“. . . one must come to an agreement. . .”, says Guibox. Well, that is what I have been trying to reach in different Internet sites of Christian discussions (in three languages) and so far no one has showed willingness to go up to the end of these 10 points for a possible consensus:
10 POINTS FOR A POSSIBLE CONSENSUS IN THE DEBATE ON GOD’S LAW
After long discussions in an Evangelical Forum in the Internet, on the topic “The Eternal Law of God”, with several Christians who adopt a neo-antinomian/dispensationalist vision on the subject, 10 very important points were submitted to them so that they expressed their agreement or disagreement in order to see how this theme could be better defined, according to what the Bible really teaches.
It was proposed that if in some point there were differences in understanding, that could be worked out and some other way of agreement could be looked for, in the face of alternative proposals submitted by the objectors. It would be a blessing if a consensus on the main points could be reached. Let’s see what these 10 points for the proposed consensus could be:
1) The question of obedience to the divine commandments, or all that God ordains, will not aim at salvation in any measure, since our obedience belongs to the field of sanctification (or “perseverance of the saints”), not justification. The law in itself transmits nothing in terms of justice. To understand the role of the law as a means of salvation would be an “illegitimate” use of it (1 Timothy 1:8).
2) The spiritual failure of Israel, which led to its rejection as a “theocratic nation”, was not in the law, which is “perfect”, “holy”, “just”, “good”, “spiritual”, “pleasurable” (Romans 7:12, 14, 22), rather in the people’s self-confidence attitude (“all that the Lord has said we will do”) regarding their possibilities to obey it plainly.
3) Jesus Christ stressed the basic principles of God’s law as being “love God above all things” and “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:36-40). Paul confirms it in Romans 13:8-10 and both these principles were always recognized by Christians as the synthesis of the divine law, both in the “horizontal” [creature-creature] perspective, as well in the “vertical” one [creature-Creator].
4) There are precepts of ceremonial, civil and moral character in the divine law, independently of occurring such “technical” language in the Bible pages, a fact recognized by the Confessions of Faith and Christian authorities of different persuasions, both of the present and the past, as exemplified by the “Westminster Confession of Faith”, the “39 Articles on Religion of the Church of England” and the “Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689”.
5) In the Sermon on the Mountain (Matthew 5 to 7), as well as in the conversation with the young ruler (Matthew 19:16ff), as Christ dealt with the true spirit of the law He reminded that God takes into account not only the mere external obedience to its texts, but the real, inner intentions of the individual vis-à-vis such obedience.
6) None of the Decalogue’s commandments has application limited to Israel. The Sabbath principle was extended to the “foreigners” (Isaiah 56:2-8), and people of every nationality need a regular day for rest, hence “the Sabbath was made because of man” (Mark 2:27). The most representative, historic, Confessions of Faith of the Protestant Christendom track the principle of a rest day to the Creation of the world.
7) Under the new covenant the basic principles of the divine law are written by God in the hearts and minds of His children, Jews or gentiles, in the manner it had been promised to ancient Israel in Ezekiel 36:26, 27 and Jeremiah 31:31-33 (cf. Hebrews 8:6-10 and 10:16).
8) In Christ’s debates with the scribes and Pharisees on the Sabbath He was correcting the extreme and insensible practice of the commandment by them, not campaigning against a norm established by Himself as Creator and Legislator (see Matthew 12:1-12; Hebrews 1:2).
9) In the beginning of Revelation (1:10) John refers to the “Lord’s day” as being a special day that he dedicated to God, for he speaks on that in the introduction of his book, as he locates himself in space (island of Patmos--vs. 9) and time (“on the Lord’s day”). Thus, he maintained a special day of observance, as established in the 4th commandment of God’s law, a fact that is recognized by the most representative historic “Confessions of Faith” of the Protestant Christendom, and is reiterated by important leaders, authors and teachers in that milieu.
10) The early Church suffered negative influences and adopted condemned practices and teachings after the passing away of the apostles, as had been prophesized by Paul in Act 20:29, 30, 2 Thessalonians 2:7, by Peter in 2 Peter 2:1-3, a process that already manifested itself at the time when John describes some of the seven churches he addresses Jesus’ messages in the book of Revelation, chapters 2 and 3.
I don’t have much time right now to engage in an in-depth analysis of what JeremyG alleges, but would just point out some few things:
He didn’t bring up any other “proof” of confessional document (like that of the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans) discarding the Sabbath principle, but for this article 28 of the Augsburg Confession, written by Melancthon, in which he clearly contradicts Martin Luther’s ‘Small Catechism’ article on the Ten Commandments.
Notice that after asking for a Protestant church’s confession, Azenilto now tries to discredit the confession I quoted because he doesn’t like what it says. He makes it sound like it is one man’s peculiar opinion, when in fact, as I posted earlier, the Augsburg Confession has been the official Confession of the Lutheran church for 500 years (since 1530).
Azenilto Brito - 13 February 2011 06:01 AM
He also “forgot” to bring up the interesting comment at the beginning of this Art. 28 of the Augsburg Confession, which begins stressing how the Roman Catholic Church claims to have the right to impose religious festivals based on the fact that it changed Sabbath to Sunday. So, the Lutherans recognize this point--the RCC claims to have that right based on its change of the Lord’s Day.
I did not conveniently “forget” to include anything. The Confession rejects that false claim of the Roman Catholic Church, as do all Protestants. So what is your point??? The Confession says: “They refer to the Sabbath-day as having been changed into the Lord’s Day, contrary to the Decalog, as it seems. Neither is there any example whereof they make more than concerning the changing of the Sabbath-day. Great, say they, is the power of the Church, since it has dispensed with one of the Ten Commandments!”
Notice that it even says that it would be “contrary to the Decalog” to change the Sabbath to Sunday! This is certainly not a (Sunday) Sabbatarian argument!
And I did include a reference to the same Roman Catholic claim later, where the Confession says: “For those who judge that by the authority of the Church the observance of the Lord’s Day instead of the Sabbath-day was ordained as a thing necessary, do greatly err.”
So what if they acknowledge that the Roman Catholics make such a claim? It’s a false claim, as the Confession points out!
Azenilto Brito - 13 February 2011 06:01 AM
Melanchton, who wrote that document, somehow ignores what Martin Luther defines as the 3rd commandment of the Decalogue, which he so much exalts in his ‘Small Catechism’. He defines as this 3rd commandment (should be 4th, but he follows the Roman Catolics ennumeration of the Decalogue)--"Sanctify the day of rest”. It’s important to notice this detail--he employs the verb “sanctify”.
