The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

As I cordially explained, I only glanced over the previous many pages. What I saw were rather exhaustive responses, including to your questions and positions, but I did not analyze them. The fact that you do not accept the responses as satisfactory to your paradigms and situation is not at all surprising, and does not mean that the responses were not given.

It is true that sabbath positions vary a bit. My position is based firmly on the decalogue, with any questions of feast day sabbaths being auxiliary and even diversionary. The key issue is what happened to the 10 Commandments. Christians used to affirm them very strongly (thank you, Roy Moore) even if they did not necessarily live all the commandments. However, I did not engage you in that discussion, and I have no interest in spending hours with you in long drawn-out typings.

Based on how you handled my Luke question, I doubt that I will find much interesting in how you handle the Colossians and Romans question. I tried to respect your hand-wave and move on. Sometimes people are simply stuck in a gear.

As an historical quirk, I went over the sabbath question with Homestead Heritage in the 1990s, and that was an interesting discussion. (As I had just felt the rhythm of the sabbath at an SDA health community, Uchee Pines, and begun to incorporate it into my life, my previous Jewish and Messianic perspectives had never really embraced it as a Biblical imperative.) The sabbath is really to a large extent best as a community rhythm and experience.

As for your giving your personal review of your comments earlier in the thread, it really means nothing to me, since I am not spending an hour or two to review the thread. Not at this time, anyway, it is at most a very modest priority. When you try to tell me "jump", please don't expect me to say "how high"! Thanks.

Steven

I was just interested in your take after having heard others here. No biggie. If you care not then, fine. It doesn't require going back over weeks of posting to chat about the issue as you see it. Since you asked about my thoughts I thought you'd respond the courtesy with some of yours that I asked. But I was taken slightly back by an apparent arrogance thinking you need not share your thoughts on the issue and your repeated reference to my answers on Luke. So after several times, I won't ask any more.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I was just interested in your take after having heard others here. No biggie. If you care not then, fine. It doesn't require going back over weeks of posting to chat about the issue as you see it. Since you asked about my thoughts I thought you'd respond the courtesy with some of yours that I asked. But I was taken slightly back by an apparent arrogance thinking you need not share your thoughts on the issue and your repeated reference to my answers on Luke. So after several times, I won't ask any more.

If you can condense the disagreement to one simple post, like I did with the Luke issue, then I will comment. What you claim, what answers were given, why you feel they are non-answers.

I felt that you were being arrogant in saying that nobody answered your question, when I am quite sure they did, you simply did not like the answers. Thus, I was reluctant to go through the same routine with you, answer questions, and then be told I did not give an answer.

And I did not want to have to go through the 58-page thread just to satisfy your whim.

Steven

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

If you can condense the disagreement to one simple post, like I did with the Luke issue, then I will comment. What you claim, what answers were given, why you feel they are non-answers.

I felt that you were being arrogant in saying that nobody answered your question, when I am quite sure they did, you simply did not like the answers. Thus, I was reluctant to go through the same routine with you, answer questions, and then be told I did not give an answer.

And I did not want to have to go through the 58-page thread just to satisfy your whim.

Steven

People did answer some of my questions. Raffi raised issues to which I responded with questions and I've yet to see some of them answered.

But in my Last post I was saying I asked you one simple question after answering yours and you never answered me. I already said you don't have to go through pages of my thoughts to answer my question. I can say it three more time, too.

Forget it now though. You could've answered three times over if you took the time to write that instead of why you don't answer.

[Steven Avery]

You asked me to go over two verse sections that have reams of writing on them on all sides. And you claimed, somewhat dubiously, that your questions were never answered. And you wanted me to jump in from .. who knows where.

If you don't want to write a review, just point me to the three or four salient posts on the 58 pages. First, I will evaluate if your questions were answered. Second, I will determine if up to that point it matches my position (e.g. I do not mix in feast sabbaths with the creation-exodus 7th day sabbath, they are totally different conceptually.)

Then, if there is a gap, I will be happy to answer.

I simply to not want to reinvent wheels or take rides on merry-go-rounds. I am a very practical type of guy.

Steven

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

You asked me to go over two verse sections that have reams of writing on them on all sides. And you claimed, somewhat dubiously, that your questions were never answered. And you wanted me to jump in from .. who knows where.

If you don't want to write a review, just point me to the three or four salient posts on the 58 pages. First, I will evaluate if your questions were answered. Second, I will determine if up to that point it matches my position (e.g. I do not mix in feast sabbaths with the creation-exodus 7th day sabbath, they are totally different conceptually.)

