Sabbath Observance: 3 Views

[Guest]

Allyn wrote:

Looking back at my comments to Paidion I see they went a different way then I remembered them and I see it is possible I did offend Paidion. I apologize to Paidion for that.

I do not desire any further communication with you dmatic. Its best we cut it off here and now.

Thank you Allyn.

and I will honor your request, until the Lord tells me otherwise.

peace, dmatic

[Guest]

As Steve7150 showed, we have no need of the Law of Moses to show us how to follow Jesus. He commissioned His Church to teach His disciples to obey His Commandments, not those of Moses.

Jesus is not on record as ever having said, "You shall not take the name of Lord your God vain." But Moses is. So do we get out of keeping this command since we, supposedly, only follow Jesus' Commands? I think not! Jesus accepted Moses' teaching on this matter, as all Christians do. The Old Testament is part of our Bible; it's the Bible Jesus taught from!

Jesus taught "about (or commented)" on the Second Command though he's not on record as ever "saying" the command itself (NIV):
Matt 5:33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Lev 19:2'You shall not swear falsely by My name, so as to profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.

Was this an entirely new teaching from Jesus that no one had ever heard of before? No. It was his halacha {a rabbi's own personal teaching about the Law of Moses; in this case, on "false swearing in God's name" which has implications and relevance to the Second Command, though Jesus is not on record as ever expressly mentioning it}.

Anyway...on that note, I throw my hands up in the air and give up.
(I suppose I disagree with you, Homer & Steve, but no need to reply), please don't.
And now, back to your regularly scheduled thread (I hope y'all sort things out),

[Guest]

Dmatic, Jesus seemed to contrast many times what "it was said in the old days" with what he taught. For example, Moses taught that if you leave (or dismiss) your wife, you had to give her a certificate of divorce, but Jesus taught not to leave your wife at all. He said that Moses gave that law because of the hardness of the Israelites' hearts. So could it be that God had Moses give particular instructions to the Israelites which were not his actual will, but by way of concession because of the hardness of their hearts?

Here is a particularly powerful one:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. Matthew 5:43-45

If we believe that God literally gave the command to hate our enemies, then what do we do with the opposite command which Christ gave, namely, to love our enemies? We can't obey them both. Or did God give the former through Moses so that they would at least love their neighbours! Did God sometimes give commands as concessions because of the weakness of the Israelites while he really wanted something much better?

Notice that Jesus said that if we love our enemies and pray for them we will be like the heavenly Father himself. For he treats the unrighteous just as well as the righteous in many respects. They get sunshine and rain just like everybody else.

Notice that when Jesus finished his instructions on righteousness in Matthew 5, 6, and 7, he concluded with the following words:

"Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it."

And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes Matthew 7:24-29

Notice Jesus says the wise person is the one who obey his words, not the laws of Moses. Indeed, throughout his teaching he contrasts his words with those spoken through Moses.

Dmatic, I was wondering also whether you practice the following instruction given through Moses:

Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. Leviticus 19:27

Do you refrain from trimming the sides of your hair or the edges of your your beard? Now I hope your not going to say that you have cut your whole beard off and now keep your face shaved. Surely that would be much more against God's wishes!

[Guest]

i just finished reading through the book of Leviticus. what a chore. and what a chore it must have been to keep all of that right. aaron and his sons must have used cheat sheets, like quarterbacks that tape plays to their forearm.

and wasnt the main purpose of the law to show that we CAN'T keep it?

TK

[Guest]

and wasnt the main purpose of the law to show that we CAN'T keep it?

That would be one thing among many things that came up in the narrative of Romans (in what-all Paul was trying to say and accomplish in writing it). But the main purpose? I don't think so, though that 'inability' does enter into the narrative (chapter 7, the "I", a Jew before conversion). If there is "a" main purpose of God's Law; it is that we CAN keep it through Christ!

(ESV)
Romans 8:3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit, imo.
But I mean, like, well, I didn't write this....

P.S. Your 'Chronicles of Narnia quotation' is my favorite what-they-said from the entire series! (I remember and meditate on this quite often).
"Not-safe, but good" is the best brief definition of Sovereignty I've ever seen!
{and is really "useful as a witnessing tool"}, Thanks for that & take care, TK.

[Guest]

and wasnt the main purpose of the law to show that we CAN'T keep it?

I have real problems with this idea. If that was the main purpose, why did the Israelites continue in it after they had learned that "they couldn't keep it"? Or did they ever learn that?

Yet, one might infer that this was the main purpose from the following Scripture:

But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Galatians 3:22-27

I'm not convinced, however, that in the passage above, Paul is actually saying that "the main purpose of the law to show that we CAN'T keep it."

[Guest]

But if they could have kept the Law then the Law should have been good enough to have kept them in perfect relationship to God thus no need for the Savior. The continued obiedience to the law should have served the purpose to bring them back into what was lost through Adam.

[Guest]

But if they could have kept the Law then the Law should have been good enough to have kept them in perfect relationship to God thus no need for the Savior. The continued obedience to the law should have served the purpose to bring them back into what was lost through Adam.

Paul just 'talked' about this:
Romans 8:3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, (I thought I'd add & reiterate)...Take care.

[Guest]

But if they could have kept the Law then the Law should have been good enough to have kept them in perfect relationship to God thus no need for the Savior. The continued obedience to the law should have served the purpose to bring them back into what was lost through Adam.

Paul just 'talked' about this:
Romans 8:3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, (I thought I'd add & reiterate)...Take care.

Unfortunately Rick, I am guilty of reading only one post and not the several in context. This is what makes me a poor debator.

[Guest]

But if they could have kept the Law then the Law should have been good enough to have kept them in perfect relationship to God thus no need for the Savior.

I don't know whether that is true of not, but let's assume it is. Suppose also that they could have kept the law. The fact is, however, they didn't. Hence the need for a Saviour who would save them from sin by his sacrifice which made enabling grace available to all who would submit to his Lordship. In other words, those who could but wouldn't needed help.

Is it possible to go without sinning for 10 seconds? If so, then why not for a minute? 10 minutes? An hour? A day? A week? A month? A year?
Of course, the longer the period the less likely to remain free from sin. But if the possibility is there to remain sin-free for 10 seconds, then it is there for any given amount of time. What Christ's sacrifice did is to make that possiblity a likelihood for those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.

Leviticus 11:45 For I am the Yahweh who brought you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God; you shall therefore be holy, for I am holy."

I cannot believe that God would ask the Israelites to be holy if it were impossible for them to do so.

He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous. I John 3:7

I cannot believe that John would speak of those who are righteous like God, if there are none.