You are not understanding Luther’s position, just from the very brief Small Catechism. Luther did not disagree with the Lutheran Confession (an absurd notion on the face of it!). Here is what Luther says in his Large Catechism:
The Third Commandment.
78] Thou shalt sanctify the holy day. [Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.]
79] The word holy day (Feiertag) is rendered from the Hebrew word sabbath which properly signifies to rest, that is, to abstain from labor. Hence we are accustomed to say, Feierabend machen [that is, to cease working], or heiligen Abend geben [sanctify the Sabbath]. 80] Now, in the Old Testament, God separated the seventh day, and appointed it for rest, and commanded that it should be regarded as holy above all others. As regards this external observance, this commandment was given to the Jews alone, that they should abstain from toilsome work, and rest, so that both man and beast might recuperate, and not be weakened by unremitting labor. Although they afterwards restricted this too closely, and grossly abused it, so that they traduced and could not endure in Christ those works which they themselves were accustomed to do on that day, as we read in the Gospel; just as though the commandment were fulfilled by doing no external, [manual] work whatever, which, however, was not the meaning, but, as we shall hear, that they sanctify the holy day or day of rest.
82] This commandment, therefore, according to its gross sense, does not concern us Christians; for it is altogether an external matter, like other ordinances of the Old Testament, which were attached to particular customs, persons, times, and places, and now have been made free through Christ.
Some extra detail: kainós is contrasted with néos in the ‘new’ creature, ‘new’ heavens and ‘new’ earth, ‘new’ commandments (new in quality, not in substance). So, the ‘new’ wineskins bring néos, meaning completely new material.
Thus, the New Covenant is basically THE SAME, but having a new quality--that of the understanding of the gospel. There isn’t the least hint in Heb. 8:6-10 that NEW COVENANT = NEW LAW. . .
How about answering now our blue question that puts things in due perspective regarding this question of the transfer of Old to New Covenant?
Again, you have it backwards. The word kainoscannot have the same quality/substance/ingredients/material as the old. Also, the word neos is used of the wine, but the word kainos is used of the wineskins. Also, despite what Adventism teaches, the new heavens and the new earth are completely new--not the same recycled old ones! The old heavens and earth pass away according to Revelation, and God creates a new heavens and a new earth.
Why don’t you answer Azenilto’s questions in blue. He repeatedly responds to your questions and comments and you don’t respond to his. I’d like to see your responses to Azenilto’s questions.
Why don’t you answer Azenilto’s questions in blue. He repeatedly responds to your questions and comments and you don’t respond to his. I’d like to see your responses to Azenilto’s questions.
Bill,
Most of his questions are “leading questions” and/or built upon false premises. However, I have responded to what he has said to me, something which, as you can see, he has not been doing with most of the points in my posts.
What I stressed was Melanchton’s reference to the Roman Catholic Church’s claims regarding her change of the rest day from Sabbath to Sunday. I never said that he agreed with that, but his mention to this fact is interesting--confirming what SDA’s always say--that the Roman Catholic Church does hold that claim.
Luther in the ‘Small Catechism’ refers to 10 COMMANDMENTS, not NINE. At the conclusion of his comments on the Decalogue, he even highlights the importance of them all (excluding none):
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
AS THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY SHOULD TEACH THEM IN A SIMPLE WAY TO HIS HOUSEHOLD
. . .
The Third Commandment
You shall sanctify the holy day. [Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.]
What does this mean? We should fear and love God so that we do not despise preaching and His Word, but hold it sacred and gladly hear and learn it.
. . .
The Close of the Commandments
What does God say about all these commandments? He says: “I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love Me and keep My commandments.” [Ex. 20:5–6]
What does this mean?
God threatens to punish all who break these commandments.
Therefore, we should fear His wrath and not do anything against them. But He promises grace and every blessing to all who keep these commandments. Therefore, we should also love and trust in Him and gladly do what He commands.
What both he and Melanchton say are in clear conflict to that part of the ‘Small Catechism’, and with what Luther also said later (1539) in “A Treatise Against the Antinomians. . .”, I even posted a segment of.
Why, the day to be sanctified is ONE in the week. If he meant Sunday, then we have TEN Commandments. If he “forgot” later what he had said in the ‘Small Catechism’, this is typical of the confusion and ambiguity that prevail among the Reformers (including Calvin), as they deal with this subject, for obvious reasons (they contradict what The Bible says).
And the suggestion that my blue question be answered clearly, objectively, specifically, to the point, is a good one. Let me even repeat it:
Where is it written that in the change from the Old to the New Covenant, when God writes what is called “My laws” in the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of the New Covenant [New Testament] (Heb. 8:6-10), transferring the contents of the cold tables of stone to the hearts warmed by the divine grace (2 Cor. 3:2-7), He
a – leaves out the 4th commandment of the moral law;
b – includes the 4th commandment, but changing the sanctity of the 7th to the 1st day of the week;
OR
c – includes the 4th commandment, but leaving it as a vague, voluntary and variable principle that can be reinterpreted as any day or time which is most convenient to the believer (or his employer);
Why don’t you answer Azenilto’s questions in blue. He repeatedly responds to your questions and comments and you don’t respond to his. I’d like to see your responses to Azenilto’s questions.
It would also be very profitable to everybody in this discussion if he not only took one by one of the “10 reasons” why Sunday observance is not biblical to refute them, as well as considered my 10 “consensus proposal” points.
Coming right to the point, the Ten Commandments are no longer a factor in the Christian church. They have been replaced by Christ in the believer.
Romans 8:2 (New King James Version)
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.
Paul called the Law “a yoke of bondage” that the Spirit led church was to throw off.
Galatians 5
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free,[and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
Paul also shows in this verse that the Law cannot be divided as some proponents of Law suggest. The so-called “moral law” and the ceremonial law are united. Christ died to free us from the Law that we could not keep and required our seperation from God forever for our failure in any point to a fellowship with Him via the Spirit.
Peter also calls the Law a “yoke of bondage” unfitting for a people freed from the slavery of sin. “Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?”
Bear in mind that Apostolic teaching links circumcsion with keeping the Law, so the issue is deeper than the ceremony of cutting the flesh.
Since the law cannot be divided, insisting on Sabbath keeping is the desire to place a yoke of bondage on people alreay freed from the Law. So law keeping neither saves intially or aids in the sanctification process.
James 2:10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all
So what if you keep the Sabbath? Do you also love God fully, 24/7? Do you keep all of the other Laws as well? If you say yes , you are lying and thus breaking ALL the commandments! If you were keeping them as God requires, you would never ever have to ask for forgiveness again!
Give it up and throw yourself on Christ who saves completely forever!