Then, if there is a gap, I will be happy to answer.

I simply to not want to reinvent wheels or take rides on merry-go-rounds. I am a very practical type of guy.

Steven

No, I say now for the third time. I just wanted your take on Col 2:16-17. Nothing to do with what I wrote previously. That's all. Nothing to do with reading anything I wrote earlier. I wrote earlier in response to Raffi's several posts, that he obviously spent much time writing, and want to deal with certain issues. He took time and I was willing to respond with the same.

Like I said, don't worry about it.

I am dealing with Raffi when i said I was waiting for some questions to be answered. Not you or others.

I'm just puzzled why you won't answer my question to YOU about Col 2:16-17. That's all I asked YOU. So, to be clear again, I only asked YOU to show me what YOU thought about Col 2:16-17. Finito. That's it.

And here goes another chance you could have simply answered that single question, and it goes untouched. It's not at all about reading anything I wrote earlier here, because most of that was between me and Raffi. I don;'t know how else to explain that to you. And you keep talking about questions I asked that were unanswered. That's nothing to do with you, brother.

I don't want you to jump in from anywhere. Just tell me why you think Col 2:16-17 is not about not keeping sabbath today. Simple. Don't conflate this to more than what it is.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by mfblume

However, I maintain it is extremely reaching stretch to say Sabbath is to be kept because Luke said people kept it before atonement even occurred before teaching was actual given about the issue.

And I did mean to ask you, when did atonement occur? If not at the cross.

And the key issue is not that Luke said that the women kept the sabbath, but that they kept it "according to the commandment", words given to Luke by the Holy Spirit.

Luke 23:56
And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments;
and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

So, no, you have not answered the question until you specifically say why the Holy Spirit says "according to the commandment" after the crucifixion and the shedding of the blood of Jesus (which landed upon the mercy seat, I believe, when the earthquake opened up the ground under Golgotha.)

Originally Posted by mfblume

Luke spoke in reference to the then-in-effect law which was done away at the cross.

Why would the Holy Spirit say that the sabbath was kept "according to the commandment" if, as you say, the sabbath had been done away with at the cross?

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I heard Esaias' explanation of Col 2:16-17, which I feel is extremely in error. But what do you do with that passage. It clearly says sabbath was a shadow of the body, who cast the shadow, namely Christ.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Why not deal with the passages that convince Non-sabbath keepers to not keep sabbath like colossians 2:16-17? Romans 14?

Originally Posted by mfblume

I just wanted your take on Col 2:16-17. .

Simplifying, you want mostly:

Colossians 2:16-17 (AV)
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink,
or in respect of an holyday,
or of the new moon,
or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come;
but the body is of Christ.

Afaik, there are three answers to the claim that this is the abrogation of the sabbath.

1) that makes no sense, and creates a huge contradiction immediately, since the decalogue is God's eternal word, the royal law.

James 2:8-11 (AV)
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin,
and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
For whosoever shall keep the whole law,
and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
For he that said,
Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill.
Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill,
thou art become a transgressor of the law.

2) the context of the verses is the holy days, new moon and feast day sabbaths, ordinances that are types and shadows. The seventh-day sabbath and the decalogue is not even in the verses.

3) the verse is being read with glasses, in reverse, or at best one-sided. No man should judge your proper keeping of those days. "Judaizer, pagan, Christ-denier" would be examples of such judgement. The body of Christ, however, may give its directives. You may be part of a fellowship community, in the body of Christ, which has a Passover meal and even a passover sabbath every year. That should not be judged by any man. Similarly, we should not judge a fellowship that does not have special sabbaths on those days, for example.

Tonight I went to a Thanksgiving dinner. I decided to pass on the southern fried turkey, because my preference is kosher slaughter, draining the blood out of the animal, as the proper way to eat meat. This was given for our health benefit (as well as any possible spiritual analogy) as were the prohibitions against scavenger junk food garbage-cleaning animals. And our digestive system did not change at the atonement.

Recently I re-found the 1985 article from the Christian Health Counselor, Monte Kline having a fine review of the John Hopkins study of David Israel Macht, on this topic. And I took pictures and placed it on Facebook.

The Dietary Laws Today
https://www.facebook.com/steven.aver...35261736510019

However, I realize fully that my believer brethren often see this differently. Everyone had a grand time. There were other fish to fry that I did share a bit with some friends, involving Jehovah and the corruption pagan (devil) name yahweh, the counterfeit that has infected much of Christianity, including Pentecostal circles.

