, correct? I don’t have to go outside the Bible to find a definition of Grace, unlike your stating of Revelation 1:10 being Sunday, which can not be shown to be true from the Bible only. Grace:
Verse 1:
Titus 3:5-7 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior; 7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Verse 2:
Isaiah 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
There you have it. Christ’ grace = His knowledge.
Titus – justified by his grace. Isaiah – by his knowledge shall many be justified. There is profound meaning here… And most to not comprehend it…
Dear A. Way,
You seem to still have some things backwards, so I’ll try to help you see the light!
There are THREE distinct and altogether separate sets of Law or Rule given in the Bible, each set given to a specific people at or for a specific time.
First Rule of Law: Mosaic Law.
You insist that the Law of Moses is but one law, while the Ten Commandment Law is distinct from this and is the Law of God.
This is not true. The Ten Commandment Law is included in the Mosaic Law, and is given as a part of it in the Bible. The Ten Commandment Law was given exclusively to the nation of Israel at Sinai. This Law, so far as the Biblical Record is concerned, did not exist before the law was given at Sinai. Read Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.
In any case, the Ten Commandments are Law, and form no part, as such, of our responsibility under Grace EXCEPT as individual commandments are re-asserted for our admonition, by beseeching or admonition, in the epistles of the New Testament, or the records of the Gospels reflecting conditions after the resurrection of Christ, or the book of Acts.
1. First commandment. Restated under Grace at Acts 14:15.
2. Second commandment. Restated under Grace at 1 John 5:21.
3. Third commandment. Restated under Grace at James 5:12.
4. Fourth commandment. No such commandment found under Grace!
5. Fifth commandment. Restated under Grace at Ephesians 6:1.
6. Sixth commandment. Restated under Grace at 1 John 3:15.
7. Seventh commandment. Restated under Grace at 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10.
8. Eighth commandment. Restated under Grace at Ephesians 4:28.
9. Ninth commandment. Restated under Grace at Colossians 3:9.
10. Tenth commandment. Restated under Grace at Ephesians 5:3.
The passages cited are not the only instances of each commandment’s re-assertion in the Epistles; further references can readily be found using The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible.
Those aspects of the Law which are foreign to Grace are not restated as a command to believers under Grace.
As for the Sabbath, the Seventh Day, that is NOT the Lord’s Day at all in the New Testament under Grace because in the NT the Lord’s Day did not exist until AFTER the resurrection of Christ. That took place on the FIRST DAY, and has ever since been celebrated with great joy (the literal meaning of “All hail,” the words first spoken by Christ after His bodily resurrection, when He also commanded “Go tell,” which is an activity suitable for the true Lord’s Day, but not the now discontinued Sabbath Day).
Scripture clearly states that the Sabbath Day of the Fourth Commandment has ceased with the chastisement of Israel upon their rejection of the Messiah, and dissolution as a nation in 70 AD,
I am pleased you noticed the paragraph where I wrote:
I was worried as I wrote that you would miss this point. I am thankful you noticed it. It is absolutely all-important, and absolutely true to the Word of God and correct as it applies to genuine believers in Christ under Grace.
Now where have you ever found that I have suggested that the passage Revelation 1:10 in its reference to “Lord’s Day” is a reference to Sunday? IF it refers to a specific day of the week, it CANNOT refer to the Seventh Day, our Saturday, for if it refers to a single particular day of the week it can only refer to the First Day, our Sunday, for only upon that day did our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ arise from the dead, the reason for celebrating with joy that day as a time to gather in remembrance of what He did for us “till he come.”
Rather, as you might well know, now that I am reminding you, I believe the best evidence is that “the Lord’s Day” in Revelation 1:10 has reference to the eschatalogical “Day of the Lord” in which John, by vision, was placed by the Lord to write about significant events that will transpire then. Only later was the First Day spoken of as the Lord’s Day at a time shortly after the New Testament was completed, as can be seen in a number of standard quotations from the early Church Fathers and Christian writers.
I think now that I have written this reply you will admit you went a bit overboard in extrapolating from what I said about the Fourth Commandment to applying that to the nine other commandments of the Decalogue when you said,
I started this comment by asserting there are three sets of rules given at different times for different groups.
I have covered the First Set, the Mosaic Law, which happens to include the Ten Commandments within its written text, as you well know, and in the New Testament are explicitly referred to as “the Law.”
Paul, in reference to “the law,” cites the Tenth Commandment, so the Ten Commandments are a part of “the law” he is speaking of in context.
But Paul had just written,
Those who are truly under Grace as believers in Christ are dead to the law. Therefore, THAT LAW has no bearing upon or relevance to them, for the Mosaic Law in its entirety has been rendered null and void.
The Second Rule of Law: Kingdom Law
The second body of Law presented in Scripture is what might be called the Law of the Kingdom, the Law that will particularly apply to the reign of Christ upon His return to the Jews in the land of Israel. Had the Jews accepted Christ as their Messiah, this Law of the Kingdom would have gone into immediate effect. They rejected their Messiah, so that Kingdom is in abeyance, and its Laws given in the Sermon on the Mount await that future time when they receive Christ as their Messiah at His Second Advent.
The Third Rule of Law: The Law of Grace, or the Commands of Christ
The third body of Law presented in Scripture might well be called the “Commands of Christ.” These are in force now under Grace for believers. They constitute the directions and directives given in the Epistles of the New Testament. The Apostle Paul, for example, explicitly states that what he has written are the commands of Christ.
Now, Paul affirms we are not under Law, but under Grace.
Paul affirms that we are dead to the Law.
Believers in Christ are under an altogether new principle of Grace. True believers have experienced regenerative change (2 Corinthians 5:17) and are new creatures in Christ. The Holy Spirit produces in genuine Christians the fruit of the Spirit, “against such there is no law.”
Paul clearly states:
Now just why is it that you, dear brother A. Way, are so intent upon placing yourself and anyone else who might read your comments here, under the Law? New Testament believers under Grace are not under Law, but under Grace.
ALL that you have advocated so far, as best I understand it, appeals not to Grace, but to Mosaic Law, which is ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN the child of God under Grace, as I carefully explained in my immediately previous comment in this thread.
I hope you will be granted grace by the Holy Spirit Himself to see the serious error you are in, and that the Holy Spirit will grant you the understanding of God’s Written Word and its revelation of the Grace Principle given by Paul by the revelation received directly from our Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 3:1-12, cited in full in my immediately prior post).
You have not answered the question again – is the keeping of Sunday TRADITION or not? If not, please give the Bible verses showing the need to keep Sunday.
Here is a problem with your thought – this verse is NOT talking about the 7th-day Sabbath. It is talking about the ceremonial Sabbaths of which there were 7. Again, do you have any knowledge about the MEANING of the ceremonial feast days? You consistently ignore them. You lump ALL Sabbaths as equal. You state that the a true believer is ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN to observe the Sabbath. Yet, what did Paul say? Romans 14:5 KJV “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” Pauls opinion is very different than yours on this matter. I like Paul’s.
Point 1: Single day – Isaiah 58:13 KJV “If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:…”
Question – in this verse, and indeed the entire OT, is the LORD’s “my holy day” a single day, or a specific day of the week? It is the latter, and it is the 7th day.
Your interpretation is that Revelation 1:10 has reference to the eschatalogical day of the Lord. Another interpretation is that John is telling us that on which day he had his vision. But of course, your mindset is completely against the Sabbath because you do not differentiate between the 7th-day Sabbath, a day setup BEFORE there were any Jews, and the ceremonial Sabbaths which ONLY Jews were to observe. The ceremonial Sabbaths were for Jews only, but the 7th-day Sabbath was for even the stranger (NON JEW) and servants and animals, Exodus 20:10.
And you have proven my point, the first day of the week was spoken as the Lord’s Day AFTER the New Testament was completed. Thus, this is extra-Biblical. You can not give ANY Bible text in support for the keeping of the first day. Thus, the keeping if the first day is TRADITION, it is extra-Bibical.