Also, the failure to distinguish between the church, the Spirit filled Bride of Christ and the eternal Israel lies at the heart of the misunderstanding we are talking about.
Both Old and New Covenants were made with Israel, not the church. The church is the recipient of the grace of God through Christ’s sacrificial death for all men. Those who believe this glorious truth are then placed by the Spirit into the body of Christ and sealed in there forever.
The time will come when Israel will repent, receive Christ and then have God’s Law written on their heart just as the Prophet Jeremiah predicted. Israel will then observe the Sabbath day in the Millenium since that day is an eternal covenant between God and Israel.
God bless these truths to receptive hearts! Scrip
Acts 15
Conflict over Circumcision
1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.
3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. 4 And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
The Jerusalem Council
6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ[a] we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”
12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
16 ‘ After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the LORD who does all these things.’
18 “Known to God from eternity are all His works.[c] 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality,[d]from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
Azenilto Brito - 08 January 2011 12:28 PM
10 MAIN REASONS THAT DISCREDIT THE OBSERVANCE OF SUNDAY
(1) No Command of Christ or of the Apostles. There is no commandment of Christ or of the apostles regarding a weekly-Sunday or annual Easter-Sunday celebration of Christ’s resurrection. We have commands in the New Testament regarding baptism (Matt 28:19-20), the Lord’s Supper (Mark 14:24-25; 1 Cor 11:23-26) and foot-washing (John 13:14-15), but we find no commands or even suggestions to commemorate Christ’s Resurrection on a weekly Sunday or annual Easter-Sunday.
Since Sunday would be a “novelty”, a new principle of worship, especially as it would be the substitution of such an inbred tradition in the national and religious culture of the Jewish people, as was the case of the Sabbath, any change in that practice would undoubtedly prompt commentaries, specific instructions justifying the alterations, particularly as the first converts to the Christian religion proceeded from Judaism and were “zealous of the law”(Acts 21:20). However, nothing is found in the whole New Testament concerning such change, nor any debates discussing the subject.
Seventh-day Sabbath remained valid and in force along with all the other Decalogue’s commandments after the cross. A proof of that is the testimony of Luke, writing 30 years after the Resurrection event, describing the action of the holy women, followers of Christ, as they prepared “spices and ointments” to apply on His body. They worked actively on their tasks, but “rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56).
For Luke, then, who declares to have looked for detailed information about everything related to Christ’s experience (Luke 1:1-4), the rest day “according to the commandment” was the seventh-day Sabbath. He refers to the following day simply as “the first day of the week”, without attributing to it any special qualifications (see Luke 24:1).
The same Luke reports in the Acts of the Apostles how during the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), as the judaizers problem was dealt with, no norms were set against the Sabbath observance (Acts 15:20), a demonstration that such instruction was unnecessary. All observed it regularly and there was no need to give instruction regarding it. Paul, on a Sabbath day, when there was no synagogue in a certain location, went to the side of a river for a time of prayer (Acts 16:13). In Corinth he spent one year and a half preaching every Sabbath and never remembered to tell those who met there to change their day of worship to Sunday (Acts 18:1-4, 11) even when only the gentiles remained, as the Jews left.
(2) Jesus Made no Attempt to Institute a Memorial of His Resurrection. If Jesus wished the day of His resurrection to become a memorial day of rest and worship, He would have capitalized on the day of His resurrection to establish such a memorial. It is important to note that divine institutions like the Sabbath, baptism, Lord’s Supper, all trace their origin to a divine act that established them. But on the day of His resurrection Christ performed no act to institute a memorial of His resurrection.
If we think it through, both Christ’s death and resurrection are equally important events, foundational to the Christian faith. Both could deserve a special day for their celebration. If the Resurrection was supposed to be celebrated regularly on a special day, given its importance, why not the Savior’s death? So, we have two exceptional historical landmarks for a Christian—the death and the resurrection of Christ. Which would deserve a memorial day? Possibly both, but the Scriptures don’t establish that. Nothing is implied that any change occurred in the text of the divine law because of any of these events.
If Jesus intended to memorialize the day of His Resurrection, most likely He would have told the women and the disciples when He arose: “Come apart and celebrate My Resurrection!” Instead He told them, “Go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee” (Matt 28:10), and to the disciples, “Go . . . make disciples . . . baptizing them” (Matt 28:19). None of the utterances of the risen Savior reveal any intention to memorialize His Resurrection by making Sunday the new day of rest and worship.
The reason is that our Savior wanted His followers to view His Resurrection as an existential reality to be experienced daily by living victoriously by the power of His Resurrection, rather than a liturgical/religious event to be celebrated on Sunday.
Paul expressed the hope to “know him and the power of his resurrection” (Phil 3:10), but he never mentions his desire to celebrate Christ’s Resurrection on Sunday or Easter-Sunday.
(3) Sunday Is Never Called “Day of the Resurrection.” Sunday is never called in the New Testament as “Day of the Resurrection.” It is consistently designated “First day of the week.” The references to Sunday as day of the resurrection first appear in the early part of the fourth century, specifically in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea. By that time Sunday had become associated with the resurrection and consequently was referred to as “Day of the Resurrection.” But this development occurred several centuries after the beginning of Christianity.
(4) The Sunday-Resurrection Presupposes Work, not Rest and Worship. The Sunday-Resurrection presupposes work, rather than rest and worship, because it does not mark the completion of Christ’s earthly ministry which ended on a Friday afternoon when the Savior said: “It is finished” (John 19:30), and then rested in the tomb according to the commandment. Instead, the Resurrection marks the beginning of Christ’s new intercessory ministry (Acts 1:8; 2:33), which, like the first day of creation, presupposes work rather than rest.
(5) The Lord’s Supper was not Celebrated on Sunday in Honor of the Resurrection. Historically we know that Christians could not celebrate the Lord’s Supper on a regular basis on Sunday evening, because such gatherings were prohibited by the Roman hetariae law—a law that outlawed all types of communal fellowship meals held in the evening. The Roman government was afraid that such evening gatherings could become an occasion for political plotting.
To avoid the search of the Roman police, Christian changed regularly the time and place of the Lord’s Supper celebration. Eventually, they moved the service from the evening to the morning. This explains why Paul is very specific on the manner of celebrating the Lord’s Supper, but he is indefinite on the question of the time of the assembly. Note that four times he repeats the same phrase: “When you come together” (1 Cor 11:18, 20, 33, 34). The phrase implies indefinite time, most likely because there was no set day for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
If, as some scholars contend, the Lord’s Supper was celebrated on Sunday evening, as part of the Lord’s Day worship, Paul could hardly have failed to mention the sacredness of the time in which they gathered. This would have strengthened his plea for a more worshipful attitude during the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. The failure of Paul to mention “Sunday” as the time of the gathering or to use the adjective “Lord’s-kuriakê” to characterize the day as “the Lord’s Day,” (as he did it with reference to the Lord’s Supper), shows that the apostle did not attach any religious significance to Sunday.