1 Kings 19:18
Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel,
all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal,
and every mouth which hath not kissed him.

Now that is a fundamental of the faith, not to bow the knee to baal. (1 Kings 19:18)

1 John 5:20-21
And we know that the Son of God is come,
and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true,
and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ.
This is the true God, and eternal life.
Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

Steven

[Aquila]

Steven Avery, I see something here that I felt the need to mention. You had written,

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

1) that makes no sense, and creates a huge contradiction immediately, since the decalogue is God's eternal word, the royal law.

James 2:8-11 (AV)
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin,
and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
For whosoever shall keep the whole law,
and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
For he that said,
Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill.
Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill,
thou art become a transgressor of the law.

It appears to me that the text you quoted refutes the notion that the "royal law" is the Decalogue. In fact, the text appears to define the "royal law" as being the Law of Christ, the Law of Love, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Regarding this law Paul wrote:

Romans 13:8-10 King James Version (KJV)
8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

You will note that Paul compares the Law of Love to the Decalogue specifically in citing the laws against adultery, killing, stealing, lying, coveting, "and if there be any other commandment" (which would include the Sabbath commandment); saying these are fulfilled in one fell swoop... if we love others.

Paul briefly explains the same thing to the Legalistic Galatians who insisted that Gentiles obey the Law of Moses by being circumcised. Paul wrote:

Galatians 5:14 King James Version (KJV)
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Paul's entire point is that we are bound by a "higher law" than the Law of Moses that is written upon our hearts, the Law of Love. If one focused on loving God, and upon demonstrating one's love for God by loving others, they would have found the very essence of true holiness. Love. A spirit led, spirit filled, agape that fills our being. And seeing that God is love, when we are loving, that is when we are most... like Him.

Back to the passage you quoted from James...

James 2:8-11 (AV)
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin,
and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
For whosoever shall keep the whole law,
and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
For he that said,
Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill.
Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill,
thou art become a transgressor of the law.

The reader should note that James continues to explain (after defining the "royal law") that if we keep the Law, but offend in just one point, we've broken the entirety of the Law. You see, the Law isn't a buffet bar wherein we can pick a couple Sabbath laws here, but ignore one there, and claim that we're keeping the Law. It's an all or nothing proposition. So, one must keep the Law, every jot and tittle, or fulfill the essence and spirit of the entire Law... through love.

[Aquila]

I believe that we need to become elevated in our spirituality. We must realize that the Law will only conform us into the image of earthly Israel, not the image of Christ. The Glorified Christ presents a holiness and a spiritual path that transcends every form of law ever delivered on earth, even the Law of Moses. To love God with all our being, and to love our neighbor as ourselves, is the highest form of righteousness one can seek to attain. To be filled with the Love of Christ is the highest form of holiness one can attain.

You'll notice that every church, denomination, religion, etc. argues and debates over what pleases God. They all have their "lists" of commandments. Everyone single earthly religion or denomination has a "list". And all the lists differ. This is the spiritual blood poison of legalism, it predicates one's faith, practice, and personal holiness upon a list compiled by themselves or some theologian. And since the lists all differ, they argue, debate, and have even waged wars. Legalism leaves one adrift on the ever turbulent sea of subjective human interpretations of law. One Sabbath keeper keeps all the Sabbath laws, another doesn't, one keeps only those Sabbath laws, another also keeps festivals. One keeps Sabbath laws and festivals, and yet another also keeps dietary commands. It's nothing more than absolute confusion.

Ah... but love... love fulfills the entire Law. No, love doesn't fulfill the letter of the Law. No one is claiming that. However, love alone fulfills the very essence, spirit, and intent of the entire Law. "But how?", one might ask. I'll show you... it is written...

"Thou shalt not kill."

Now, I can refrain from killing my neighbor... but it doesn't mean that I love him. So, while I fulfill the very letter of the Law, I violate the very essence and intent of that Law if I don't love my neighbor. If one actually thinks they are expressing love by not killing their neighbor, their standards are quite low. Love demands that I care for the entirety of my neighbor's well being. I care about his marriage, his health, as to if he has food and clothing, shelter, and work. Love demands far more than the Law ever did or ever can. So, while refraining from murdering one's neighbor fulfills the letter of the Law... it doesn't fulfill the Law of Love.