No, I do not think I went too far. I think you do not understand the laws. I’ll give you a simple example from your last reply, you said:
See – right there you are wrong. Please read Exodus 16. The Sabbath was ALREADY in effect. I know you will say, ok, the Sabbath was started when they left Egypt. But this proves that it was give BEFORE Sinai. But go back to Exodus 5! Moses was trying to re-institute the Sabbath, and the Egyptians would not let him. I know you will say, that the word Sabbath did not exist before Sinai (but really Exodus 16). But in Genesis 2, the 7th-day was sanctified at creation, and God rested. Sabbath means rest. So you find you point mute. The Sabbath was created before the fall of man. The ceremonial Sabbaths were given to the Jews after the fall, and they served an important purpose. They are an enactment of the plan of salvation!! The 7th-day points to the creator. The ceremonial laws pointed to the coming Messiah and His work. And once He paid the price and offered the sacrifice, these laws were done away with, they were nailed to the cross. God is still the creator, and the 7th-day still points to our acknowledgement of the creator. As Paul says, let everyone be persuaded in their own mind. This is an aspect of the character of God that most people ignore. God does not use force to get his way. Zechariah 4:6 KJV “Then he answered and spoke to me, saying, This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, said the LORD of hosts.”
Jerry – you acknowledge that indeed we are still under laws. Which is it, are we still under laws or not? You said:
So are we under any laws still??? Yes. And In the Book of Acts, the disciples met in the synogogs on which day? The 7th-day. And on which day did they meet with the Gentiles to discuss God? The 7th-day. This was AFTER the resurrection! Acts 13:42 KJV And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
Conclusion – the keeping of the first day of the week, the day of the sun (sun worship) is TRADITION. It has NO Biblical basis what soever.
Dear A. Way,
Mere assertion is not proof. You assert:
This is in reference to my citation of Hosea 2:11,
Your statement is an utter “cop-out” and unsatisfactory “dodge” to avoid the evidence in the Bible that flatly contradicts your position.
Surely you are aware of the following verse from the same book in the Bible:
This prophecy of Hosea shouts loud and clear that the whole Mosaic System has ceased, for from the time of the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ the Temple worship and sacrifices were rendered invalid, and since the predicted destruction of the Temple and dissolution of the nation in 70 AD the Jews have had no sacrifice.
It ought to be crystal clear from what I have presented that there are at least two, possibly three sets of commandments complete in themselves (I say possibly 3, because the second category is less certain, but Category 1 and 3 are fixed by Scripture itself). Each set is designed for a particular people or time.
1. Mosaic Law, which includes the Ten Commandments, valid for the Jewish nation and given to them alone, a system which was given from the time of Moses and not one iota before that time (according to the direct statement of Scripture in Deuteronomy 5:2, 3 and Nehemiah 9:13, 14), valid until the sacrifice of Christ was completed on the Cross.
2. Kingdom Law, which includes the Sermon on the Mount, designed for the time when the Messiah rules in His Kingdom.
3. The Commandments of Christ, designed for those who truly believe in Christ and are saved by Grace, which commandments are given not as a matter of legalism, but as directions and beseechings and admonitions to guide believers in this Age of Grace.
Category 1 is utterly and totally abolished by our Lord Jesus Christ.
Category 2 is still future and not for us in any case who believe by grace through faith in Christ.
Category 3 is the exclusively valid set of guidelines for believers today, and is complete in itself, needing no supplementation from Category 1.
Now, dear brother A. Way, the problem with your currently cherished belief is it insists that there are provisions in Category 1 which are still in effect for today.
The problem is, you appeal to the wrong category (Category 1), and this appeal places those who would in great error choose to follow your appeal “under the law,” which is FORBIDDEN by the divinely inspired Commands of Christ given under Grace as revealed to Paul by our Lord Jesus Christ.
How is it that you do not see very clearly that your chosen emphasis violates Rule 21 and is therefore a misinterpretation and misapplication of Scripture?
If worshiping on Sunday is keeping the day of the sun (or sun worship) and thus TRADITION without any Biblical basis, then keeping the Seventh day is likewise keeping the day of Saturn (which is idolatry, clearly forbidden in Scripture, 1 John 5:21), and in this new Age of Grace is TRADITION mistakenly carried over from the now discontinued and invalid Mosaic Law which has been abolished by Christ.
Otherwise, just what is the point of this most significant statement from the beginning of John’s Gospel?
Methinks you have unwittingly locked yourself into the wrong dispensation–the dispensation of Law, when you should be operating entirely in the dispensation of Grace and Truth.
An important key to truth under Grace is given by Paul when he wrote:
Remember, the immediately preceding context of Romans 7:5 in Romans 7:4 states “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ.”
Have you become “dead to the law” by placing your full faith in the death and bodily resurrection of Christ?
And if you truly have, then how is it you keep resorting to what Christ has abolished, instead of focusing on the proper Biblical issue for this Age of Grace represented by the expression “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” which makes us free from the law of sin and death?
Interesting the you still do not answer the charge that the keeping of Sunday is a TRADITION. You try to make a false accusation that the 7th-day Sabbath is the keeping of Saturn day. WRONG. The common days are kept midnight to midnight. This is not what the Bible says. Days are kept from sunset to sunset. They, the 7th-day actually starts on what the world calls Friday.
IS there any Biblical basis for keeping of Sunday? You have presented NONE.
You say, that Christians keep the 1st day because that is the day Jesus rose from the dead. But you ignore the typological setting which was part of the Jewish feast days that pointed to the coming of Christ, the Passover. Passover in AD 31, the year of the crucifixion, precisely predicted by prophesy, the Passover, crucifixion, death, rest on the Sabbath coincided with the 7th day Sabbath, and then the resurrection on the 1st day. Easter is kept in recognition of the resurrection by Christians. But the day of the resurrection, if it indeed were to be kept, would vary year to year. The origin of Easter is pagan, not Christian.
Jerry said:
So you say. Let everyone be persuaded in their own mind.
Hosea 2:11 AKJV I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.
I see two laws. (1) The ten commandments written by the finger of God, place INSIDE the Ark of the Covenant. (2) And the ceremonial law, which included the feast days and yes, 7 additional Sabbaths which may or may not occur on the 7th-day sabbath.
What you call the Kingdom law, including the sermon on the mount, is an explanation of the significance of the ten commandments. And the commandments of Christ and again, the same. For if you keep the 10, then you would love the LORD thy God with all the strength and mind, and your neighbor as yourself. That is what the 10 is saying. You have a problem with the 4th.
You say we are under Grace, not the law. It is true that the law can not save us. It is the grace of Jesus that saves us. Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden for disobedience. Are we going to get back into the Garden being disobedient? Paul says, Romans 4:15, ..for where no law is, there is no transgression. If there is no longer law, then we can not transgress. But there is transgression. Thus, there is still law. What law?
Revelation 14:9-12 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name. 12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Question – what are the commandments of God? The only ones God wrote with this finger, are the 10 commandments.
The Grace of Christ, transforms us. It writes the law on our heart and minds. Jeremiah 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, said the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
This is OT. This is the 10 commandments. Not the old ceremonial law.
If we had the 10 commandments written on our hearts and minds, what kind of world would this be? It would be heaven! 🙂
So, again, the keeping of Sunday is TRADITION.
Dear A. Way,
Here at long last is my
Answer, Part 3
wherein I will show that under Grace Christians in the New Testament record NEVER ONCE are said to have met for explicitly Christian worship on the Jewish Sabbath or the Seventh Day, but always met on the First Day in commemoration of the Lord’s Resurrection on that day.
You have commented,
Sometimes in the Bible, especially in the New Testament, what becomes the new norm for practice is not stated in the form of a direct command, but is taught by example and significant events, which by necessary inference establish what the will of the Lord is under Grace.
1. The resurrection of Christ took place on the First Day of the week, or Sunday.
Is there anything taught by direct command or by example to commemorate this, the most remarkable event in history, other than meeting together for fellowship and worship upon the First Day of the week? Clearly not.
Is it merely chance or is it Divine Providence that worked out the calendar for that year such that, arising from the dead on the third day, that this day would be the First Day of the week and not the Sabbath itself? Christ lay dead (as to his body) in the tomb all day Saturday, or the Sabbath, something I’m sure has great symbolic significance, indicating that the old order under Mosaic Law has passed, because our Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law and the types respecting Him, such that the Sabbath is now Completed, and forms no part of the Christian’s obligation under Grace.