(6) The Lord’s Supper Commemorates Christ’s Sacrifice, not His Resurrection. Many Christians today view their Lord’s Supper as the core of Sunday worship in honor of Christ’s resurrection. But in the Apostolic Church, the Lord’s Supper was not celebrated on Sunday, as we have just seen, and was not connected with the Resurrection. Paul, for instance, who claims to transmit what “he received from the Lord” (1 Cor 11:23), explicitly states that the rite commemorated not Christ’s resurrection, but His sacrifice and Second Coming (“You proclaim the Lord’s death till he comes” (1 Cor 11:26).
Similarly, Passover, celebrated today by many Christians on Easter Sunday, was observed during apostolic times, not on Sunday to commemorate the Resurrection, but according to the biblical date of Nisan 14, primarily as a memorial of Christ’s suffering and death. Contrary to what many people believe, Easter-Sunday was unknown in the Apostolic Church. It was introduced and promoted by the Church of Rome in the second century in order to show separation and differentiation from the Jewish Passover. The result was the well-known Passover controversy, which eventually led Bishop Victor of Rome to excommunicate the Asian Christians (about A. D. 191) for refusing to adopt Easter-Sunday. These indications show that Christ’s resurrection on the first day of the week, did not influence the Apostolic Church to adopt the weekly Sunday and the annual Easter-Sunday to commemorate such an event.
(7) The Resurrection is not the Dominant Reason for Sundaykeeping in Earliest Documents. The earliest explicit references to Sundaykeeping are found in the writings of Barnabas (about A. D. 135) and Justin Martyr (about A.D. 150). Both writers do mention the Resurrection but only as the second of two reasons, important but not predominant. Barnabas’ first theological motivation for Sunday keeping is eschatological, namely, that Sunday as “the eight day” represents “the beginning of another world.” The notion of Sunday as “the eighth day,” was later abandoned because it is senseless to speak of “the eighth day” in a seven days week. Justin’s first reason for the Christians’ assembly on Dies Solis—the Day of the Sun, is the inauguration of creation: “Sunday is the first day on which God, transforming the darkness and prime matter, created the world.” These reasons were eventually abandoned in favor of the Resurrection which became the primary reason for Sunday observance.
(8) Nothing Indicates that in the Establishment of the New Covenant There Was Any Change in the Terms of the Biblical Rest Day Commandment. Nothing is said that when God writes His laws on the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of the New Covenant (New Testament) there occurs an alteration in the terms of these laws, so that Sunday replaces the seventh-day Sabbath (Heb. 8:6-10). Since this passage is an ipsis literis reproduction of Jeremiah 31:31-33, when the promise of a new covenant was firstly made to Israel due to the captivity they would face because of their sins (and one of the reasons for their punishment was exactly their negligence regarding the Sabbath commandment—see Jer. 17:19-27), it is understood that these “My laws” referred to in Hebrews are the same that always pertained to those eternal and moral principles expressed in the Decalogue.
The ceremonial part of that law ended on the cross, and the primary readers of the Hebrews epistle (as well as its author) knew that, for when it was firstly received by them the Temple’s veil had already been rent from top to bottom, ending those rites that pointed to Christ and His sacrifice. And if there were any doubts about it, the tenor of the epistle itself would solve the problem, for chapters 7-10 define exactly the end of these ceremonies, while stressing that the divine law is written on the hearts of the true children of God—in its moral aspects and other ethical and hygienic principles, without the ceremonial prefigurations (see Eph. 2:15).
(9) The Roman Catholic Church Presents Itself as the Author of the Change in the Rest Day from the Seventh-day Sabbath to Sunday. Several documents of the Roman Catholic Church assert that it was the responsible for that alteration, as can be exemplified by some official statements of that church, such as:
“The Catholic Church . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday” – The Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.
“You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify”.—James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (1917 ed.), pp. 72, 73.
Another Catholic document confirms it:
“Ques. How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays?
“Ans. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church”. – Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (same in the Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. By Daniel Ferris [1916 ed.], p. 67.
(10) The Seventh-day Sabbath Will Be Restored in the New Earth When Sin Is Extirpated From the Universe. If some alteration in the terms of the divine day of rest had occurred, this would be reflected in prophecies regarding the future world, when the prophet declares that “in the new heavens and new earth” all the residents will come to “worship before Me, says the Lord” on the Sabbath day (Isa. 66:22, 23). Isaiah’s prophecy has to do specifically with the New Earth regime, as indicated by the context. When no more sin or sinners will exist in this new environment where “dwelleth righteousness” (2 Ped. 3:13) ALL the commandments of the divine law will be respected, and since “the Sabbath was made because of man” (Mar. 2:27), it will proceed in the holy regime of the New Earth, not Sunday, as would be the case if any change had occurred.
The well reputed French version of Louis Segond thus reads: “. . . à chaque sabbat, toute chair viendra se prosterner devant moi, dit l‘Éternel” [every Sabbath day all flesh will come to prostrate before Me, says the Eternal One]. This is also reflected in the contemporary language Bible published in Brazil, in the Portuguese language: “. . . em todos os sábados pessoas de todas as nações virão me adorar no Templo” [on every Sabbath day people from all nations will come to adore me in the Temple].
CONCLUSION: The 10 reasons listed above suffice to discredit the claim that Christ’s resurrection on the first day of the week caused the abandonment of the Sabbath and the adoption of Sunday. The truth is that initially the resurrection was celebrated existentially rather than liturgically, that is, by a victorious way of life rather than by a special day of worship.
__________
Note: This article is an adaptation of the text “Seven Main Reasons That Discredit the Sunday Observance”, by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, with the addition of three more reasons and several paragraphs to the seven reasons presented in the original text.
You didn’t take into account some important features of all my discussions above. How about the 10 points of consensus, by which we could even come to an agreeement? See, as you imply that “some” (few?) people are dividing the law as “Moral” and “Ceremonial”, etc, you show to IGNORE that this “some” people are ALL writers of the confessions of faith of Protestant Christendom (and the millions of Christians who have adhered to them along the centuries), as well as the most representative Bible commentators of the different Protestant denominations along the time (as Albert Barnes [Presbyterian], Adam Clarke [Methodist], Jamieson, Fausset & Brown [Baptists], to not mention Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley]. Them ALL understood the theme of God’s law that way, didn’t you know that?! How regrettable!