However, if one focuses entirely upon the Law of Love, it will never enter one's mind to kill their neighbor. For, in caring for the entire well being of one's neighbor, how can one even wish them harm? Love alone will keep one from killing their neighbor, lying to their neighbor, seducing a neighbor's spouse, stealing from one's neighbor, coveting the blessings of one's neighbor, and the list could go on and on. That's love alone.

As it relates to the Sabbath... love will love always. It doesn't only love one day in 7. Love worships daily, not only one in 7. Love rests is Christ daily, not only one in 7. Love is 24/7... that offers infinitely more devotion to the Lord than keeping 1 day in 7. So, love even goes above and beyond the practice of Sabbath keeping. Have I rested on the 7th day and been blessed? Yes! But I turn love on its head should I condemn another who gathers for worship or performs devotion on a different day. And, I'll confess, I've been blessed when gathering for worship or devotion on the 1st day of the week, and even the 4th day of the week. I'm tremendously blessed whenever I gather with precious saints of God or set aside time to be alone with God.

So, I can only admonish that we drop all the Law keeping and debates and striving about the Law that we can focus entirely upon love. That we can embrace a spirituality that transcends all the silly little commands given to the carnal and idolatrous people known as Israel. Yes, they are silly. Why? Because God had to spell out nearly everything for them in their cultural context. I'm surprised God didn't have to codify how they should breathe! LOL They were truly a stiff necked and carnal people.

When we are filled with the Spirit of Christ, and we are led by the Spirit of Christ, He lives through us. We become "branches of the vine", living extensions of Him. His Spirit, power, and gifts flow through us. And, so does His love. And this is the core of holiness... union with Christ. Allowing Him to live out His life and love through us. I'd rather live as an extension of the Glorified Jesus than follow a bunch of archaic laws issued to an ancient and carnal nation in a bronze age culture.

We have to realize that we are... the anointed ones, sons and daughters of God. The very Spirit and power of the Father lives in us, just as it did the man Christ Jesus. We walk in a spirit and power that transcends law keeping and even "religion" as the world knows it. We are living lives of pure Spirit. We walk in a divine love that transcends performance, a love predicated upon "being" and not "behavior". When we are filled with the Spirit of God, and we feel this level of transcendence in the core of our inner man... all the lists and theories, and propositions, and combinations of law keeping will seem like spiritual tinker toys.

It's time to be crucified with Christ. Dead to the world and the law. It's time we become a people of Spirit.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Steven Avery, I see something here that I felt the need to mention. You had written,



It appears to me that the text you quoted refutes the notion that the "royal law" is the Decalogue. In fact, the text appears to define the "royal law" as being the Law of Christ, the Law of Love, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Regarding this law Paul wrote:

Romans 13:8-10 King James Version (KJV)
8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

You will note that Paul compares the Law of Love to the Decalogue specifically in citing the laws against adultery, killing, stealing, lying, coveting, "and if there be any other commandment" (which would include the Sabbath commandment); saying these are fulfilled in one fell swoop... if we love others.

Paul briefly explains the same thing to the Legalistic Galatians who insisted that Gentiles obey the Law of Moses by being circumcised. Paul wrote:

Galatians 5:14 King James Version (KJV)
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Paul's entire point is that we are bound by a "higher law" than the Law of Moses that is written upon our hearts, the Law of Love. If one focused on loving God, and upon demonstrating one's love for God by loving others, they would have found the very essence of true holiness. Love. A spirit led, spirit filled, agape that fills our being. And seeing that God is love, when we are loving, that is when we are most... like Him.

Back to the passage you quoted from James...



The reader should note that James continues to explain (after defining the "royal law") that if we keep the Law, but offend in just one point, we've broken the entirety of the Law. You see, the Law isn't a buffet bar wherein we can pick a couple Sabbath laws here, but ignore one there, and claim that we're keeping the Law. It's an all or nothing proposition. So, one must keep the Law, every jot and tittle, or fulfill the essence and spirit of the entire Law... through love.

James never offered a CHOICE between "keep the law, ALL of it" on one hand and "just love everybody" on the other hand. He simply pointed out that breaking any commandment makes you a transgressor or criminal.

James was not referring to "according the Scripture in Matthew....". He was referring to Leviticus 19:18. Jesus taught "love thy neighbour" was the summary and point of the commandments. John reaffirms this approach to the Torah - if you fulfill the Torah commands IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND IN AGREEMENT WITH the scripture that says "love thy neighbor as thyself".

In other words, James is saying the same thing Jesus said. Neither were making a dichotomy between obeying God's commandments and "love", but that the commandments explain HOW to love and that love is the point and purpose of the commandments.

Including the fourth.