Many events took place on that special First Day which serve to emphasize its significance. But notice that in type and in actuality, the First Day is the Eighth Day of the preceding week. This speaks symbolically of a new beginning, which the First Day surely marks, a beginning under Grace, now that the Law is fulfilled.
Every succeeding event of significant religious importance mentioned in the New Testament fell upon the First Day of the week.
2. This day is the day upon which the new creation in Christ began.
3. The women early “upon the first day of the week” (Luke 24:1) gave witness to what they had seen to the Apostles and to all the rest (Luke 24:9, 10).
4. Peter himself went with John to the sepulchre (Luke 24:12. John 20:3-9) and beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves. John records that upon seeing “the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself” was the critical moment when “he saw, and believed.”
5. That very day two of the disciples went “that same day to Emmaus”:
This was a distance of about seven and a half miles. During that walk Jesus met up with them, though unrecognized, and expounded the Scriptures concerning Himself.
It is very significant that the Holy Spirit directed by divine inspiration his recording of such significant details as that this took place that same day, and that our Risen Lord used this occasion for important instruction from the Scriptures regarding the Scripture testimony to Himself, making the important observation that this testimony is to be found “in all the Scriptures.”
6. The very same First Day Jesus subsequently appeared to the Apostles and disciples at Jerusalem demonstrating for all time the reality of His bodily resurrection:
7. Subsequently, that very same First Day, our Risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ once again that day expounded to the whole group the Scriptures, that they might understand them:
8. Eight days later, thus the following First Day of the week, Jesus came again:
And just exactly why did the Holy Spirit pinpoint the specific fact as to time–which day they were gathered together–the eighth day, thus marking the First Day? At no point in the Bible record is a subsequent Seventh Day so marked in connection with the recorded appearances of Christ to the disciples.
It was on the First Day of the week, therefore, that our Lord Jesus Christ:
9. Symbolized the new resurrection fellowship by the breaking of bread with the disciples;
10. He gave them His instructions regarding their resurrection ministry of preaching the Gospel to every creature;
11. He ascended into heaven (John 20:17. Hebrews 9:24-28) to the Father as the “Wave Sheaf” in fulfillment of the Old Testament type (see the Note at Leviticus 23:11 in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge);
12. Jesus “breathed on” his Apostles to receive the Holy Spirit (John 20:22);
13. The Day of Pentecost on the First Day of the week (not the Sabbath) the Apostles and disciples were gathered together “in one place” when they were all filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4), receiving the promise of the Father (Luke 24:49);
14. On that First Day Peter preached the first sermon (Acts 2:14);
15. On that First Day there were added to the church about three thousand souls (Acts 2:41);
16. On that First Day, the day of Pentecost, was the start of the New Testament Church (Acts 2:41).
Very plainly, reading a plain text Bible on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island, the First Day not the Seventh Day assumes great significance for the New Testament Church and all believers in Christ and his bodily resurrection in this new Age of Grace and Truth (John 1:17). The First Day is thus accorded a prominence under Grace that is not in the New Testament ever accorded to the Seventh Day following the resurrection of Christ. Surely, for those whose minds, eyes, and hearts are open to the message of the true Gospel of the Grace of God in Christ, it is plain to see that this emphasis upon the First Day is to instruct us that the First Day is now the day that the New Testament Church under Grace has marked for its time to gather together in worship and fellowship, in accordance with the clear apostolic practice incidentally recorded for our instruction in the Bible.
17. It was on the First Day that the Apostle Paul preached to believers in Troas. Troas was a Roman colony. Without question, since Luke (a Gentile) is writing all this to Theophilus (a Gentile), thus to a Gentile audience, who would naturally speak of time in accordance with how time was reckoned on location, the First Day was marked out by Roman time, not Jewish time, and therefore Paul preached on Sunday, not on Friday or Saturday. Furthermore, Paul, Luke tells us, was in Troas for an entire week, which therefore must have included a Sabbath Day. Paul could have chosen either the Sabbath or the First Day for his public ministry to the assembled saints. But the disciples at Troas did not meet on the Sabbath for the “breaking of bread,” but customarily met upon the First Day, or Sunday, for this purpose of gathering together for Christian fellowship and worship. And that is when Paul preached to them. Here, then, is a most specific and undeniable instance recorded in Scripture, of Christians regularly assembling for worship for specifically Christian worship, identified as such by the words “when the disciples came together to break bread.”
18. Paul commanded the Corinthian believers, and by necessary inference, believers in Galatia, and by extension, believers in all the churches, to bring their contributions regularly to church each First Day of the week until he came among them to avoid the cumbersome task of conducting such a collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem in a time of need and famine all at once while he was there among them. The First Day is clearly specified because that is when true Christians met regularly for worship, on our Sunday, every week (1 Corinthians 16:1, 2).
Considering all this strictly Biblical evidence, it is certain that Apostolic example in the New Testament indicates most clearly that true Christians NEVER met for specifically Christian worship on the Seventh Day, the Jewish Sabbath, but regularly met for such worship on the First Day. The same is true today for those who are instructed in the Scriptures, and the Gospel of the Grace of God.
You confirm it – Tradition. No, there is nothing in the NT specifying that followers of Christ should worship on Sunday, the 1st day of the week. You said: “But the keeping of Sunday sacred is nowhere the teaching of Scripture, that I am aware of.” Thus the keeping of Sunday sacred is TRADITION.
You claim that the followers of Christ never came together on the Sabbath for worship. Simple to prove wrong: Acts 13:42 KJV And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. Paul consistently met in the synagogue on Sabbath for worship. This even after the followers of Christ were called Christians (Acts 11:26). I’m not going to go through all your examples, which most are easy to explain and have nothing to do with keeping a day sacred.
I will admit that in my study that I am having a change of mind (maybe). The law of God does include all the law of Moses in the first 5 books of the OT. The only thing that has been done away with the sacrifices. Jesus was the sacrifice. What about the feast days? Certainly the event which the feast of Tabernacles points to has not yet happened. Passover was a memory to the Exodus from Egypt, and also pointed forward to the sacrifice that the Messiah would make. The disciples keeps the feasts after the resurrection, shown clearly by the first Pentecost, with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Why are these not kept today? Perhaps we should! NO – the do not save you. That is not their point. They point us constantly to Jesus. We are saved only by Jesus Christ. The condemnation of the law was nailed to the cross. The condemnation of the law was death. Christ paid that penalty. Colossians 2:14 AKJV “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;” If I continue to keep Sabbath, why do you condemn me? Colossians 2:16 AKJV “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:” If I keep Sabbath, who are you to condemn me?
Oh – and BTW – I do not find “trinity” in the Bible. John 17:3 AKJV And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
Dear A. Way,
It appears to me that this is an endless argument. I have taken much time to do very careful further study on this issue. I have set before you the Biblical evidence that I have found that without question proves that the Jewish Sabbath does not apply to any Christians today.
The Jewish Sabbath was surely observed by all Jews in good standing who lived in Israel. Paul was a Jew. To win the Jews, and keep the door open for his witness to them, he kept the Jewish law. He tells us that most plainly.
But here is the point: Paul never engaged in specifically Christian worship on the Jewish Sabbath. Never. Rather, he engaged in specifically Christian witness.
You seem to have a particular “hang up” regarding “keeping a day sacred.” There is nothing in the New Testament that suggests Christians are to keep a day sacred. That may have been the practice under Mosaic Law, but it is not a consideration whatsoever for Christians that are declared repeatedly in the New Testament to be not under the law. I would repeat those verses again, but I’m sure I’ve posted them on this discussion thread above. I strongly suggest you read them again.
Paul flatly condemns such a notion in Galatians 4:9-11,
Therefore, to be stuck in a denominational RUT which has mistakenly persuaded you to pay heed to keeping the Seventh Day Sabbath comes under observing days, specifically, to observing Jewish days as required under the Mosaic Law, and to be committed to this position Paul declares places you in bondage. The Galatians had been delivered from such bondage, but had been persuaded to go back into that bondage again. Paul surely considers such a move on their part to be great error. Paul was concerned lest he had bestowed upon them labor in vain.