It’s funny that you teach the total abolition of the law, quoting some sparse texts here and there, but forgot to answer one by one the “10 reasons” that invalidates Sunday observance, as I pointed out, even though transcribing them at the end of your post.
You also forgot to consider the decisive question on this subject of the transfer of the Old to the New Covenant. Why don’t you take a time to give this question a clear, objective, to the point answer? Let me repeat it once again, in the expectation that you give us that answer:
Where is it written that in the change from the Old to the New Covenant, when God writes what is called “My laws” in the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of the New Covenant [New Testament] (Heb. 8:6-10), transferring the contents of the cold tables of stone to the hearts warmed by the divine grace (2 Cor. 3:2-7), He
a – leaves out the 4th commandment of the moral law;
b – includes the 4th commandment, but changing the sanctity of the 7th to the 1st day of the week;
OR
c – includes the 4th commandment, but leaving it as a vague, voluntary and variable principle that can be reinterpreted as any day or time which is most convenient to the believer (or his employer);
ALSO:
d - excludes the dietary laws, which, not being ceremonial, typological, had no reason to be abolished on the cross, as we can see their absence in the discussion of the meaning of the ceremonial and priestly laws of Israel for the Christian, in Hebrews 7 through 10?
Acts 15—A Bible Passage That Backfires on Anti-Sabbatarians
* Acts 15:28, 29: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things”.
Some take these texts to allege that the Judaizers wished to put the Christians back in their Jewish laws and customs, which had been abolished on the cross, and that included the Sabbath commandment along with circumcision. Then came the first Church council that decided to curtail their influence and it recommends nothing regarding Sabbath keeping in their final recommendations. That, according to these people, would prove that we don’t have to worry about the observance of that day, something that just applied to the Jews of the old dispensation.
It’s well known how important was Sabbath keeping to the religious and cultural life of the Jews, and how strongly attached they were regarding its observance, with even excess zeal, as seen in Jesus’ conflicts with the Pharisees on the manner of keeping it.
But if all the fuss of the Judaizers, recorded in Acts 15, involved, besides the requirement for circumcision, the keeping of the Sabbath commandment, then among the four Apostle’s recommendations we would find something regarding this commandment. They dealt with those things that caused doubts among the people and were stressed by some. But as nothing was said about the Sabbath, this proves, contrary to what some say, that the Sabbath question was not agitated by those ultra-zealous Jews converted to Christianity.
If, as the allegation goes, the Jerusalem early Church pioneered the promotion of Sunday keeping for not feeling at ease with the observance of the “Jewish” Sabbath, it would be expected to find in such a church the clear and immediate rupture with the Jewish traditions and religious worship services. What we find, however, is exactly the opposite. Both in the book of Acts as in various Jewish-Christian documents, such as one of the Palestine historian Epiphanius, it is revealed that the ethnic composition and theological orientation of the Jerusalem church were profoundly Jewish. The characterization of the Jerusalem church, according to Luke, that their members were “zealous for the law” (Acts 21:20), is an accurate description that hardly would allow seeing the demise of one of the main precepts of the law, as was the Sabbath commandment.
Some people quote Acts 15:5 that indicates how these Judaizers insisted that the new converts observed the “law of Moses” to imply that this would prove that the Sabbath was also under discussion. But they forget that, in that sense, the “law of Moses” didn’t limit itself to the Sabbath and circumcision, but comprehends “ye shall not kill”, “ye shall not steal”, “ye shall not commit adultery”, “honor thy father and they mother”. . .
In Acts 15:21 it is said that every Sabbath the law was read in the synagogues. It is a known fact that the early Christians went regularly to the synagogues on the Sabbath days in order to hear the reading of the Scriptures. They didn’t have as we do today, multiple Bible copies available, as we can even download complete Bibles from the Internet to install in our computers for free. Any collection of the Torah law scrolls was a small fortune, and only entire congregations could afford to acquire one.
If those Christians went to a synagogue on any other day, either they would find its doors closed, or there would be no Scripture reading. This occurred until de end of the first century, when by the year 95 AD the Jews, in an assembly known as Council of Jamnia, prohibited the presence of Christians in their environment. In Acts 9:2 we see how Paul had orders to persecute Christians found in the synagogues, which is confirmed in Acts 22:19 e 26:10 e 11.
Conclusion: If the Jerusalem council proves anything regarding the Sabbath principle, it’s exactly that there was no discussion of its exclusion for the Gentile Christians. If that were the case, it would show up in the recommendations of things they should ABSTAIN from (Acts 15:20, 29). Thus, the NON-Jews were recommended about four things to NOT practice, of which NONE refers to the Sabbath, which indicates that this theme was NOT a subject under discussion by the body of apostles in the Jerusalem council because there were NO doubts regarding its validity to all believers, both Jews and Gentiles.
The undeniable fact is that if there were debates regarding the abolition of the Sabbath, or its substitution for another day, that would cause fierce polemics on the part of the zealous-for-the-law Christians, of Jewish origin. They wouldn’t accept passively that a practice so dear to them were tinkered with, without a big fuss being born. And since there is no such agitation, it becomes obvious that no discussion occurred regarding the Sabbath commandment, for there was consensus on its acceptance.
Thus, to utilize the episode of the Jerusalem Council, recorded in Acts 15, as an argument against the fact that the early church observed the Sabbath, both in its Jewish and Christian wings, is an interpretative “shot” that backfires.
I am impressed with Apostolic preaching and teaching. Church councils and the church “fathers” often are mistaken. When they are correct, which they often are too, it’s because they are in line with Apostolic teaching.
The Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul both said the Law was a burden to be avoided by Christians who are now operating according to the law of LIFE in Christ which has FREED them from the Law of sin and death.
James tells us in James 2:10 “ For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.” This clearly shows that your Sabbath keeping is nothing unless you also PERFECTLY keep ALL of the other 9 commandments as well. Let me know how you’re doing with that, please .
The Law is a sign between ISRAEL and God forever. When Israel is fully converted in fulfillment of the New Covenant (the Law written on their hearts) at the end of the Tribulation they will for the FIRST time be enabled to keep the Sabbath fully in the spiritual manner required.
You should take note that Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles and his previous experience as a knowledgeable rabbi equipped him to know the Law far better than anyone writing on this board or anywhere else. Thus he is the Apostle of Jesus Christ who most clearly defines the difference between grace operating in the faith of Jesus Christ and the Mosaic system which never saved even its most ardent adherents.
