Should we still observe the sabbath?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Law of God to Israel (old covenant) is not the same as the law written in our hearts (new covenant)

Prove it.

Define your terms, and then show that your assertion is true.

By the way, not ONCE have I argued anything about "the old covenant" except that it was replaced by the new covenant which is superior because it actually produces obedience by the Spirit whereas the old covenant did not.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Isaiah 28:11-12
For with stammering lips and another tongue
will he speak to this people.
To whom he said,
This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest;
and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

A note about the verses quoted above:

The Hebrew word שַׁבָּת - shabbath is not found in Isaiah 28:11-12.

There are two Hebrew words translated "rest" in Isaiah 28:12.

The first is: מְנוּחָה menuchah.

The second is נוּחַ nuach.

It is therefore a mistake to insist this passage has anything to do with the Sabbath.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Abraham was counted righteous without law. No Sabbath observances mentioned in his life, but the law came and the children of Israel backslid. Does that not make anyone question their stance of renewing mosaic laws in the church?

Not true:

Genesis 26:4-5 (ESV),

4 I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, 5 because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”

Abraham kept God's "laws". And what are those laws of God that Abraham kept?

In a word: תּוֹרָה - torah

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/26-5.htm

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Prove it.

Define your terms, and then show that your assertion is true.

By the way, not ONCE have I argued anything about "the old covenant" except that it was replaced by the new covenant which is superior because it actually produces obedience by the Spirit whereas the old covenant did not.

Galatians 4:21 - 5:1
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Hagar represents those that are under the law. Cast out the bondwoman and her son. The story of Abraham and Hagar used to grieve me because I couldn’t understand why God would tell Abraham to send away Hagar, but that whole situation bears out Gods truth. Amazing! man’s disobedience is used by God’s perfect plan.

[Sister Alvear]

Some people assume the Sabbath was changed to Sunday by Roman Emperor Constantine on March 7, 321 AD. Constantine did indeed change the official Roman day of rest to Sunday, but he was only recognizing something after the fact that had already been going on for almost three centuries.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

A note about the verses quoted above:

The Hebrew word שַׁבָּת - shabbath is not found in Isaiah 28:11-12.

There are two Hebrew words translated "rest" in Isaiah 28:12.

The first is: מְנוּחָה menuchah.

The second is נוּחַ nuach.

It is therefore a mistake to insist this passage has anything to do with the Sabbath.

My point was that entering his rest was equivocal with the new birth experience evidenced with speaking in tongues. Although the term שָׁבַת šâḇaṯ does not appear in the verse the principle or resting does, and that is the whole purpose of the Sabbath. As far as the prophecy is concerned you maybe correct.

esaias has already stated:

No mention of the Sabbath being abolished or changed. Besides, the stammering lips and another tongue aren't the rest, it is the foreign invaders coming in as punishment for Israel's commandment breaking. He told the people about His rest, but they rejected His rest by breaking His covenant through willful disobedience. So He will speak to them through the foreigners because of their unbelief. Just like Paul explained in 1 Corinthians 14:21-22.

If this is the case I stand corrected. At this point I am not certain.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Not true:

Genesis 26:4-5 (ESV),



Abraham kept God's "laws". And what are those laws of God that Abraham kept?

In a word: תּוֹרָה - torah

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/26-5.htm

According to your own method of interpretation the word תּוֹרָה - torah does not appear in Genesis 26:4-5. Abraham certainly obeyed the voice of God, but it was not according the written law (תּוֹרָה - torah) which I am speaking of. There is not any reference to Abraham having been given Ten Commandments to follow. That was established by Moses.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Galatians 4:21 - 5:1
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Hagar represents those that are under the law. Cast out the bondwoman and her son. The story of Abraham and Hagar used to grieve me because I couldn’t understand why God would tell Abraham to send away Hagar, but that whole situation bears out Gods truth. Amazing! man’s disobedience is used by God’s perfect plan.

All you did was prove the superiority of the new covenant to the old. Which in fact as I told you is my position.

You did not however prove that the laws of God written in the heart under the new covenant are DIFFERENT LAWS than the laws of God previously written down as part of the old covenant.

Hebrews 8:8-10 KJV
For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: [9] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. [10] For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Regarding the bolded part, which laws are these? According to you they are NOT any of the laws which were incorporated into the old covenant.

So what are they? And where does the Bible say God has 2 (or more?) sets of laws, different from each other, for different covenants?

That's what I mean by "prove it".

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Regarding the bolded part, which laws are these? According to you they are NOT any of the laws which were incorporated into the old covenant

The laws that are reiterated in the NT by the apostles for doctrine.

So what are they? And where does the Bible say God has 2 (or more?) sets of laws, different from each other, for different covenants?

That's what I mean by "prove it".

The Bible teaches about 2 sets of laws one was written on stone and was fulfilled in Christ. The second is written upon our hearts. The first was made explicitly for the physical nation of Israel the second was for Spiritual kingdom of God. I believe the scripture I have given proves it.

What about the rest of the Old Testament law (dietary and so forth)? Is that not the same law of God that was given to Israel. Are we sinning to eat bacon, are we sinning to wear clothes with multiple fabric blends, is it a sin to plant a garden of diverse food crops?