A careful study of the cross references given at Galatians 4:11 should shed much further light on the issue of the danger should Paul’s labor have been in vain. It is a shockingly serious matter, and surely proves the absolute error of the doctrine of “eternal security,” or “once saved, always saved.”
The cross references from Galatians 4:11 in vain are Galatians 2:2. 3:4. **5:2, 4. Romans 13:4. 1 Corinthians +15:2. 2 Corinthians 6:1. Philippians 2:16. Colossians 2:18. 1 Thessalonians +2:1, 19, 20. +3:5, 8.
It may be that you do not yet understand that under the Gospel of Grace revealed to and proclaimed by Paul, as a Bible believing Christian saved by grace, you are no longer under Law, and must not place yourself under Mosaic Law.
You have cited in behalf of your position Acts 13:42,
This is hardly any reference to an assembly conducted for specifically Christian worship by Christians on the Sabbath! These Gentiles were religious proselytes, sometimes referred to as “God fearers,” Gentiles who had not yet in all probability received circumcision, but who worshiped with the Jews in the synagogue on the Sabbath in strictly Jewish worship. Paul as a Jew joined this worship as an opportunity to communicate to them the Gospel of Christ, and apparently stirred up great interest especially among the Gentiles, but ultimately angered the Jews.
Now I am most interested in your statement that you do not find “trinity” in the Bible. Does this mean that you do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? Or are you simply observing that the word “trinity” is not found in the Bible?
hello mr way, it is common to divide the law into three categories,commandments, judgments,and ordinances, as suggested by the scriptural divisions above, nevertheless such dividing must never be allowed to obscure the fact the law was given as a unit. neither must these categories be used in order to get the christian out from under part of the law. it is not uncommon in christian theology to say that the judgements and the ordianances are done away for the believer, but not the decalogue. this is unscriptural, to say nothing of being illogical, in view of the unitized construction of the law. pg 58 charles ryrie” the grace of god” i submit to you for careful consideration of james 2/10 a single violation,he says, makes them guilty of the whole law. the lords death accomplished several significant things and one of the m was to end the law. rom 10/3-4 christ is end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth. the law demanded righteousness, under grace the lord gives righteouness. jn 1/17, i respect your opinion but i donot think you can say the sabbath or any part of mosaic law is for the beliver today. if one keeps the sabbath today its because he wants to not because its taught in the bible isa 8/20 i thank the lord for his wonderful grace, amazing grace! rom 5/8 but demonstrates his own love for us that while we were yet sinners christ died for us!
mr way if i am may add just a couple of more things. in the ot worship was particular place, the tabernacle, jerusalem jn 4/20-21. in the new testament the focus is any on building or place . heb 10/19 having therefore,brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of jeus, v20 by a new and living way,which he dedicated for us, through the veil,that is to say,his flesh, vs 21 and having an high priest over the house of god,v22 let us draw near with true heart in full assuracnce of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. in jn 4/23-24 the lord speaks “the hour cometh, and now is, when true worshippers shall worship the father in sprit and in truth; for the father seeketh such to worship him. vs 24 god is a sprit; and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth. the lord seeketh such to worship him! the question we have to answer are we a true worshipper of the lord of lords and kings of kings?
Jerry – I think you make a false differentiation of “Christian worship”. Saying Paul never engaged in “Christian worship” made me laugh…
Ken, “charles ryrie” buys into the false futurist. Do you think I would trust chuck? Nope.
Yes – James 2:10 – break one point of the law, you break the whole law. James 2:11 – Don’t commit adultery, do kill. 10C!
Yes – Christ is the end of law for righteousness. Absolutely. In fact, the law could never save. If it could, then Christ did not need to come and die.
You said, “i donot think you can say the sabbath or any part of mosaic law is for the beliver today”. Really? So we can kill, lie, steal and covet, worship other gods? NOPE. Wrong. It is not that the Mosaic law has been done away with, as Paul said, he would not know what sin was without the law, Romans 3:20, “for by the law is the knowledge of sin”. Romans 7:7 AKJV “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. No, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, You shall not covet.” Paul acknowledges that the law was good, Romans 7:12 GNB So then, the Law itself is holy, and the commandment is holy, right, and good. The point is that we are no longer under the law, under the condemnation of the law, which is death. Christ has given us an escape. The point is that the law is not done away, the condemnation is done away. A way back to obedience has been provided. I can’t not keep the law by myself, and my keeping of the law does not save me. I’m saved by Jesus Christ. Keeping the Sabbath is not a drudgery, it is a delight. If I kept the Sabbath in order to be saved, because I was obligated to do so, this would not be obedience!!!! Do right because it is right, that is the goal.
OK Ken, does worshiping God in spirit and truth include keeping Sunday holy? If so, please give me the scripture references. Jerry tried, but failed to give any “thus said the Lord”. There is none. As I have shown, those called Christians (Acts 11) kept the Sabbath, the 7th-day Sabbath.
Dear A. Way,
You said:
Of course, you would not DARE to give my whole statement, so what you say is deceptive in the extreme.
You know as well as I do that the Bible contrasts the worship of the Jews, hence Jewish worship, with true worship based on what God has since revealed to us in Christ, thus called Christian worship. Of course, you can continue to engage in mistaken, thus false worship, if you please. The price might just be paid on judgment day for closing your mind to the truth of God revealed about the grace of God as brought to us in the New Testament record found in Paul’s epistles, starting with Ephesians 3:1-12, which I cited in full not too far above this post.
From what I have learned in my recent studies on Robinson Crusoe’s Island in five full days of uninterrupted study of God’s Word while I kept my computers off just last weekend and early this week, it has become clear to me that you are in grave error because you are drawing from the wells of the wrong dispensation, the dispensation of Mosaic Law.
You are stating a blatant non-truth, lets be clear and call it a flat-out lie, when you repeatedly affirm after my repeated correction, a statement like this:
I answered that false charge in full above. I listed the Ten Commandments. For each commandment I gave the New Testament provision of admonition, directive, or beseeching found in the Third Division (1=Mosaic, 2=Kingdom, 3=Grace) under Grace. Under Grace Paul repeatedly says we are dead to the law and we are not under the law. I gave the Scripture references in above posts in full, printed in boldface at that. You have nowhere accounted for this fact.
You cannot admit, so you have altogether ignored, the FACT that the Fourth Commandment has no equivalent admonition anywhere stated under Grace given in the New Testament. That is a most significant omission, and you know it, and it totally proves your position and emphasis to be false doctrine.
It is false doctrine because it contradicts the Gospel, and is what Paul calls another gospel in the book of Galatians in the sternest language to be found in the New Testament.
It is false doctrine because it is a wrong interpretation of the Bible, wrong because it violates Rule 21 and Rule 22 of the 22 Rules of Interpretation I have carefully presented here in the Archives for October, 2010:
You further state:
That is a falsehood, and you know it. I not only “tried,” but I did furnish proof that was both direct and by necessary inference that Christian believers under Grace met regularly ONLY on the First Day for specifically Christian worship and fellowship. The evidence I presented is absolute and undeniable. Go back and read it again, and ask the Holy Spirit to do His work as you read His word, “that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding, [10] that ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God” (Colossians 1:9, 10).
It is most evident that God directs us under Grace not only by what you suppose is a direct “thus said the Lord,” but also by necessary inference and example.
Under Grace, Jesus said the same.
“necessary inference” is your creation. There is NO THUS SAID THE LORD. And “met regularly ONLY on the First Day” is blatantly false and denies the entire book of Acts where MANY times, worship took place on the Sabbath, the 7th day. You thought deny Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath, Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:28; AND Luke 6:5. Why, if Christ wanted His church to worship on the 1st day of the week, itself, denying the Passover type, would He be concerned about the Sabbath? Matthew 24:20 KJV “But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:”.