In Romans 4, Paul uses both Abraham and David as examples to New Testament believers of saving faith. Abraham was saved and justified 400 years before the Law was even given. David lived under Law, yet found it insufficient to save him and trusted Christ to save instead.
The Law, all of it, is like an X ray machine. It can spot the problem and is used in that manner in Scripture to reveal sin. It can never cure, however. Christ alone gives life forever here and now. Having life forever frees us from a Law that can only bring death. John 5:24.
Galatians is written to make this clear to all of us and supersedes any scripture or teaching previous to it or since. Ignoring Galatians is what gives any plausibility to arguments for Sabbath keeping. Galatians also explores the motivations of those who teach otherwise. You would do well to read it thoroughly before replying to my message.
I am impressed with Apostolic preaching and teaching. Church councils and the church “fathers” often are mistaken. When they are correct, which they often are too, it’s because they are in line with Apostolic teaching.
The Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul both said the Law was a burden to be avoided by Christians who are now operating according to the law of LIFE in Christ which has FREED them from the Law of sin and death.
James tells us in James 2:10 “ For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.” This clearly shows that your Sabbath keeping is nothing unless you also PERFECTLY keep ALL of the other 9 commandments as well. Let me know how you’re doing with that, please .
The Law is a sign between ISRAEL and God forever. When Israel is fully converted in fulfillment of the New Covenant (the Law written on their hearts) at the end of the Tribulation they will for the FIRST time be enabled to keep the Sabbath fully in the spiritual manner required.
You should take note that Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles and his previous experience as a knowledgeable rabbi equipped him to know the Law far better than anyone writing on this board or anywhere else. Thus he is the Apostle of Jesus Christ who most clearly defines the difference between grace operating in the faith of Jesus Christ and the Mosaic system which never saved even its most ardent adherents.
In Romans 4, Paul uses both Abraham and David as examples to New Testament believers of saving faith. Abraham was saved and justified 400 years before the Law was even given. David lived under Law, yet found it insufficient to save him and trusted Christ to save instead.
The Law, all of it, is like an X ray machine. It can spot the problem and is used in that manner in Scripture to reveal sin. It can never cure, however. Christ alone gives life forever here and now. Having life forever frees us from a Law that can only bring death. John 5:24.
Galatians is written to make this clear to all of us and supersedes any scripture or teaching previous to it or since. Ignoring Galatians is what gives any plausibility to arguments for Sabbath keeping. Galatians also explores the motivations of those who teach otherwise. You would do well to read it thoroughly before replying to my message.
Scrip
Thanks for replying so quickly, but let’s analyze some ideological problems in your post:
1- Where is your direct, specific, clear, to-the-point answer to my challenging question regarding the transfer of the Old to the New Covenant, as discussed in Heb. 8:6-10? This question puts things in due perspective regarding the covenants subject.
2 - Have I understood well that you are implying that God writes His law in the minds and hearts of literal Israelites? And that is something to happen in a future eschatological occurrence involving modern Israel?! How about reading the BEGINNING of Heb. 8, where the author (probably Paul) sums up his discussion up to that point?:
“Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man”. (vs. 1, 2).
Is this the kind of language he would utilize were he addressing literal Jews?!
3 - What I mentioned about ‘the creeds of Christendom’ refers to CHURCHES that adopted these positions, and ALL the historical Protestant churches (from which all others were derived) teach that the 10 Commandments is God’s Moral Law, still to be kept by the Christian community, being different from the Ceremonial and Civil laws, the latter two no more binding to the Church. These churches are: Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Congregationalist, Anglican/Episcopalian. I also referred to classical Bible commentators of different denominations who confirm this historical position of these churches. Important Pentecostal books more recently also show agreement with this position.
4 - The Law of God is THE SAME Law of Christ, for it would be absurd to imagine that Father and Son somehow ruptured and established legislations apart. This we will discuss in greater detail in my next thread.
5 - The same Paul who warned against being bound to the law AS A MEANS OF ACQUIRING JUSTICE also recommended naturally the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th commandments of the Decalogue, addressing GENTILES: Eph. 6:1-3; 4:25-31; Rom. 13:8-10. He said that the gospel didn’t come to annul the law, but rather to CONFIRM it (Rom. 3:31).
The key to understand Paul’s discussions on the law is Rom. 9:30-32:
“What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone”.
Paul was not against the law, but against using it improperly (1 Tim. 1:8-NIV). It’s good to remember that Romans was written AFTER Galatians.
6 - James 2:8-12 shows he is referring to NO OTHER LAW, but the Decalogue. What he says applies to ANY principle of obedience. For example, some anti-Sabbatarians allege that the Decalogue was replaced by the two only basic commandments of love God and love one’s neighbor (Matt. 22:36-40).
First, they are mistaking SYNTHESIS for SUBSTITUTE. Second, they don’t resolve the dilemma of imperfect obedience, for who could ever claim to love God ABSOLUTELY with all heart, mind, strenght, and love his/her neighbors ABSOLUTELY as himself/herself? Only Jesus was able to present ABSOLUTELY PERFECT obedience to God; nobody else along centuries and millenia of human history could.
7 - The idea that the law was given to Israel ONLY at Sinai ignores the fact that Cain was confronted by God because of his sin (Gen. 4), which is biblically defined as “transgression of the law” (John 3:4). Is sin “transgression of the law” only from Sinai on? Then, God couldn’t confront Cain for his homicide, “for where no law is, there is no transgression” (Rom. 4:15). Joseph in Egypt also couldn’t have sinned against God, as he himself states, for there was no specific known code establishing, “ye shall not commit adultery” (Gen. 39:9). . .
In their respective confessions of faith, the Baptists and Presbyterians have defined that question very clearly in a way that reflects the “official” interpretation of all Christian denominations. The language of both documents is very similar, so I will quote just the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689:
The Law of God
1. God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience which was written in his heart, and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it.
2. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the ten commandments, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.
3. Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away. -- Op. Cit., Chap. 19.
8 - We don’t need any discourse to exhort us to read Galatians. I recommend that you read topics 9, 10 and 19 of our SDA Basic Beliefs, and challenge you to point out any discrepancy of what these topics say regarding our source of salvation vis-a-vis the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ.
9 - Your illustration of the law as an X-ray is interesting, because you don’t seem to realize how you contradict yourself, since you are using the verb in the PRESENT TENSE ("the law IS. . ."). So, it is still in force and serves a very important purpose--to point sin to sinners, which we ALL continue being, even after conversion (see 1 John 1:8, 10, or am I wrong?!). . .