If we are committed to keeping the law we must keep the whole law.

Galatians 5:1-3
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

The laws that are reiterated in the NT by the apostles for doctrine.

Where did the apostles teach "The former laws of God are abolished, here's the new set of laws"?

The Bible teaches about 2 sets of laws one was written on stone and was fulfilled in Christ. The second is written upon our hearts. The first was made explicitly for the physical nation of Israel the second was for Spiritual kingdom of God. I believe the scripture I have given proves it.

1. This is what you have been failing to prove, that there are indeed "two sets of laws". Yes, the Bible talks about God's law being written on stone. Yes the Bible talks about God's law being written in the heart. But where do you get this idea that those are two separate sets of laws? What would incline you to think they are not in fact the same law of God, once written on stone, now (under the new covenant) written upon the heart?

2. What does "fulfilled" mean when it comes to laws? You seem to think that when a law is "fulfilled" it is thereby abolished and done away with. Is this true? Let's see:

If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
(Jas 2:8)

If you fulfill this law, do you then become free from any obligation to that law? What does fulfill mean here? Does it not mean to obey, to perform, to execute, to carry out? So that if you perform the law "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself", you have "fulfilled" that law? Then what? You can stop loving your neighbour? Or does "fulfill" not rather mean to perform and continue to perform? That is, you love your neighbour and continue to do so? Obviously the latter. Therefore, Jesus "fulfilling the law" does not mean the law is thereby abolished. It means instead that He performed it, and yea indeed He continued to perform it all the days of His life. He also said "think not that I am come to destroy the law". So whatever we think "fulfill" means, we are NOT ALLOWED to think it means "the law has been done away with or abolished or destroyed". And by the way, the "royal law according to the scripture" about loving your neighbour as yourself is Leviticus 19:18. Once again we see the new testament exhorting us to obey the law of God (this time straight out of Leviticus of all places).

3. The law of God given to Israel was meant to be an example to the other nations so they would follow suit:

Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?
(Deu 4:5-8)

The nations of the earth are expected to submit to and obey the law of God:

And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the LORD.
(Isa 2:2-5)

4. By "the spiritual kingdom of God" in contrast with "physical nation of Israel" you are forgetting one single key important point: the new covenant was made with the same people that the old covenant was made with, the physical nation of Israel:

For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
(Heb 8:8)

The New Covenant instituted by Jesus Christ was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah (what you would call "the physical nation of Israel"). The idea that God made an old covenant with the physical nation of Israel, and then made a new covenant with "everybody else", is false and non-Biblical. The new covenant was made with the same people the old covenant was made with.

What about the rest of the Old Testament law (dietary and so forth)? Is that not the same law of God that was given to Israel. Are we sinning to eat bacon, are we sinning to wear clothes with multiple fabric blends, is it a sin to plant a garden of diverse food crops?

1. The law of God is the entire Bible. It details commandments, statutes, judgments, as well as judicial decisions regarding the application of God's law (via the prophets and other Scriptural examples). It does generally cover the entire gamut of human existence, though many things are left to our own choices. Do you have a problem with God telling you what to eat or not to eat, or how you shall dress, or how you shall manage agriculture? Are you "not your own, but bought with a price"? Does not God have absolute authority to decide anything He wants to decide about how you shall live your life? Is it even your life to live? What happened to "99 and a half won't do"?

2. The apostle Paul affirms the continuity of God's instructions regarding food:

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
(1Ti 4:1-5)

See that? The "creatures of God" which are created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth, are those which are "sanctified by the word of God". So the apostle Paul himself recognised that the foods we eat are to be those which are sanctified not by prayer alone (even though many Christians today don't even pray over their food anymore), but also by "the word of God". Where do we find in the word of God what foods have been sanctified (set apart for consumption)? Why, right here:

And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you. These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven after his kind; And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
(Lev 11:1-23)

3. Regarding multiple fabric blends, the command is a prohibition against wearing what is known as "linsey-wooley", a linen/wool blend:

Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.
(Lev 19:19)

Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.
(Deu 22:11)

Why? Not sure, but it appears likely that the High Priest's Temple clothing included a mixture of wool and linen. So the common people were forbidden from donning a garment made in the same fashion as the High Priest's, much like the common people were forbidden to make a copy of the anointing oil used in the Temple. I don't know anyone who wears linen and wool together in a single garment, and don't even know where one could buy such an article of clothing here in the US. And even if such were a thing, I don't see why it would be a big deal to avoid wearing such. After all, how many people avoid wearing red, or lace, for religious reasons?

4. The mingled seed issue does not prevent the creation of a garden. God Himself created the first garden, and a garden is a location set aside for the propagation of various plants. The prohibition is primarily regarding "the field", but also applies to one's vineyard. The purpose is to prevent hybridization and ruining the crops. I don't know any farmer or vintner who plants say corn and wheat indiscriminately in the same field. What a mess that would be! (There is a debate however concerning "permaculture" which basically means planting numerous different types of complementary plants together in a food plot, but it is debatable as to whether or not falls under the prohibition. It is also debatable as to whether or not permaculture is even really effective.) Do you have a problem with God teaching you how to grow food? Or do you think you know better?

(continued in next post)