Even your interpretation of Revelation 1:10 can not be supported by Scripture! The only SCRIPTURE interpretation that some guy on a desert Island could conclude was that the Lord’s Day IS the 7th day.
Again, your problem with the 10C is only the 4th. 9 out of 10, it not a perfect score.
And for Sunday – the keeping of Sunday by today’s Christians is TRADITION. There is no command what so ever to keep it.
One FINAL comment, quoting from your verses above, “1Co_4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.”. IF we truly follow Christ’ example, we would worship on the SAME day He did. There is no dispute that that was the 7th-day Sabbath. And since God changes not, well, you know where I’m going with that…..
Dear A. Way,
You genuinely have me stumped. Maybe you can help me out.
You make mention of 7 annual Sabbaths, which are what you maintain is Paul’s reference in Colossians 2:16.
I have spent all day searching indexes in reference sources I have here, and so far have come up with nothing.
I would be much obliged and thankful if you would be able to list the seven annual Sabbaths, and give the specific Bible references for each.
I look forward to your gracious assistance on this matter.
For you to ask such a question means you have some ulterior motive. No, I do not trust you and your question.
Quoting Colossians 2:16 and not including verse 17 masks that Sabbaths Paul it talking about. Colossians 2:16-17 KJV (v16) Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: (v17) Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
The 7-th day Sabbath was not a shadow of things to come. It was a memorial of things past (Genesis 2:2-3; Exodus 20:8-11). The other Sabbath feasts, pointed forward. Do you really need for me to give YOU, the “Real Bible Study” guy? What tricky word play are you going to use? Leviticus 23 is a good place to start.
Oh and BTW – As I said, I am waffling in my opinion on these feast days. It is clear that these days were kept by some Christians after the cross. One only has to look at Pentacost to show that, but there are others. One thing for sure, SACRIFICE and oblations were done away with at the cross. (Daniel 9:27)
Dear A. Way,
No, I do not have any ulterior motive whatsoever. I have spent all morning until turning on this computer just now trying to pursue the answer myself.
I read Leviticus 23. Far as I can discern, the only reference to a Sabbath there in the original text using the word Sabbath is in reference to the Great Day of Atonement. So maybe that yields one of your asserted Seven.
I spent a great deal of time this morning searching carefully through Numbers chapters 28 and 29, which appears to summarize the entire list of all feasts and holy days prescribed by the Law. I did not find any special non-weekly Sabbaths there either.
I have searched the extensive indexes in resources I have to Biblical subjects, and none of them provide a clue to what might be called those annual Sabbaths. I checked under the word Sabbath, singular. I checked under the word Sabbaths, plural. I checked under entries for the number “seven.” I even checked under the number “eight” in similar fashion. I checked under the term “annual.” I checked under the term “special,” as in “special Sabbaths,” and like every other term I checked, found absolutely nothing in this regard. I have checked major articles on the term “Sabbath.” No mention.
The only source I found that even vaguely alluded to the subject was in Patrick Fairbairn’s work on The Typology of Scripture, where, I think on page 124 of volume 2, he utterly dismisses the concept most briefly in a sentence saying there is no validity to it, but he did not explain why, nor do I recall distinctly that he even referenced just who it is that claims that there are seven annual Sabbaths distinct from the weekly Sabbaths.
Looking more closely (I’m now at my downstairs computer) Fairbairn says “We shall not waste time by considering the unsatisfactory attempts which have frequently been made to account for such statements, by many who hold the still-abiding obligation of the fourth commandment.” He gives a bit more detail on page 125, but does not pinpoint what any of these annual Sabbaths might have been, offering no enumeration, which is what I wish to see.
So, I ask you again, kindly provide the specific numbered list of these seven annual Sabbaths with a specific Bible reference, chapter and verse, for each one. I have already spent an inordinate amount of time searching my resources here, only to find absolutely nothing that pertains to the subject. My description of my search ought to let you know that I have indeed looked in Scripture itself, and works about Scripture.
Now you see why I so often lament that I do not know about Old Testament typology to the degree that my elderly friend, Uncle Frank did. If he were still alive, I’m sure he could fill me in on the subject instantly in full detail. But I have no person available to me now like Uncle Frank who was expert on these matters.
So, your detailed help would assist my learning greatly. Your challenging questions and assertions have already led me into much study of the Bible I would otherwise most likely have missed, so your input is very much appreciated by me.
try googling “7 annual sabbaths” or something like that. It would have me a lot of typing…
Dear A. Way,
Thank you for the suggestion. I have now done that. I found several helpful listings, none seemed to be from legitimately Biblically orthodox sites, which is why I very rarely use the Internet to search for valid information about the Bible.
But in any case, I think I have found a potentially satisfactory listing at http://www.cog-pkg.org/holydays/SalvationPlan.pdf and a more concise listing elsewhere at http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=day%20of%20rest which gives the references from Leviticus:
The 7 ANNUAL SABBATHS are:
1) 1st day of Unleavened Bread (23:7)
2) 7th day of Unleavened Bread (23:8)
3) Feast of Weeks (Shavuot) (23:21)
4) Feast of Trumpets (23:24-25)
5) Day of Atonement (23:27-28)
6) 1st day, Feast of Tabernacles (Succot)
(23:34-35)
7) Last Great Day (8th day of Succot)
(23:36)
I never before considered these all as “annual Sabbaths” because they are not called Sabbaths but feasts, far as I understand from my reading today. But I am still studying. Now I can get back to work on my own project of collecting cross references for Real Bible Study for the book of Jeremiah.
In any case, thank you for your challenging input. As I said before, I have benefited greatly from your questions and comments. Now, you see, there was nothing sinister at all in my question!
I think you will see that I have quoted these “feasts” before. So for you to ask why? And makes me wonder if you understand their significance. Did these Sabbaths exist before Sinai? I know of no evidence to that fact. Sacrifice – absolutely pre-existed Sinai. The 7th-day Sabbath? Absolutely pre-existed Sinai. Exodus 16 proves that. Exodus 5 hints at that. Genesis 29 speaks of the week. What defines the week? The Sabbath. The TSK suggests that sabbath in Genesis 4:3. And without doubt, God sanctified the 7th day in Genesis 2:2-3.
The first annual Sabbath took place at Passover (Unleaven Bread). John 19:31 KJV The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
The annual Sabbaths do not necessarily fall on the 7th-day Sabbath. In the year of Christ’ death, the Annual Sabbath and the 7th-day Sabbath were on the same day. This has interesting meaning in type. John 19:31 KJV The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
The crucifixion was on Nissan 14. The annual Sabbath would be Nissan 15, which was also the 7th-day Sabbath, Christ is in the grave. So you see the type? Christ rested in the grave, His work on earth for salvation was done, just as He rested after creation. And in the year he died, this was both the 7th-day and the annual Sabbath, and double meaning. Sabbath rest has significant meaning. The resurrection was on Nissan 16, which in that year was the first day of the week. But this is the point I’ve made before, why celebrate Easter on the first day of the week every year? Make no sense in that the type which is the Passover varies with the year. Nissan 16 is not always on the 1st of the week. Nissan 15 is always the annual Sabbath. Celebrating the first day of the week for Christians is Tradition.
The whole Jewish economy revolved around the plan of redemption. Passover (unleaven bread) signified the crucifixion, rest in the grave, and resurrection (first fruits). Unleavened bread was bread without yeast. Yeast is a symbol for sin. Jesus says, “I am the bread of life” (John 6:35), so the unleavened bread symbolized Jesus Christ who was without sin. Pentecost – the out pouring of the Holy Spirit. Feast of Trumpets – the call to repentance. Day of Atonement, the cleansing. And the feast of Tabernacles – the harvest, and the second coming. In reality, the events typified occur in this order as they occurred during the year.
BTW – unleavened bread was bread without yeast. Yeast is a symbol for sin. Jesus says, “I am the bread of life” (John 6:35), so the unleavened bread symbolized Jesus Christ who was without sin.
These Jewish feast need to be understood. The explain the plan of redemption. The point to the past and future events. I don’t claim to be an expert by any means. But most Christians have no clue what they mean, and never study them. Jesus said, John 5:39 KJV “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” What scripture? The OT!!! I sure would like to have heard what Jesus taught on the road to Emmaus.