Calvin uses the illustration of the law as a MIRROR, that shows the stain but can’t remove it, in his Institutes. That is about the same thing Paul says in Rom. 7:7, 8. By the way, Paul discusses the law also in the PRESENT TENSE all through the chapter, for he is not referring to an old, suppressed, abolished law. He confirms in vs. 25: “with the mind I myself serve the law of God”, and that is the one that contains the precept, “ye shall not covet”, as shown in the context (vs. 7, 8). So, how come this law is no more binding to the Christian community?!
10 - I also didn’t see any reactions from you to my post regarding the interpretative ‘shot’ of resorting to Acts 15 (the Jerusalem Council) to oppose to Sabbath keeping by the Christians. The chapter is a tremendous evidence IN FAVOR of the 7th-day Sabbath as a rule for Christians, not the opposite of that. What you have to say regarding that?
10 REASONS WHY THE “LAW OF GOD” AND THE “LAW OF CHRIST” ARE ONE AND THE SAME
Jesus said: “I and My Father are One” (John 10:30)
1 – Because there is no evidence in the Bible that there is a “law of Christ” that took the place of the “law of God” for the Christian community, and those who present this interpretation simply base themselves in inferences and non-demonstrable hypotheses.
Note: A popular and common interpretation is that now the Christian would have as rule a “law of love”, as Christ taught this to be His new “commandments” (Matt. 22:36-40). But one has just to compare these texts with Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 to see that He only reiterates what Moses had already said. Of course, God’s laws ALWAYS had as foundation the double principle of “love to God” and “love to the neighbor”.
2 – Because Paul still refers to the “law of God”, in a regular way, saying he serves it with his mind, has pleasure on it, and that the “inclination of the flesh” is not subject to the law of God, etc. (Rom. 7:22, 25; 8:7 e 8). He still refers to the “law of God”, “commandments of God”, things that would be past, besides he utilizes the verb in the present tense all the time in the quoted texts.
Note: In the twisted interpretation of the antinomians and neo-antinomians he should have concentrated on speaking only in “law of Christ” for the Christian, and as he spoke on “law of God” he should indicate that it was an old law, no more binding to the Church, utilizing the past tense of the verb.
3 – Because Paul enumerates the Decalogue’s commandments (“law of God”), prescribing them to the Christians to be obeyed according to the principle of “love”, instead of speaking of the “law of Christ” (Rom. 13:8-10). In v. 9 he shows that he is taking the part for the whole when saying: “if there is any other commandment. . .” He knew there was not “other” but “others”. . .
Note: Paul certainly didn’t think it to be necessary to quote one by one of the commandments, for his objective in this text was not to “revalidate” commandments, turning them into Christian principles.
4 – Because Paul reminds the Ephesians of commandments of the Decalogue (“listing the 5th., 8th., 9th. and 10th.commandments”— Eph. 6:1-3; 4:25-31) as still in force to the Christians.
Note: He should, instead, be urging them to obey the same principles, applying them to a different code, related to the “law of Christ”, in case these interpretations under analysis were right.
5 – Because Paul says that now “what counts” is to obey the “commandments of God”, and not the “commandments of Christ” (1 Cor. 7:19)?
Note: To see what Paul’s contemporaries understood by that language of “commandments of God” one has just to read Romans 7:7-13 and it can be clearly seen that these are also the Decalogue commandments. Of course that would include other duties, such as preaching the gospel all over the world.
6 – Because John speaks of “law of God” and “law of Christ” interchangeably in his various epistles (see 1 John 2:7; 3:21-24; 4:7-12, 21).
Note: He doesn’t leave any clues that there is any contrast between both of them.
7 – Because John in the book of Revelation says clearly that the faithful children of God are characterized as those who “keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus” (Rev. 14:12), instead of saying that they “keep the commandments of Christ”.
Note: Of course, they are the same, since this artificial dichotomy that some want to establish between “Christ’s commandments” and “God’s commandments” (or Christ’s law/God’s law) doesn’t exist.
8 – Because in Hebrews 8:6-10, dealing with the change of the Old to the New Covenant, the passage refers to “My laws” (God’s), which are written on the hearts and minds of those who accept this New Covenant [New Testament], and not the “laws of Christ”.
Note:This very important topic shows how in the New Testament the Christian will have the “law of God” written in his heart and mind, which is that one that Paul himself illustrated as being in the fleshly hearts of those who are under the new covenant (2nd Cor. 3:2-6). He certainly bases his illustration on Ezekiel 36:26, 27 and as he deals with “tables of stone/tables of flesh”, he had in mind THE ENTIRE CONTENTS of the stone tables transferred to the fleshly tables. If not, it wouldn’t make any sense for him to utilize the same metaphor of Ezekiel who, certainly, had in mind the 10 precepts of the stone tables, not only 9.
9 – Because James mentions the Decalogue’s commandments (that would be “law of God”) as normative for the Christians, instead of concentrating on speaking of the “law of Christ” (James 2:10-12).
Note: Some understand James’ words in an opposite sense, thinking that he is saying that since nobody obeys fully the commandments, for if one stumbles in one, failed in them all, them we are free from them. But, on the contrary, what James says is a reflection of what Christ had said in Matthew 5:48: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect”.
10 – Because John, in a context that speaks interchangeably of God and Christ, when defining sin—which is “the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4)—doesn’t specify that this applies now to the “law of Christ”.
Note: This biblical definition of sin is curiously avoided by those interpreters of the antinomian and neo-antinomian line. They seem not to like a bit the text as it appears in several versions, defining sin as the “transgression of the law”. Of what law would sin be a transgression? The gravity law? The law of demand and supply? The law of Medes and Persians that couldn’t be changed? Whoever is able to answer these questions will realize clearly what the Apostle John means.
Matthew 9:16-18 (New King James Version)
16 No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and the tear is made worse. 17 Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”
Sir, Your basic premise is incorrect which makes your many arguments invalid. You are attempting to do exactly what Jesus warns against in this passage (above). The church is a NEW CREATION, even as every born-again member is as well. This was a SECRET never revealed in the Old Testament! Now it has been made known through revelation to Paul and then to the church through Paul. Ignoring these scriptural facts lie at the root of your misunderstanding.
8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; 10 to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, Ephesians 3:8-10 (New King James Version)
Seeking to impose the Law in any part, including Sabbath keeping, is forbidden by the Apostles and is proof that Adventists are off the mark.
The Spirit of Christ dwells forever in every believer making them secure from all charges (Romans 8:33 33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.
Israel has been “put on the shelf” during this church time but she will one day repent and accept Christ as her Messiah just as the Prophet Jeremiah prophesized; 31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
Please note that verse 32 shows that though God was among them and saved them from their enemies they constantly broke His Laws. This necessitated a NEW COVENANT that wrote His Law on their hearts. To seek to mix the two covenants is not only confusing but simply wrong. Future Israel will be completely spiritual and righteous, keeping God’s Law in and from their hearts.
If you will receive it, the church is not addressed in EITHER covenant. Rather we are the recipients of salvation by faith alone because Christ died for all men. Israel gets a detailed covenant while the church becomes the Bride of Christ, a separate (from Israel) entity.
I hopes this helps you understand your error in misinterpreting God’s Word and that you will not be afraid to humble yourself and investigate these scriptures. I repeat that both the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul characterized the Law as “a yoke (teaching) of BONDAGE”! To misunderstand often is understandable; to refuse to understand plain teaching comes from evil.
Scrip
Sorry, my friend. But what I expected from you was more than just the repetition of old mantras of this deceiving neo-antinomian dispensationalist theology.
I never, ever, said anything about denying Christ’s grace. Your false premise is well known--to imply that insisting on the RIGHT Sabbath keeping is tantamount to “imposing” the law, whatever that means. Was Paul trying to “impose” an obsolete law to the Ephesians when he reminded them of the “first commandment with promise” (Eph. 6:1-3)?
You did not refute any of the points I stressed, have not explained why you apply Heb. 8:6-10 to Israel, when the first verses of this chapter, as well as Heb. 10:16 and its context, clearly show that the author of Hebrews is addressing THE CHURCH. The fact that he uses the expressions “house of Judah/house of Israel” doesn’t mean that he thinks of literal Israel. He is reapplying the old promise of a new covenant now to those who are Jews and Abraham’s descendants by faith (see Rom. 2:29; Gal. 3:7, 29). Literal Israel had the opportunity to accept this new covenant first (Eze. 11:19, 20; 36:26, 27; Jer. 31:31-33) but failed to live up to God’s expectations. Now, in the face of that failure, THE SAME COVENANT is directed to God’s expanded Israel, which includes all who believe in Christ.
Read carefully Hebrews 8 and 10 to realize the fact that the author IS NOT addressing literal Israelites, but all those who believe in Christ as the High Priest of this new covenant. That CANNOT apply to literal Israel.
And also read carefully Matt. 21:43 and the context--how the “vineyard” is referred to, which points back to the God’s vineyard in Isaiah chapt. 5, symbolizing undoubtedly the nation of Israel.
And Jesus, after using a parable of the vineyard, says:
“Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof”.
So clear, my friend. The time of opportunity for Israel is gone. There is no more special “dispensation” for the Jews. The children of Abraham will be regraffed in the original trunk as they come to God’s Israel (Rom. 11; Eph. 2:12-15), which now is based, not on ethnicity, but on faith in Jesus.
So, the basic problem is that you cannot understand the Gospel message of the New Covenant [New Testament], as clearly stated in Hebrews 8 and 10. Tell me, then--if this “new covenant” promise is only for the literal Jews, what “new covenant” is left for the followers of Christ? Should we expect a “newer Christian covenant” or something on this line? Where does the Bible say that?
After all, the expression “New Testament” in our Bibles means what?!
You are insisting on Sabbath keeping. As I previously pointed out, you caqnnot divide the Law. Trying (notice trying, since no one ever did or could except Jesus) to keep the Sabbath puts you under the “yoke of the Law”. This is a practical deniel of the effacey of Christ’s once and for all sacrifice for sin.
I must say I am astonished that you believe God is all done with Israel!!! Here’s a little excerpt from Revelation 7 showing that they continue as God’s beloved people right through history in the eternal future.:
Revelation 7
144,000 Sealed
1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree. 2 Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea: 3 “Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.” 4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.
5 From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed,
from the tribe of Reuben 12,000,
from the tribe of Gad 12,000,
6 from the tribe of Asher 12,000,
from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000,
from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000,
7 from the tribe of Simeon 12,000,
from the tribe of Levi 12,000,
from the tribe of Issachar 12,000,
8 from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000,
from the tribe of Joseph 12,000,
from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000.
You are failing to take into account the everlasting Covenants (beside the OT and NT) given to Israel. God swore to Abraham and David (on Himself) that these things would come to pass for Israel. Since they haven’t yet, they must be future or God is a liar. God promised ALL the land to Abraham and HIS seed. He also promised David that Someone of his family would rule from Jerusalem forever. Future happenings since it hasn’t happened yet.
The future restoration of Israel and her becoming spiritually righteous is clearly predited here in Zechariah 12; the most pertinent truth for you to consider from this passage is verse 10"I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn. Can you point to any place in the Bible where the whole nation did that?
Suggest you read the rest of it but at least here acknowledge that a national repentance will take place as “the House of David” looks on the One they crucified.
We church believers have no covenant. Read carefully and you will see that BOTH Old and New Covenants are made only to Israel! The WORD is specific. We obtained salvation by trusting Christ who that generation of Jewish leaders rejected. As Paul reveals in Romans 11:11 (New International V
11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.
NOTICE !!! Israel did NOT fall beyond recovery!! If she did we would have to delete many pages of scripture.
Zechariah 12
1The ]burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel. Thus declares the LORD who (A)stretches out the heavens, (B)lays the foundation of the earth, and (C)forms the spirit of man within him,
2"Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a (D)cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against (E)Judah.
3"It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy (F)stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be (G)severely injured And all the (H)nations of the earth will be gathered against it.
4"In that day,” declares the LORD, “I will strike every horse with bewilderment and his rider with madness. But I will watch over the house of Judah, while I strike every horse of the peoples with blindness.
5"Then the clans of Judah will say in their hearts, ‘A strong support for us are the inhabitants of Jerusalem through the LORD of hosts, their God.’
6"In that day I will make the clans of Judah like a (I)firepot among pieces of wood and a flaming torch among sheaves, so they will consume on the right hand and on the left all the surrounding peoples, while the (J)inhabitants of Jerusalem again dwell on their own sites in Jerusalem.
7"The LORD also will (K)save the tents of Judah first, so that the glory of the house of (L)David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem will not be magnified above Judah.
8"In that day the LORD will (M)defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the one who (N)is feeble among them in that day will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the LORD before them.
9"And in that day I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10"I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.
11"In that day there will be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the plain of Megiddo.
12"The land will mourn, every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself and their wives by themselves;
13the family of the house of Levi by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself and their wives by themselves;
14all the families that remain, every family by itself and their wives by themselves.
This is comparable to Joseph revealing himself to his brothers in Egypt. He said, “ You meant it for evil but God meant it for good.” So with the rejection of Christ by the leaders of the Jews but God meant it for the good of every sinner so we could be saved.
Scrip
.