Dear A. Way,
If you check all the cross references I’ve assembled in Leviticus 23 and elsewhere related to these issues, you’ll see I have indeed studied these things in great depth. The cross references given for Leviticus 23 are much more complete in my newer work, Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible than they were for The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, which was itself much more complete than the original Treasury of Scripture Knowledge.
But in my limited little world of personal Bible study done independently on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island I’ve had no reason to come upon a listing of the Seven Annual Sabbaths before, because in the KJV which I read they are not all, or even most, identified with the term “Sabbath.” As I mentioned, I have not found such a list in any of the resources I have here, even away from Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island.
So I have indeed studied them, but not under that rubric.
Your explanation is a delight to read, and I wish to thank you again for your post. We of course differ in some of the details regarding Sabbath observance and related matters. But we can rejoice together that Christ is our Passover, and our Bread of Life.
My elderly friend Uncle Frank devoted a lifetime to the study of the types in Scripture. He urged me to direct attention to that subject. You can see in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge that I have done so to such a degree that I found it necessary to establish a symbol to mark types where I found them, the “=” symbol. But I have not yet come anywhere near to catching up to what Uncle Frank knew.
While he was still alive I bought a whole little library (perhaps four feet of shelf space) on the subject at his direction. I’m glad I bought them when I did, for they are not available in Christian bookstores today.
The problem I have had with the study of types is that there is an element of subjectivity to much of what is written on the subject. It makes for delightful and even instructive reading, but there is no adequate “lock” on the correct meaning of a type unless the type is declared such in Scripture, for which I provided another symbol, => in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge.
mr way i just wanted to encourage you to keep your questions coming over to jerrys postings. i have studied the bible with the tools cgb and ntsk for almost 20 yrs and i still have alot to learn. you come to the right place to study the bible. jerry has been a good friend, teacher of the word in my christian growth. i pe 2/2 as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word,that ye may grow by it!
Some where in the recent past I also suggested to you to look at the types. I’ve recently looked at the subject of Manna. What a very interesting type. One thing about types, is that they often take the whole Bible to understand. Just a few with Manna – who supplied all the people’s needs? God. Manna was “bread” come down form heaven. Christ is the Bread of Life. The symbol of manna was so important that a bowl of it was placed inside the Ark of the Covenant. Manna fell on week days 1 to 6. If you stored it on those days, it rotted. You needed to collect the manna every day. Manna representing the bread of life, and we receive the truth about God from the scriptures, we need to study the scriptures every day! Manna did not fall on the 7th-day. That is an interesting typology! Manna for the 7th-day was collected the 6th-day, and it did not rot. God rested the 7th-day. Christ died and rested in the grave, the 7th-day, and his body did not see corruption. Acts 2:31 AKJV He seeing this before spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. Acts 13:35 AKJV Why he said also in another psalm, You shall not suffer your Holy One to see corruption. And there is more… Yes, I see type in a lot of things.
Dear A. Way,
Manna is a particularly good example of a valid Biblical type because it is confirmed to be such by our Lord Jesus Christ himself by his reference to it in application to himself.
Take a look in the Subject Index to The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge under “Types of Christ” for an extensive but by no means complete listing. See also in The New Topical Textbook under “Types of Christ” (page 281) for another extensive list. Yet another good listing is on page 494 and 495 of The New Compact Topical Bible under “Types.”
And think of this – if Manna is a type of Christ, then does the type change in the antitype? You know where I’m going with this, right? 🙂 Manna fell 6 days, but rested on the 7th. I find this part of the type just as significant as other parts of the type. To say the keeping of the 7th day is arbitrary, legalistic, “ABSOLUTELY’ banned, I think misses the type as represented by manna. If manna is a type of Christ, who is the bread of life, then we need to look at all of the type, to see the antitype.
Dear A. Way,
I just finished working on Jeremiah 36. It contains the story of the king cutting up and burning Jeremiah’s manuscript piece by piece after it was read to help keep the room warm.
We need to be extra careful that we are not doing the same, figuratively, when we study and interpret the Bible.
It is very easy to throw out the part we don’t want to hear. It is easier to go by our own notions of what is good and right and fail to take heed to what God has revealed.
When two good people read the Bible and do not agree on what it teaches, both of them cannot be correct. At least one, possibly both, are wrong.
But how do we determine who is correct? That is the central issue.
It is my position that the Bible is a self-interpreting, self-explanatory Book. Since this is what the Bible directly states, I believe it, and affirm it.
It is also evident that no one knows the Bible completely. This is true not only of individual readers, but also of churches and denominations.
This means that no Church, even if it claims to be the “One True Church,” can be entirely trusted to infallibly know and teach the truth of the Bible in every respect.
It also means that every one of us who seriously reads and studies the Bible MUST be open to correction as we learn new things in the Bible that we did not fully understand before.
There will be times, therefore, when what we learn new from the Bible will serve to correct a prior incorrect understanding.
Sometimes such incorrect understanding may be about a minor matter, but every once in a while we will come across something in the Bible that requires a major adjustment or shift in our understanding.
If we are unable and unwilling to make such adjustments in our understanding, our ears and hearts are clearly closed to hearing the Word of God in the Bible. The Bible becomes or remains a closed Book to us.
But consider again the question: when two good people read the Bible and come up with contradictory understandings, how can we properly determine who, if either, is correct?
Ultimately, the test of truth is the Bible itself. If we study it with an alert mind and heart, we will soon see that a mistaken interpretation will not properly “fit” the pattern of total truth established in the Bible. Rule 20 addresses this very issue.
This is really the “law of non-contradiction” at work, and it must be heeded carefully.
I have carefully incorporated this fundamental principle in the framework of my now 22 Rules of Interpretation found in the October, 2010 archives here.
But now I see there is an additional Rule of Interpretation which must be available to apply in arriving at a correct interpretation of the Bible. I will call it Rule 23.
23. In the Bible there is what may be called the “Progress of Doctrine,” such that God in His written Word reveals new information or additional teaching which may modify, supersede or replace what was revealed to that time.
This is reflected very well by what is affirmed in Luke 16:16,
I think this ties in very well with that most significant statement at the beginning of John’s Gospel,
Surely these two very clear statements from Luke 16:16 and John 1:17 should serve to alert the attentive and receptive reader of the Bible to the fact that with the arrival of our Lord Jesus Christ on this earthly scene, changes were coming. This should prepare us to heed carefully the divine revelation our Lord Jesus Christ personally granted in person to the Apostle Paul, whose teachings in his epistles comprise the highest level in the “Progress of Doctrine” to be found in the Bible.
Well, now you see I have established 23 Rules of Interpretation for our benefit in coming to a proper understanding of God’s Word.
Was the law given through Moses faulty? No. It was divinely given. Everything that God does is perfect! (Deuteronomy 32:4) Grace and Truth were revealed in the OT, but were lost through human traditions. The difference between “law” and “grace” is not a contrast between the religion of the OT, which looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, and that revealed by Jesus. (see Exodus 34:6-7 and Hebrews 1:1-2). The contrast between “law” and “grace” is the perverted interpretations placed upon the revealed grace and truth of God by those the espoused the law.
John, in John 1:7, by saying “truth” comes through Christ, identifies Him as the reality toward who the OT types and ceremonies pointed, which were a shadow of better things to come. Type met antitype in Christ (Colossians 2:16-17). John is not saying that the OT system was false or in any kind of error.
It was Christ that spoke through Moses and the prophets! (1 Peter 1:9-10). Christ appeared in person to affirm the eternal truths revealed through the prophets. He came to remove the human tradition (Matthew 5:17:19).
————————-
Deuteronomy 32:4 AKJV He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
Exodus 34:6-7 AKJV And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, 7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the children’s children, to the third and to the fourth generation.
Hebrews 1:1-2 AKJV God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 Has in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
John 1:7 AKJV The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
Colossians 2:16-17 AKJV 16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
1 Peter 1:9-10 AKJV Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. 10 Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come to you:
I see one reference did not come out! Here it is:
Matthew 5:17-19 AKJV Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. (v18) For truly I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass, one stroke or one pronunciation mark shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (v19) Whoever 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 whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Dear A. Way,
Have you grasped the significance of the several passages I most recently posted from Luke 16:16 and John 1:17? Apparently not.
I tried to make them even more clear by posting them in more than one English translation. Please read them again, carefully this time.
The great but apparently unrecognized truth expressed in the Scripture I have posted is that Jesus said that the Law and the Prophets were until John the Baptist. But now we are urged to enter His kingdom by grace.
While Jesus did not come to destroy the Law, he surely came to fulfill it. That is what He said.
But now our guidance under Grace is not found in the Mosaic Law, but those principles given us anew under Grace, which true believers indwelt by the Holy Spirit are empowered to keep as the Holy Spirit produces in our new nature the fruit of the Spirit. This is the emphasis under Grace, an emphasis I fail to find in any of your comments.
What you seem to place the most emphasis on is directly contrary to the new principles revealed by both our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and what our Lord Jesus Christ in person revealed to the Apostle Paul.
Paul repeatedly stresses that we are:
(1) dead to the Law, as in Romans 7:1-7;
(2) the Law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ but we are no longer under a schoolmaster so therefore we cannot be under the Law (Galatians 3:24, 25);
(3) the Law brings death–spiritual death, not life (Romans 7:5. 8:2);
(4) the Law that we are dead to is specifically the Law contained in the Decalogue for in context Paul makes direct reference to the Tenth Commandment when he is speaking about our being dead to the Law in Romans 7:1-7;
(5) if we are led by the Spirit we are not under the Law according to Galatians 5:18;
(6) we under grace are under the commands of Christ as these commands have been stated or restated under grace, and these commands are not the Decalogue, but the commands or commandments of Christ communicated through Paul, such that even the references to the commandment keeping remnant mentioned in the book of Revelation are not in reference to the Decalogue but the Commandments of Christ, which are now the Commandments of God (1 Corinthians 14:37);
(7) the Sabbath commandment in particular is singled out under Grace as being no longer in force for believers in our Lord Jesus Christ in the divinely inspired revelation communicated by our Lord Jesus Christ through the Apostle Paul in Colossians 2:9-17, with special reference to Colossians 2:14 and 2:16.
Notice verse 16, this time with your eyes open to the truth, not the falsehood you have been taught by others or even learned yourself.
Paul states we are no longer bound by any rules concerning:
(1) what we are allowed or are supposed to eat;
(2) what we are allowed or are supposed to drink;
(3) the keeping or observance of “an holy day,” which is a direct reference to all annual feasts or Sabbaths;
(4) the keeping of the New Moon festivals, which is a reference to monthly feasts;
(5) the keeping or observance of the Sabbath, a reference to the weekly Sabbath on the Seventh Day of the Fourth Commandment;
All these requirements, laws, and regulations are no longer in force since they have been nailed to the cross.
Paul thus takes into the scope of his prohibition of what Christian believers are no longer to celebrate or practice or observe all the feasts listed in Leviticus 23 and detailed in Numbers 28 and 29, and as any Bible reader with eyes open can see, this includes the Seventh Day Sabbath because it is included in Leviticus 23:2, 3.
Paul’s very expression, “of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath” exactly parallels the many Old Testament references to the same things in reference particularly to Numbers 28 and 29, and therefore MUST have reference to the same thing spoken of in the Old Testament, namely ALL the days, including the Seventh Day weekly Sabbath. There is no basis for excluding the weekly Sabbath from what is included in either Paul’s expression or the expression as it is found in the Old Testament.
There are those who are dishonestly trying to suggest otherwise, purveyors of false doctrine and another Gospel, which Paul roundly condemns in language too strong to repeat here (in terms of what the Greek text actually says about it in the book of Galatians), where in my polite language Paul makes it very clear that to follow another Gospel means you are not following Christ and do not have God’s gift of salvation at all.
Those who would argue that because the expression for Sabbath in Colossians 2:16 is in the plural in Greek, Paul has reference to the so-called Seven Annual Sabbaths are inventing a new category of Sabbaths not actually to be found in Scripture. The Sabbath is almost always in the Greek text of the New Testament referred to by the plural form of the word, even when the reference is clearly to the weekly Sabbath of the Seventh Day. This is precisely true of the occurrences in the Greek Septuagint as well. The Sabbath Commandment itself in Greek at Exodus 20:8, 10 uses precisely this very form of the Greek word used by Paul in Colossians 2:16.
Exo 20:8 μνήσθητι τὴν ἡμέραν τῶν σαββάτων ἁγιάζειν αὐτήν.
Col 2:16 μη ουν τις υμας κρινετω εν βρωσει η εν ποσει η εν μερει εορτης η νουμηνιας η σαββατων
The same Greek form is used repeatedly in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures in reference to the weekly Sabbath in such texts as Exodus 35:3; Leviticus 23:38; Leviticus 24:8; Numbers 15:32 (regarding gathering sticks on the Sabbath day), and Isaiah 58:13, among other passages. This is the only word ever used in the Bible for the weekly Sabbath, the same word used by Paul in Colossians 2:16.
The expression used by Paul in Colossians 2:16 is found in the Old Testament repeatedly to refer to the Sabbath:
Same list Paul gave, in reverse, and the same as is given in Numbers chapters 28 and 29.
And just where is it written in the Law of the Lord? Numbers, chapters 28 and 29. The order of mention is natural, daily, weekly, monthly, yearly. If the reference to the sabbaths is not to the weekly Sabbath, then in this connection the weekly Sabbath is never mentioned, an interpretation which is clearly forced and nonsense.
To suppose that these repeated references to the Sabbath cannot have reference to the weekly Sabbath is clearly a mistaken interpretation on its face for it requires the omission of all reference to the weekly, supposing it to be a reference only to the annual, and thus unnecessarily duplicates the reference to annual or yearly which is already mentioned in its natural order. This “force-fit” approach to Scripture is only employed by those who must at any cost preserve their clearly mistaken interpretation of what Paul declares in Colossians 2:14, 16. That makes it clearly false doctrine.
Paul in Colossians 2:16 used the exact order used by Ezekiel in Ezekiel 45:17.
The specification “her” is personification and does not negate the reference to the weekly Sabbath any more than it does to “all her solemn feasts.” Hosea explicitly predicts that all of these celebrations–annual or yearly, monthly, and weekly are to cease. Paul in Colossians 2:16, naming these very celebrations in the same order affirms they all have been “nailed to the cross,” thus clearly made void or cancelled and of none effect, thus not to be observed under Grace because they have ceased.
Paul used the expression common to the Old Testament expression, an expression which has reference to all of God’s ordained days to be kept by the Jews.
THEREFORE, Paul’s statement in Colossians 2:14, 16 clearly states all holy days, whether annual, monthly, weekly, or daily have been nailed to the cross, and of these, under Grace by the commandment of Christ through Paul, the weekly Seventh Day Sabbath is clearly included in the all-inclusive list by specific reference, thus revoking the Fourth Commandment.
I humbly disagree. And I’ve given my reasons. It appears you can’t accept that some have a different interpretation of these verses than you. The 7th-day Sabbath is not part of the “handwriting of ordinances”. And I will agree with Paul, I will not let judge me in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:.
Dear A. Way,
I respect your right to humbly disagree.
I acknowledge that some have a different interpretation of these verses than I do.
I have expressed the fact that when there are two or more differing interpretations, they cannot all be correct. They could all be wrong. It is possible that one interpretation is correct and all the others are wrong or mistaken.
I believe I have absolutely proven in a manner that is unanswerable that the 7th-day Sabbath IS part of the “handwriting of ordinances.” Given the Biblical evidence I carefully and painstakingly submitted from the Bible, including direct reference to the original Greek text, your position is untenable in the light of Scripture, the only light we have.
Furthermore, I am not judging you at all with respect to any of these things. You are free to believe what you wish. Paul makes it clear you can choose to worship on any day you please, and can observe any day or days you wish.
Paul’s permission is granted by way of grace to the weaker brother, as a reference to Romans 14:1 with Romans 14:5, 6 will show.
What IS forbidden is to make the matter of the day you freely choose to worship a matter of keeping the Law, or obeying the Fourth Commandment, either just for yourself or attempting to get others to keep the Fourth Commandment as a matter of what God requires. This is forbidden under Grace because it is placing oneself or others under the Law. Since the Bible declares we are no longer under Law (Galatians 5:18), clearly keeping the Fourth Commandment Law is not what God requires under Grace.
I now understand this truth better than ever before, thanks to your always welcome and gracious questions and challenges. Again, thank you for your input!
May I humbly suggest that you very carefully review all the evidence I have presented, particularly in this thread of discussion. As a now retired reading specialist, I can tell you from long experience with thousands of students that it helps to read material a second or third time to increase our understanding. I believe the case I have presented is unanswerable, and is therefore the proper Biblical view to be learned by Real Bible Study alone on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island.
There are two matters remaining to consider that you have brought forward. The first is your claim that the Apostles and disciples observed the Sabbath in the book of Acts. You brought forward Acts 13:42. I gave a specific answer to that passage, namely, that the Gentiles were not assembled with the Jews on the Sabbath for specifically Christian worship, but for Jewish worship. You denied the distinction. Your denial is utterly mistaken. In the early period of the book of Acts it is clear that those who became Christian were still Jews or Jewish, and they continued to observe Jewish worship as Jews, not as Christians. There are NO instances recorded in the New Testament of Christians engaging in specifically Christian worship on the Sabbath, NONE.
The last “loose end” that I would be most interested to have you clarify is your comment (from July 8):
Kindly expand on that comment. It is not yet clear to me what you mean. I am most interested in your viewpoint about this.
Your the “reading specialist”. Acts 11:25,26 – The Apostles are called CHRISTIANS. As CHRISTIANS, they worshiped on the Sabbath MANY times in the book of Acts. It is true, the early Christians were Jews. In fact, that is what the Jewish faith SHOULD HAVE BEEN. You make it sound like Christianity was supposed to be some new religion. NO. Sorry, I can’t agree.
You have made the accusation that Revelation 1:10 is speaking of Sunday. But have NO PROOF form scripture to back it up. I have presented a lot of proof that the 7th-day is the God’s special day.
In other threads, you have shown a misunderstanding of prophesy, such as Daniel’s 70 week prophesy, by suggesting there is an “unannounced” gap. It is “unannounced” because there is no scriptural support for it. NONE.
You have demonstrated that you did not understand the Jewish system of worship, which included the 7 annual Sabbaths, and what the meaning of the feasts were, and what they pointed to, which is the work of the Messiah.
And I’m going to trust you when you say I’ve miss-understood Colossians 2?
I’m going to give you my take on Bible study, and particularly why I don’t trust a lot of written material.
Dear A. Way,
I like the quotation you have given about Bible study. As far as I can see so far, I believe the sentiments in that quotation are correct.
As for those 7 Annual Sabbaths, they surely are not obvious from a study of the Scripture from a plain text Bible, or even an annotated reference study Bible. If in my large collection of Bible study tools here I could not find any detailed listing of them under that title or rubric, then it is likely that the list is artificially drawn by those who have a pet doctrine or theory to support by this particular designation. And indeed, such is the case, as I pointed out. Steps must be taken by those who would observe the Seventh Day Sabbath today to explain away or otherwise undermine what our Lord Jesus Christ has revealed for us who live in this Age of Grace through the Apostle Paul in Colossians, chapter 2.
I followed your suggestion and did a search on the Internet, and found the list. I also noted that of many websites that make reference to the 7 Annual Sabbaths, almost all were Church of God related, or otherwise tied into groups who believe that we are to observe the Saturday Sabbath not the Sunday Lord’s Day. If there are exceptions, I did not note them in the several hours I spent doing the search on Google.
This clearly demonstrates that it is not my shortcoming in Bible knowledge that was the root of the problem. Nevertheless, I plainly stated that I am not as “up” on the study of Bible types as I would like to be. I am as of yet no match for my wonderful elderly friend, Uncle Frank, who went home to be with the Lord in 1985. I gave you proof that I have indeed studied the subject by pointing to the evidence that is very plainly present in my book, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge. I made reference to the symbol system and the Subject Index entries to validate the fact that I have studied the subject in a major way in the past.
I have found this to be a most exciting exercise in learning more about God’s Word. You are most helpful to me in that regard.
I have never had reason or opportunity to dig into this subject before about Sabbath versus Lord’s Day worship. I have had no direct contact with any Seventh-day Adventists previously. You are my first encounter with anyone from this group. Like my intensive studies with the Jehovah’s Witnesses some time ago over a span of four years, these studies you have encouraged me to pursue on these Sabbath issues have been most instructive, and have enhanced my knowledge of the Bible on this theme greatly. As a result of these studies, I shall now be in a position to supply many helpful cross references that are not available in other reference sources, so far as I have found.
You may feel that you have no basis to trust my understanding on Colossians chapter 2. I have no basis to trust the sources you employ on the issue either, so we are even on that score. But I have reason to believe that my understanding of Colossians 2 is much more in accord with the teaching of Scripture than your reported understanding is. Surely, both you and your sources are dreadfully, even egregiously mistaken in your understanding of this significant text.
I have not found it necessary to deny the plain statement of Scripture in Colossians 2. You and your sources most certainly have. This time, I called your bluff, and I believe you know you cannot answer the Biblical position I have presented in my earlier post today which carefully documents from Scripture in the Old Testament just what Paul was certainly making reference to.
I find it impossible to accept your assertion that Colossians 2:17 settles the issue in your favor. If I understand you correctly, you believe that since Paul is talking about those things which are “a shadow of things to come” Paul must not be making reference to the Weekly Sabbath. You have made the claim that the Sabbath cannot be a shadow or type because it is part of the moral law of God given in the Ten Commandments. Sorry about that mistaken claim. The Sabbath is stated in Scripture to be a type of eternal rest in Hebrews chapter 4, about verse 9 or 10. Jesus himself invited us to come to him for rest, Matthew 11:28-30. These statements in Scripture form the basis for asserting that the Sabbath was indeed a type that is fulfilled by Christ.
You continue to argue that the Sabbath Law was given before the time of Moses. I presented two specific Old Testament Scriptures which directly claim otherwise:
Are you therefore claiming that Moses, in his old age, was senile, and therefore stated a falsehood? He explicitly stated “The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.”
He is talking about the Ten Commandment Law, which follows immediately after this text. He directly asserts this Ten Commandment Law was not revealed previously.
Are you trying to assert that you know more about when the Sabbath was commanded than Nehemiah, a divinely inspired Bible writer, did?
Why should I trust your judgment about this matter when it directly contradicts the statements of Moses and Nehemiah?
These two texts absolutely settle the case. But I wouldn’t have learned of them in this connection but for your helpful challenges and comments, so again I sincerely thank you for your input, persistent input at that, which forced me to dig deeper to learn the truth from Scripture. These texts are not linked in the cross references now available, so I’ll have to correct that.
Now, if you think you can teach me something about Bible prophecy, you are most welcome to make the attempt. I am always ready to learn more, and to correct a mistaken position should I have one.
But on the subject of Daniel’s Seventieth Week, well, I’m only as far as having just completed my work on Jeremiah 37, so I’m clearly not that far yet.
But as for your denial of there being “unannounced time gaps” in Scripture, your denial clearly betrays the fact that you have NOT carefully studied the issue. I have. There are many such gaps found in the prophetic Scriptures between immediately adjacent statements, including several significant instances in the book of Daniel, including one that pertains to the Seventieth Week.
Here is the list as far as I have been able to complete it given at Isaiah 61:2,
There is the list right where you can see it.
Take a look at this text from the list:
Clearly verse 9 is prophecy already fulfilled by Christ. Verse 10 is awaiting a future fulfillment. That means there is an unannounced time gap between verse 9 and verse 10 that is most clear and not open to any question.
I personally believe the rest of the time gaps are equally clear, or I would not have placed them on the list.
I eagerly await your expanding on your statement regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, or an explanation of your comment: