Why don’t Christians observe the original Sabbath?

Rui:

Let’s look closely at Colossians 2:16-17, okay?

1. The word “sabbath” is SABBATON. Grammatically, it refers to any kind of sabbath. Because there’s no indication in the text that Paul is talking about only special sabbaths, or “high sabbaths”, you can’t draw the conclusion you’ve drawn from the text itself. Instead, you are inserting your preferred interpretation into the text, which is a mistake.

2. Your use of Hebrews 10:1 to LIMIT ‘the law of shadow’ to animal sacrifices is simply not supported by the text. Paul explains that the law is insufficient for making us righteous, and then – pay close attention – tells the believers to not stop meeting together, as some had done. Why would they stop meeting together? Quite obviously, they recognized that the weekly sabbath (the reason they had been meeting) was no longer in effect. Paul wanted them to continue to meet regularly, to encourage one another. Had the sabbath still been in effect, Paul would have addressed not meeting together in a different way.

Were you to speak with a Jew and ask them “what is the law?”, you would undoubtedly be told that it is the law given to Moses, and everything that comes from it. The distinction that you and others make between ‘ceremonial law’ and ‘spiritual law’ doesn’t come from the text, or from any serious study of the text. It’s an idea that’s been overlaid on Scripture, not one drawn from it.

The New Testament is clear, and adamant about the law: we are no longer under law. Paul wrote about it all the time, encouraging believers to not use their freedom unwisely. Were we not free to ignore the law, we would not have these instructions.

Hey Bill:

Maybe it’s the spelling mistakes, maybe it’s me…but that makes no sense. If you’d like to try again, maybe we can talk about your ideas. I mean no disrespect. I’m just saying that I can’t understand what you wrote.

Jackie:

Thanks for asking. The New Testament does not specify that Christians should worship on any particular day of the week. We’re to worship at all times, in everything we do. Along the same lines, the New Testament does not specify that any particular day is to be considered a sabbath. We’re to rest in Jesus’ completed work at all times. Anyone who teaches that Christians must worship on ANY day, or that a sabbath day even exists for we who follow Jesus, is simply not speaking from the Scriptures.

Yes, one could make an argument that setting aside a day for worship is kind of like first fruits. However: the New Testament doesn’t command Christians to offer first fruits. It’s not even encouraged. Instead, here’s what the New Testament says… there are seven mentions in six passages:

• Christians have the firstfruits of the Spirit (Romans 8:23)
• If firstfruits are holy, all is holy (Romans 11:16)
• Christ is the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep (1 Corinthians 15:20, 23)
• God chose us as firstfruits (2 Thessalonians 2:13)
• We are a kind of firstfruits of all that God created (James 1:18)
• 144,000 blameless, truthful virgins who follow the Lamb are offered as firstfruits (Revelation 14:1-5)

Interesting, right? You suggest that picking a day for worship would be like firstfruits. Sounds good at first, but firstfruits was an offering commanded by God in the Mosaic Law to accomplish specific things among the ancient Israelites. That has nothing to do with the rest of us.

When it comes to tithing, firstfruits, and all of the rest of the Old Testament’s rules about giving, we only need to do the math to understand how Christians should give:

1. Firstfruits were commanded, but not defined. There’s no actual number for what firstfruits means.
2. Tithes were (in the simplest sense) giving 10% of your livestock and crops to God. You owed that first, then the other 90% was yours.
3. Christians have nothing of our own. 100% of what we have comes from God, and belongs to Him. That includes our money, our time, our attention, our gifts, our talents, and our very lives.

I want to encourage you, Jackie. It’s AWESOME that you’re concerned about giving God your very best. That’s the right attitude! I would warn you, however, to not think in terms of “how much.” That’s Old Testament legalistic thinking: as long as you give the right amount in the right place at the right time, you’ll be okay. That’s not how disciples of Jesus Christ should see things. Instead, we are simply stewards of what God has entrusted to us. It’s all His, and we are expected to make wise decisions that will benefit the King and the Kingdom. Don’t just give God your best. Give everything back to Him… all day, every day, for the rest of your life. If you’ve been born again, you belong to Him and have been adopted into God’s family. You’re an essential part of the family business now, and we don’t ‘punch in’ and ‘punch out’ like a hired hand. We give our all for God.

Does that make sense?

Dean:

First, thanks for writing. If you’re correct, I want to know. Let’s say, for the sake of this part of the conversation, that you ARE correct. You wouldn’t want me to unquestioningly take your word for it, would you? Of course not. You’d want me to be like the Bereans, who were commended for double-checking even what the apostle Paul said. I appreciate that about you.

So: if I’m not going to take your word for it, I’m going to need your help. Please explain to me how *I* can know, from the text, that what you say is true. You say that it’s “very clear.” Please help me see, in the text, what makes it clear. I have no doubt that you can do it, as you’ve said that we should let the Scriptures speak for themselves and not our sinful desires. I couldn’t agree more, so please lead me through the process of learning,

FROM THE TEXT ITSELF,

what it says. Thanks in advance for your time and attention. If I’m wrong, I will – of course – update my website to reflect my new understanding, and I will be in your debt. Please don’t take too long, if you don’t mind… a lot of people come here, and I wouldn’t want a single one of them to get the wrong information. Thanks!

You sound like a fringe Adventist, Lu (Zibah). Sunday worship is not the mark of the Beast. You should do more study… you know, in the New Testament.

Brian:

I get the “notion” that Christians aren’t part of the Mosaic Law from Exodus, where God established His covenant with the children of Israel. Read the text and see for yourself. God didn’t include Ethiopians in the Mosaic covenant, or Phoenicians, or Tishbites, or anybody else. Those whom God brought out of Egypt, and their descendants, were included in the covenant.

I also get the “notion” that Christians aren’t part of the Mosaic Law from Acts, where this question was directly addressed: whether Gentile converts to Christianity had to also follow the Mosaic Law. Read the text and see for yourself, making note of verse 5.

I also get the “notion” that Christians aren’t part of the Mosaic Law from Galatians 3, where Paul made it clear that the Mosaic Law was temporary, until Jesus came.

I also get the “notion” that Christians aren’t part of the Mosaic Law from Romans, where we learn that – and I quote – we are not under the Law.

It’s not a “notion” that I came to believe by myself, Brian. It’s the clear teaching of Scripture. You wrote that “the Law is not a curse.” Well, you need to do a bit more homework. Paul, in Galatians 3:13, said exactly the opposite. I think I’ll stick with Paul, rather than your opinions or mine. I have no interest in butting into God’s covenant with someone else…I have my own covenant with God, and that’s enough for me.

You’re incorrect about the accusations against Jesus. Jesus claimed to be God, which is why they wanted to kill Him…so yes, He – being God – was NOT falsely accused.

When it comes to the Sabbath – or anything else in Scripture – it’s important to read the text. So far, your track record isn’t great. Go read Genesis 2. Dig a tiny bit into the Hebrew and see that God did not do what you imply. The word shabat simply means “to stop.” God stopped working because His work was done. He made no command about observing a parallel sabbath until He made His covenant with Israel at Sinai in Exodus. If you’d like to discuss this in more detail, I’d suggest reading Why Don’t Christians Observe the Original Sabbath and commenting over there. Yes, sabbath was important. No, Christians are not commanded to observe the sabbath in the way that the Mosaic Law demanded.

Simply put: the Law is obsolete.

Brian:

Thanks for your reply. I’m pleased to read that you understand the Bible to be the source of our beliefs, and not the evidence we dig through to prove our opinions are correct.

Thanks also for clarification on the term “notion.” I put it in quotes to highlight my point. It’s true that there’s no consensus among God-fearing Christians on the subject of the Law, but that doesn’t change what we see in Scripture. After almost 40 years of discussing theology, I can tell you that there will always be someone who disagrees with virtually anything. The question isn’t whether we can find consensus. The question is, “What does the Bible say?” and “What does it mean?”

You and I disagree, so far. That doesn’t bother me, as long as both of us are willing to be challenged. Our beliefs should match what we see in Scripture…I’m sure we agree on that. With that said, let’s get back to the data.

Biblical interpretation isn’t all that difficult. There are a handful of rules, most of which apply to virtually any communication, plus a few that are particular to the Bible. One such rule is known as ‘unity.’ That’s the idea that the Bible, despite having been written by around 40 authors over a period of 1500 years, is essentially one story, superintended by God Himself. As such, we believe that the Bible will not contradict itself. Where there are apparent contradictions, Christians believe that it is they who must misunderstand, rather than that the Bible is wrong. Other rules explain that we should use clear passages to interpret unclear passages, and that we read each passage in its context. Let me explain how these rules keep me from agreeing with you.

There is no contradiction between the Old and New Testaments, including passages dealing with the Mosaic Law. There are no contradictions between the writings of Peter and Paul, or between what Jesus said and what Luke wrote. If one passage seems to indicate that Christians are under the Law, and another seems to indicate that Christians are not under the Law, we need to work to bring clarity…to dig until we understand what we’ve gotten wrong. When Paul wrote that we are not under the Law, that the Law was temporary until Christ came, and that we have been released from the Law, I have no choice but to believe him. These passages are clear and unambiguous.

As you can see by reading the many comments above, it’s easy to bring other passages into the discussion. Nobody should dismiss these other passages, of course…they are equally true. The goal is not to prove our point, but to understand the whole of Scripture. So, when someone points out that Romans 3:31 says that we “uphold the law,” it’s important to work to understand what that means. In context, Paul was (clearly) not saying that Christians are to be Torah-observant. If that were true, he would not have also said that the Law was temporary. Instead, we see from the context what Paul meant: that those who live by faith will fulfill the intent of the Law. It’s tedious at times, but every single objection must be dealt with in this way. We look at each passage in context, then compare and contrast them with other passages to get a clear picture. Where a passage is taken out of its original context, it’s usually misapplied.

For example, you’ve written this a few times: “Mosaic Law in Greek.” With all due respect, that’s irresponsible nonsense. The Greek says no such thing, and anyone with access to a Greek New Testament (that is, everyone with access to the internet) can very easily and very quickly prove otherwise. The Greek word nomos simply means “law,” and it’s a generic word that can be applied in many different ways. None of the passages you’ve mentioned as using “Mosaic Law in Greek” have any word other than nomos or a variant, like anomos (“without law” or “no law”). If you’re going to refer to the Greek to bolster your position, get ready to get schooled…because either you 1) are parroting what somebody else has told you (bad form), 2) have no idea what you’re talking about (very bad form), or 3) are a liar (very, very bad form).

Now: if you want to say that the context of a passage leads you to believe that the author uses nomos to refer to the Mosaic Law, go ahead. It’s used that way many times in Scripture…but to say that those passages say “Mosiac Law” in Greek is not just incorrect, it’s dangerous and destructive.

Hebrews 10:16 doesn’t say what you claim. The law written on our hearts is not the Mosaic Law. Galatians 3 doesn’t say what you claim. It says that those who rely on the works of the Law are under a curse. 1 John 3:4 isn’t talking about the Mosaic Law, but about any law. 1 John 5:3 does say that loving God means keeping His commands, but it doesn’t speak of the Mosaic Law. You’re adding that idea to the text, simply because it has the word “commands” in it…then you pretend that John taught that we should obey the Mosaic Law. Bologna.

You claim that Jesus being “the Word” means that rejecting the Mosaic Law is rejecting Jesus. Again, that’s utter nonsense…and it’s dangerous to people who don’t know better. You’re promoting the same errors that we see corrected in the New Testament in places like Timothy, Titus, Acts, Galatians, and Hebrews. In the strongest sense, knock it off. Do your homework and correct your theology or keep your mouth shut. I don’t say this to be rude, Brian. Those who teach are held by God to a higher standard, and you are undeniably failing to meet that standard. Study to show yourself approved, brother. Until you can make your case directly from Scripture, don’t make your case at all. To do otherwise is to be disobedient.

What do I think of Matthew 5:17-20? I believe it’s true, of course. I also know that you’ve again spread nonsense here, because the Greek does not say “Mosaic Law” in any sense. Jesus implied that the Law WOULD be abolished, when everything is accomplished. According to Paul, Peter, James, John, Luke, and the whole Jerusalem council, everything had been accomplished. The New Covenant is in force, and the old – being obsolete – is no longer needed. When Paul wrote that the Law was temporary, being needed until Christ came, what else could he mean but that the Law’s purpose had been fulfilled?

What do I think of Matthew 7:21-27? I believe it’s true, of course. Again, your bologna is showing. The Greek text does not say “Mosaic Law.” Equating doing God’s will with the Mosaic Law is a joke, Brian. Abraham didn’t have the Mosaic Law, but he believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. Name any faithful man or woman who lived before the Exodus and the same will be true. It’s just wrong to equate God’s will with the Mosaic Law…that would mean that Moses didn’t do God’s will when he went and confronted Pharaoh, for example. Nonsense.

For the record, I have three final things to say:

1. Don’t mistake my disagreement, or even my chastisement, as dislike.
2. Go and do your homework, studying to show yourself approved. Avoid taking a stand when you don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m happy to help, but I won’t publish a bunch of nonsense that will confuse my readers. If you’d like to discuss more nonsense, we can move this to emails. Let me know.
3. While you’re always welcome here, I will not publish another comment like your previous one. It’s simply full of crap. You make claims that are easily proven wrong, make leaps in logic to twist Scripture in an attempt to prove your position, rather than take your position from Scripture, and you suggest (at the beginning of your comment) that somehow you’ve grown to the point that you no longer approach Scripture with preconceptions. I’ve only published this comment because it gives me the opportunity to show what a terrible argument looks like, and how to refute it. Feel free to continue the discussion if you wish…just do it responsibly. Stop making false claims. Stop eisegeting (reading your theology into Scripture) and start exegeting (getting your theology from Scripture).

I wish you well.

Must we, Steven? Where does this “must” come from? It certainly doesn’t come from Scripture. It especially doesn’t come from the New Testament. Paul told Timothy to watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. (1 Timothy 4:16). Titus was told that …there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach (Titus 1:10-11)

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps you mean that – in humility – followers of Jesus should avoid being overly dogmatic, open to correction, and willing to be challenged to better understand what God has told us. If that’s what you mean, I’m with you.

Of course, I don’t think that’s what you mean. You say that we must be tolerant of other views. That’s the opposite of what the New Testament teaches those of us who follow Jesus. You’re free to believe, and tolerate, whatever you wish. I’m not. Here’s one reason why:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ. (Galatians 1:6-10)

That doesn’t sound very tolerant, does it?

When someone comes to my website and disagrees with me, I read what they write very carefully. If they better understand the Scriptures in question, I learn from them. If they contradict the gospel that was handed down to us from the beginning, I have a responsibility to point that out. I’m not here to try to please people, but to please God. My work is to help others better understand what the Bible teaches, so they can better trust God with their lives. That’s not going to happen through tolerance of other views. It can only happen when I pass on what was faithfully passed on to me.

Serena:

Thanks for writing to me! You’ve asked an important question, and I want to ease your mind.

God commanded certain people to observe sabbaths. I say “sabbaths” and not “sabbath” because there were a bunch of sabbaths. The word ‘sabbath’ mean ‘to rest.’ Not rest because you’re tired, but rest to stop working. In music, a rest is where you stop playing for a moment. It’s like that. There was a weekly sabbath. Like you said, it began on Friday at sundown and lasted until Saturday at sundown. There were other sabbaths… special celebrations where God’s people were to stop what they were doing and pay special attention to their spiritual lives.

I say “certain people” because God didn’t tell everyone in the world to observe sabbaths… only the ancient Israelites. That’s who He was talking to when He gave the 10 Commandments, and the laws that are related to them. He told the people that He had brought them out of Egypt, and that they were going to be in a covenant (agreement) with Him.

I’m guessing you’re not an ancient Israelite. Am I right? I’m not. I’ve never been to Egypt. Maybe you’ve been to Egypt, but I’ll bet you weren’t a slave there that God freed and sent toward Canaan. Am I right? Yeah, I’m right.

The only people involved in the old covenant – God’s agreement with the ancient Israelites – were the ancient Israelites, and any foreigners who wanted to live with them in the promised land. Nobody else was involved in that agreement. Not the Egyptians, not the Chinese, not the Peruvians, not the Canadians. Certainly not you or me. Really. If you read Exodus 20, you can see who God is talking to. Here’s the important question: why would anyone butt into someone else’s agreement?

God’s covenant with Israel doesn’t involve you or me. No matter what God said to them in that agreement, He wasn’t talking to you or me or the whole world. When I proposed to my girlfriend and asked her to be my wife, I wasn’t talking to anyone else. When I said, “I do” at our wedding, I wasn’t talking to anyone else. It would be weird for someone else to jump into the conversation and say, “So, when should we have the wedding” or “Where will we go on our honeymoon”… right?

That’s what a lot of people are doing with the 10 Commandments. They’re butting into a conversation they weren’t invited into. They’re pretending that God was talking to them, but He wasn’t. The result of that covenant was the religion known as Judaism. I’m a Christian. The Mosaic Law NEVER applied to me at all… so it’s kinda ridiculous for me to ask HOW to observe the Law, isn’t it?

Christians have our own commands. Our commands are what Jesus taught. We learn about His commands from reading what He said, and from reading what His disciples learned from Him. Only 9 of the 10 Commandments are repeated in the New Testament. The one that’s missing is the sabbath. Why? Because: the sabbath only pointed to a time in the future when Jesus would come and change things. Now, Jesus has come. He changed things. There are no longer Jewish animal sacrifices in the Temple. There are no longer Jewish rules about ceremonial washing. There are no longer Jewish rules about clean and unclean foods. Why? Because those were symbols of the coming Messiah. When the Messiah came, the symbols were no longer needed. The 10 Commandments never applied to you, and they no longer apply to the Israelites.

Does that make sense? Judaism and Christianity aren’t the same. Only ancient Jews were to observe the 10 Commandments. Christians only observe Jesus’ commands. Let me know if you have any more questions. Thanks!

Steven:

With respect, you should study the Scriptures more. Here’s a passage where you can begin your research.

Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! (2 Corinthians 3:7-11)

Note that Paul calls the Law “the ministry that brought death,” called it “transitory,” points out that it “brought condemnation,” and can’t compare with what replaced it: the ministry of the Spirit. This is echoed in Galatians 5:4, where Paul clearly spells it out: You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

The idea that Christians are to observe the Law to honor God is alien to the teachings of Jesus and His disciples…so it’s alien to the New Testament. Study, my friend, to show yourself approved.

Shane:

Thanks for commenting. Here’s a tip: when you post ONLY Scripture, you seem to be saying, “Your error must come from not knowing this bit from the Bible.” I’m not offended, of course…that would be silly. Instead, I’m complaining. My Bible says the same things your Bible says, so this verse is the same in both. What’s missing is your explanation of WHY this verse shows that I’ve misunderstood.

You see, I believe this verse. Wholeheartedly and unreservedly. I believe it’s entirely true. That doesn’t change my position even a little bit. Why? Because I understand the verse to mean something different than what you see in it. If you don’t share your own thoughts – explain your understanding – then you haven’t helped me, or the millions who will come and read your comment, at all. So, in the interest of having a fruitful discussion about important things, I’ll ask the question:

What do think Jesus meant when He said that? Keep in mind that Peter, Paul, Luke, James, and a whole bunch of others did not teach that Gentiles (non-Jews, like myself) are bound by the Law. Paul specifically taught that we are not under the Law at all. In light of these facts, it doesn’t appear that Jesus could have been saying that His followers must be Jewish. What do you think?

Mmhmm. I see.

I really do appreciate you being here, Shane. Your insults mean less than nothing to me, of course…not because I’m convinced I’m right, or because I’m immune to truth, or because I “have no fear of the Lord,” but because your insults can only be meant to hurt. That doesn’t bother me. What would bother me? Why, I’d be bothered if you had presented an explanation that proved mine untrue. You know, if you had made a case from Scripture that I should amend, or even destroy, what I currently believe. Instead of serving me with truth, you’ve only sought to put me down. I’m not even close to being bothered by that.

Here’s an idea: make your case. Show me, from the Bible, where I am wrong. Prove to me – one who is eager to be corrected – that I need correcting. I’m all ears, Shane. Really: I’m serious. I would owe you a great debt if you were able to show me, from God’s Word, that I am wrong. I don’t believe you will, but I wish you would.

It’s a start. I appreciate that.

It’s not enough, though. Again, you post only Scripture. My Bible says exactly what your Bible says, so that’s not very helpful. If you and I have read the same verses and yet come to different conclusions, then we need further understanding. Just rereading the passage isn’t going to cause one of us to change our minds.

For example: you seem to be saying that 1 John 2 speaks of the Law. Without further explanation, that’s what it looks like. However, when you read vv 6-7 in context, it’s clear and obvious that that can’t be right. Begin in verse 1, and read through verse 8:

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.

I used the KJV to answer you, in case you irrationally mistrust some other version. It happens. Anyway, when you read the passage in its original context, you can see that 1) the “he” spoken of is Jesus (v1), 2) that John isn’t telling them something they hadn’t heard before (v7), and 3) John actually IS writing them a new command (v8). Note verse 6, where John says that whoever claims to live in Jesus must live as Jesus lived. You seem to think that means following the Law.

Unfortunately, you appear to be wrong about that. Why do I say that? Because I’ve read other parts of the Bible, and understand that they must fit together and that they don’t contradict one another. Jesus (as in Hebrews) is our High Priest, who completed the work that other priests could not complete. Why? Because Jesus is the perfect and final sacrifice, whose death put an end to the entire system of positional righteousness that we find in the Law. How do I know this system is done? Because Paul explains it in undeniable terms in places like Romans and Galatians. How are we to understand Romans 6:14, if not to say that we are not under the Law?

For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

Why would anyone follow the 613 commands of a law that’s no longer in force? That can only be an expression of ignorance, or of rebellion. You don’t sound rebellious, so I can only conclude that you don’t know any better. How else are we to understand Galatians 3:23-25, if not to say that we are not under the Law?

Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

How could the Bible be more clear? I suppose, if we found a place that said, “No, Shane…you’re wrong about following the Law” that might do it. I could go on, sharing verse after verse and passage after passage that explain that NOBODY, especially not Christians, and especially not a gentile Christian, is under the Law…but I like to keep things simple. As we move forward, please note that I didn’t simply post Scripture. I also explained how I understand it. Your Bible says what my Bible says, so it’s not the text that we lack…it’s our understanding of the text. Please address in a direct manner, if you would, Galatians 3. Please explain why Paul would say that we are not under the Law if we are actually under the Law. The way I see it, either Paul is wrong or you are wrong. How do you see it?

G.Love:

I’m very pleased to hear that the discussion has been helpful. The key is to study the Scriptures. My opinions mean nothing, unless I’m in line with what the Bible says. I do hope you’ll continue doing your homework on these issues, studying what God has already told us. Have a great day!

Come on, Shane…you’re stonewalling. It’s never a good idea to stick to your guns when the evidence is against you. Again you’ve posted only opinions with no Scripture. I’ve been through this again and again and again in the past 20 years, and you’re not giving me anything new. You’re spouting truisms from Scripture, mixed with insults. Try actually dealing with the Scriptures that undermine your position. You don’t have to tackle them all at once, of course…try just one:

Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

Tell me: with no insults, with no presumptions of your own rightness, why you think it’s biblical to live by the Law when Paul says that we are no longer under the Law. Good luck!

Come on, Shane. Try to keep up. Deal with THIS passage:

Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

Shane:

I hope you’ve had a good week. I’ve been pretty busy, and am just now catching up.

>> I did not say obey all 613 I said all that are the moral one’s of the 613

Yes, you’re correct. I misread that part. I didn’t mean to misrepresent your position.

>>I don’t see why Christians find moral laws a big deal

LOL. Christians have plenty of moral laws…they’re simply what Jesus taught. We do find it a big deal when someone tries to convince us of another gospel, which Paul warned about in Galatians. Maybe, if you read Galatians, you’ll begin to see what I mean.

>>…after all you have no problem with the Sunday Sabbath

I understand your confusion. Many Christians do erroneously consider Sunday to be “the” sabbath, and that avoiding work on that day somehow pleases God. I don’t share their view, but I understand it.

Let me ask you a question, Shane. We could go around and around if you wish, but that’s not my intention. Here’s what I’d like to know: in the year 50AD, what would the Apostle John say to a gentile who wanted to please God? Would he tell that person that they had to convert to Judaism? Would he tell them that they must obey not only what Jesus taught but also what Moses taught? Would John tell them that they needed a list of the moral laws from the Torah, to make sure they did what God had commanded?

What do you think John would say?

I’m very disappointed, Shane. You persist in insulting me, even while pretending to be concerned for me. You prefer to remain in bondage, rather than let God free you. Not once have I asked you to believe me, but again and again I’ve asked you to look to God’s Word and see for yourself what He has said. Be like a Berean, Shane: look to the Scriptures.

The early church dealt with this issue from the very beginning, where judaizers sought to force gentiles to follow the Law. In Acts 15, we see that this was the subject of an important debate. Those who saw things your way said that the Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses (v5). The apostles then wrote a letter to settle the matter, saying:

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.

As I’m sure you are aware, in keeping the Law one must keep all of the Law. This was not instruction to keep the Law, clearly. In Galatians 2, the apostle Paul confronted the apostle Peter about his hypocrisy in this matter:

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

You proudly proclaim that you will obey all 613 commands in the Law. This is foolishness. Are you more righteous than Luke? Are you more righteous than Peter? Are you more righteous than James, and Paul, and Timothy, and Titus, and Andrew, and Philip? You are following the traditions of men, Shane…not the command of God. You purposely ignore God’s Word in favor of your own. How much more clear can the Scriptures be, when we can go there every day and read that we are not under the Law?

• You are not under the Law. Romans 6:14
• the Law is a law of sin and death, not of life. Romans 8:2
• The ‘Righteousness of God’ is now manifested apart from the Law. Romans 3:21
• So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. Galatians 3:24-25
• Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. Galatians 3:19
• Seeking to be justified by the Law severs us from Christ. Galatians 5:4

No, the Scriptures couldn’t be more clear. Your resistance to God’s Word is, unfortunately, equally clear. You have been lied to, Shane. You have been misled. Worse than that, you have willingly followed those who mislead you. Your allegiance should not be to the erroneous traditions of men, but to God and His Word.

We can worship the God who is, or we can worship the god we prefer. Please, Shane: be reconciled to God.

. . . . . . .

P.S. – I could do this all day. If you want to run away and hide from God’s Word, you are free to do so…but I’m not free to stop proclaiming the entire Word of God. If you want to continue this discussion, I will still be here. I recommend that your next step is to read Galatians, and then explain why you feel comfortable contradicting the clear meaning of God’s Word: we are not under the Law.

I wish you well.

Shane:

I’ll respond to your question about this verse after you reply to my question about Galatians 3:24-25. =)

Shane:

I very much appreciate you taking the time to actually address Galatians 3.

You’re adding to the Scriptures. Note v16, where Paul speaks of Abraham and the promise. The Law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant. What is the Law? It’s the Law. Not part of the Law, but the Law itself. This is clear by the context. When you say that v19 speaks of “sin offerings that were added” you betray your bias. The text doesn’t say that, in English or in Greek. The word is nomos. The Greek word used in Leviticus 4 (where sin offerings are prescribed) is chatta’ath. Not even close. You’re substituting man’s words for God’s Words. When you say that v10 speaks of “the ritual” you betray your bias. The text doesn’t say that, and it doesn’t imply it.

As I said earlier: the distinction between the civil and ceremonial and moral law isn’t made in Scripture. As we see in v5, Paul contrasts believing with the works of the Law. Verse 10 doesn’t speak of only sin offerings, clearly…it speaks of everything written in the Law. If you fail to do any part of the Law, you are cursed. You proclaim that you will obey all 613 commands of the Law, yet Paul wrote in v11 that you – clearly – cannot rely on the Law to be justified before God.

When you move from the Scriptures to your own explanation about Jesus, and what He would and would not do, you err. Nobody has suggested that Jesus would throw out moral righteousness. That’s silly…because, in v6 (and other places) we read that Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.” You can talk all you want about your desire to obey…I’m not questioning your zeal. I’m questioning your understanding of the Scriptures. I can’t even begin to count how many people I’ve talked to over the years who were convinced that God wanted them to do something that’s clearly unbiblical, like leaving their wife or living in a homosexual relationship or cheating on their taxes. Zeal is only good if it’s aimed at the right target, Shane. Your zeal is misplaced.

You may think you’re doing well to obey the Law. Let me suggest that you are not…and that you’re taking the easy way out. It’s much more costly to live as a New Testament disciple than as an Old Testament law-follower. For example: in the old covenant, you owed 10% of your “profits” (crops and livestock) to God. The other 90% were yours. In the new covenant, 100% of what you have belongs to God, and you are only a steward of it. None of it is yours, to do with as you wish. In the old covenant, you owed God the first fruits of your harvest and flocks. In the new covenant, the orchards and flocks are entirely His. In the old covenant, you had to make periodic sacrifices to please God. In the new covenant, you ARE the sacrifice. You don’t even belong to yourself: you belong to Him because He purchased you. In the old covenant you were free as long as you dispatched your duties to God. In the new covenant you are a bond-servant for life.

You seem to think that obeying the old covenant is some kind of badge of honor, and that you’re doing more – and better – for God than those who do not obey the Law. I can tell you that living by a checklist of responsibilities is much, much easier than submitting all that you have and all that you are to God each morning, not knowing how the Holy Spirit will lead you each day. Remember: the righteous shall live by faith. You are not, based on your words, living by faith. You are living by the Law, and failing. We both know you can’t keep the Law, Shane. Why would you shackle yourself to it needlessly? There is freedom in Christ. If you belong to Christ (v29), then you are Abraham’s seed, and an heir to the promise. The Law can’t give you that.

Now: will you please address vv23-25? Thanks!

Shane, Shane, Shane. Again you resort to insults, rather than addressing the Scriptures. I understand. It’s a defense mechanism. Yes, I’m an intelligent person. That doesn’t mean that I assume I’m right about everything. I’m more than willing to hear your side of things. I’m eager, in fact…but you seem less eager to back up what you believe with the clear witness of Scripture. I’ve been praying for you, and so have others. The goal is not for you to believe as I do, but for both of us to believe what the Scriptures teach.

It doesn’t matter to me how many times you accuse me of being wrong, Shane. I’m pretty much immune to it. That’s not because I refuse to see the truth, but because I’ve been discussing God and the Bible with people like you and like me for decades. I’ve been called every name in the book, and some that probably never got written down. I’m a heretic. I’m the devil. I’m demon-possessed. I’m an idiot. I’m unspiritual. I’m gullible. I’m unwilling to see the truth. I’m unable to see the truth. It’s pretty funny, sometimes. Here’s what does matter to me: YOU. You matter to me because you matter to God. As I told you before: I could do this all day. Why? Because the truth will set you free. My job is not to convince you believe the truth. My job is to tell you the truth, and it’s your job to believe it. In our discussion so far, the truth I need to tell you is that obeying the Law will do you no good.

It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

You can dance around it all you want. You can pretend that the Bible says things that it doesn’t say. You can insert your own opinions into Scripture, if you wish…but the truth doesn’t change. The Law was temporary. Now that Christ has come, the Law is no longer needed. This isn’t my personal opinion, Shane. It’s directly from Scripture.

Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

The God of the universe is unchanging, with regard to His character…but His interactions with us do change. We are no longer under the Law. Those aren’t my words. They’re God’s Words. You have yet to address them here, and I will patiently wait for you to do so.

. . . . . . .

I know it might not be convincing to you, but I’ll give you a glimpse into my own life. I do this not to bolster my argument, but because of what you’ve written. What I’m about to write does not make me right about the Law, so let’s not pretend that my own zeal should convince you, any more than your zeal should convince me. You’ve suggested that I receive Jesus. That’s a kind thing to suggest. I accepted God’s offer of salvation when I was six years old, and have renewed my commitment to Him a thousand times or more since. I have the comfort and rest you speak of…not because being a follower of Jesus “works for me” but because I don’t have to perform spiritual works to remain in a right relationship with Him. I’m certainly not perfect, but I do not waver from my desire to submit to Him fully, to obey Him completely, and to be faithful to His calling on my life. I consider the Bible to be fully trustworthy, and the final word on matters of doctrine and practice for anyone who seeks God. My life is not my own…not my body, not my mind, not my time, not my breath. My goal is simply to be useful to Him.

Maybe this explanation will help you understand that I do not lack commitment, any more than you do. The problem between us isn’t that you’re willing to obey God and I’m not, of course. The problem is that we see God’s expectations for humanity differently. You think that God wants us to obey the Law given to Moses. I think you should read the New Testament more carefully, and learn that there is a better way to live. It’s not my own way, based on my own ideas, as I see fit. It’s the gospel, handed down from Jesus to you and me. At no time have I suggested that you trust my word, but that you trust God’s Word. Don’t avoid the parts that don’t fit your current understanding, Shane. The whole thing is true, so we should accept the whole thing. I’m sure you would agree, but so far it doesn’t look like it. I’ll leave you with 2 Corinthians 3:6 and following, and hope that you will continue to consider whether you’ve rightly understood the nature of the Law:

He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant – not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

There’s a kind of unofficial rule in these conversations, Shane. You’ve probably heard it a time or two but, in case you missed it, I’ll type it out for you:

Don’t be a jerk.

There’s no reason for you to keep insulting me. It doesn’t further the conversation. First, I don’t dodge questions. Second, it’s silly to say that I talk against righteousness. Third, I’m not offended. Fourth, I don’t hate the truth. Finally, there is indeed light in me…whether you can see it or not. You don’t know me well enough to insult me properly, so you might as well stop.

. . . . . . .

1 John 2:3-4
You seem to think that this passage tells Christians to obey the Mosaic Law. It doesn’t. There’s nothing in the text to even suggest it, beyond the word “commands.” John seems to be echoing John 15 here, where Jesus speaks about His commands:

“As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit – fruit that will last – and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. This is my command: Love each other.

When you can find a verse in the New Testament that teaches Christians to obey the Law, let me know.

. . . . . . .

While you say that you answered my question, you didn’t really. I asked you to explain why you believe that you should obey all 613 commandments in the Law, despite Galatians 3 telling you (and everybody else in the world) that we are no longer under the Law. You tried to answer it, but you didn’t. You made up some story (same story I’ve heard for years, without substantiation) about dividing the Law into parts…the civil, ceremonial, and moral. I pointed out the fact that there is no such distinction in the text, and said that you were adding to Scripture. How do you respond? Can you find a verse that I’ve missed? It’s not enough to just SAY something about what the Bible teaches, Shane. We must always back it up using the text itself. What you believe, and what you’re trying to get me to believe, is not in the text.

Please make your next comment about that, and not about my character. I’m sure your fellow readers will appreciate it. In case you need a link: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+3&version=NIV

That’s an answer, but it’s not a complete answer. First, you’ve used only part of the verse you cite. The rest is where Jesus said that He came to fulfill them, which is the crux of our disagreement. Second, that doesn’t answer the question. The fact that Jesus didn’t come to abolish the Law or the Prophets doesn’t actually tell a Gentile what to do. Would John tell this Gentile that he could be saved by works? Would John tell them that they are saved by grace, but kept by works? Would he say that one must adhere to Judaism to be saved? We see plenty of people in Scripture who ask questions like “what must I do to be saved”…what would John tell them?

…and there it is. You pit Paul against Jesus. I’ve been waiting for it, of course.

Simply: you are wrong.

It’s not enough for ME to say that you are wrong. That would be decidedly unbiblical. Peter called Paul’s writings Scripture. Would he do that if Paul taught the wrong things? No, of course not. Paul went to Jerusalem to double-check with the Apostles that what he taught was right, and James and Peter and John (among others) added nothing to it.

In other words: you don’t just disagree with Paul, you disagree with Peter and James and John. These three, more than any other humans, knew exactly what Jesus taught and what Jesus meant. They approved of Paul’s teachings, called his writings Scripture, and did not correct him. When you try to say that Jesus was right and Paul was wrong, you simply contradict the clear teaching of Scripture.

This concludes our current discussion, of course. You and I can continue to disagree, certainly…but we can’t disagree on what the Scriptures say, since we disagree on their authority. If you want to continue the discussion, we’ll need to find some common ground to begin again. I believe the whole of Scripture is true, while you reject the portions you don’t like. Unless you can come up with some reason for me to join you in dismissing Paul, I don’t see a way forward.

Mmhmm. Here are your words: “paul is not your saviour,Christ is, obey him not what you think Paul might mean.” Quite simply: if you don’t believe that what Paul said is as true as what Jesus said, we have no common ground on which to continue this conversation. You say here that Paul is true, but you have yet to address what he taught about the Law. You defer to what you think Jesus said. Come on, Shane: deal with the WHOLE of Scripture.

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

With respect, you keep making unfounded claims. Where in Scripture can we find this commandment that you say was “from creation”?

With respect, where in the Bible can we find that the mark of the beast has anything to do with the Sabbath (not a new idea to me, but still unsubstantiated)? While you’re at it, you might explain why that mark’s parallel has nothing to do with Saturday worship.

Quite simply: you have been misled. If you call yourself a follower of Jesus Christ, your belief system must be based on what He taught. That information comes from the Bible. If your ideas aren’t found in the Bible, the are at best speculative and, at worst, heresy.

Round and round and round. I never claimed that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday, Shane.

You are a blind guide
you have no fear of the Lord
it seems you are on milk
you reject the righteousness of instruction
its people like you who…perverted the truth
You are an enemy of righteousness
you hate the truth and there is no light in you
you have come to cause division intentionally
you are a worker of iniquity
you twist his words to suit yourself
this is your blog speaking against the word of God

Those are your words. I see a pattern. You disagree with me on how to understand the Scriptures. Rather than commend me for my search for truth and try to redirect me, you tell me I’m wrong. When I ask for Scriptures that back up your claims, you provide Scriptures that don’t. When I challenge you on it, you insult me. Sure, you couch some of your insults in pity…but I care for neither. I care about the truth. I’m going to redirect the conversation, and I’m going to make it simple and easy for you.

The article above is about the sabbath. We all know that the children of Israel were commanded to observe sabbaths, and to do so in very specific ways. Please show the Bible verse(s) where gentile Christians are commanded to do the same. Note that these verses – because they’re instructions for Christians – probably need to come from the New Testament. If they come from the Old Testament, they need to VERY CLEARLY indicate that the commands are for all people, for all time. Whatever verses you choose, you must provide them in their original context.

That is the task I set before you. You are free to take up the challenge, and to establish for the millions of future GodWords readers the truth of what you claim. However: I will ONLY approve your comments if they address THAT topic, and that topic alone. If you want to move forward, let’s do it in an orderly fashion, dealing with the first things first. You say that Christians should observe the seventh-day sabbath…now prove it from God’s Word. Don’t reply with insults, or verses about people who don’t love the truth. Deal with the issue at hand, responsibly using Scripture to substantiate your position. I wish you well.

Robert:

Thank you very much. You point me to Acts 13. I’m not sure why, as this doesn’t say that the early church kept the Sabbath as per the Law. Paul and Barnabas went to the synagogue, but they didn’t meet the early church there. They met unbelievers there, and shared the gospel with them. As we can see in v46, they rejected the gospel. This isn’t the church. If you mean that Paul and Barnabas went there to observe the sabbath themselves, this wouldn’t make sense…as Paul wrote many times that we are not under the Law. You might spend some time in Galatians, especially chapter 3:

Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

Acts 14:1 falls into the same category, as does 18:1-4. Paul went to the synagogue, to be sure…but there is no indication in Scripture that he went because he was observing the Law. Instead, as we read over and over, he went there to reason with the Jews and share Christ with them. As I pointed out, Acts 13 (which you cite) shows that Paul went there for that reason, and told them he was going to the Gentiles because they rejected God’s message. Paul didn’t stop going to the synagogue to witness for Christ, but there’s no way one can read Romans or Galatians and conclude that Paul thought we should follow the Law.

I really appreciate you taking the time to write, Robert. I’ve had lots of SDA friends…I spent 16 years living around Nampa, Idaho. That’s where Pacific Press is, and one of my friends was in charge of the printing operation there. I also worked for an SDA man (whom I love) for some time, so I’ve had this conversation again and again with people I care about. The Seventh-Day Adventists are simply wrong on this one, my friend. No matter how many times you appeal to the idea that the sabbath was established in Genesis, you still have to deal with the New Covenant, and deal with Acts 15, and deal with Romans 6, and deal with Galatians 3. At one time, the Law was in force…but it was temporary, until Christ came. Now that Christ has come, the Law is simply no longer needed. It served its purpose in the past, but now it is a burden to those who seek to be justified by it.

Paul wrote that we are not under the Law, yet you say we are. Let me know how you would reply to Paul’s words in Galatians 3 (above). If you’re tempted to reply with something about the difference between the civil, ceremonial, and moral laws of God, please take a moment to first note that such a distinction does not appear in Scripture. The Law is simply the 10 Commandments, and all 613 commands that come from them. When reading Acts 15, keep in mind that the apostles in Jerusalem specifically did not tell the gentile Christians to observe the sabbath…on the seventh day or any other day.

What say you?

Steven:

Thanks for writing. You’re right: when Jesus said “it is finished,” He had completed the work needed to save you and me. Your salvation depends on you believing God, just as Abraham believed God. You can’t add good works to that and call it the gospel. That’s another religion entirely! I’m happy to have played a tiny part in your life, my friend. Let me know if there’s anything I can do for you. Have a great day!

Gray:

First, thanks for your message. =)

Don’t give up. Be patient. Our job is not to convince people to agree with us, of course… we’re like gardeners. Sometimes we plant seeds. Sometimes we water the sprouts. Sometimes we harvest. People usually take time to grow into the idea that God really is who they hope He is. In the meantime, we just do what we can. It’s not very often a sprint. It’s usually a marathon. You’re totally on track when you talk about context. In my experience, virtually 100% of the objections I get here on GodWords (and in the many emails I receive) are due to the reader not having the full context of the passages in question. When people change their minds, as they often do, it’s because they simply didn’t know about the other verses that help them understand.

You’re also correct on another big issue: usually those who call themselves Christians are harder to deal with. They’re convinced that they already have the truth, and have no idea that what they believe is contrary to what’s in the Bible they claim to read. As a church leader, this is a wake-up call. People aren’t being taught well, and they’re certainly not being challenged to back up what they believe. Your comment makes my heart sing, Gray… because you get it. I hope you’re considering how you too can make a dent in the biblical illiteracy that plagues the modern church.

It’s not like we’re making up new stuff all the time and confusing people, right? We’re simply telling the same old story that’s been told for 2000 years! Sometimes it seems this mountain is too steep to climb, but comments like yours prove a couple of things. First, that there are people out there who get it, and second, that we who do this work are not alone.

I appreciate you, Gray. Let me know if there’s some way I can encourage you to continue growing, and to help you become an effective gardener. Have a great day!

I’m sorry. It’s never my intent to misquote anyone. You’re right: they are different words. The assumption that this difference is significant, however, is simply wrong. There are three words in play here:

1. The word in Genesis 2 is shabath. It’s Hebrew and means “to stop.”
2. The word in Exodus 20 is shabbath. It’s Hebrew, is an intensive of shabath, and has two uses in Scripture. The first is the same as in Genesis 2, meaning “to stop.” The second refers to any observance related to God’s stopping, including a sabbath day, the day of atonement, a sabbath year, a sabbath week, or produce in sabbath year.
3. The word in Colossians 2 is sabbaton. It’s the Greek translation of shabbath.

In Genesis, there was no observance. There was only God’s work of creation, and God being done with that work. There’s nothing spiritual or religious about shabath…the word simply means that He quit because He was finished. When I’m done writing this response, I will shabath as well. You can observe my stopping if you wish, but I give no command to do so.

In Exodus, observances were commanded to commemorate God’s stopping. See a partial list of observances above.

In Colossians, Paul tells believers that sabbaton are shadows of things that were to come, and that the reality (to which the shadows pointed) is found in Christ. Now, to be technically correct, the word Paul uses is the Greek translation of shabbath. The word could mean God’s rest, or it could mean Israel’s observances of that rest. If Paul meant that God’s rest pointed to the future reality of Christ, the text loses meaning. After all, why would Paul tell believers to not let others judge them with regard to God being finished creating? That’s silly. Paul clearly meant the other kind of sabbaton, where the children of Israel observed God’s rest as He had commanded in Exodus.

The New Moon wasn’t to help keep track of the calendar. The moon itself did that. The New Moon was a festival at the beginning of each month during which fasting and mourning weren’t allowed. There were special sacrifices, family celebrations, and people generally didn’t work during the festival. Paul wrote not to let anyone judge you for observing (or not observing) a New Moon celebration. The New Moon, as he explained, was a shadow of the reality to come. A plain reading of the text shows that the New Moon and religious festivals and sabbath days and dietary restrictions are all in the same category: things that pointed forward to Jesus, and so are no longer needed.

You believe there was a sabbath observance prior to sin entering the world. That doesn’t hold water. There were dozens (or hundreds) of shabath prior to sin. The word only means that someone was doing something, and then they stopped doing it. There is no more significance to it than that. Saying this predates sin and shows that we should all observe the sabbath as outlined in Exodus is a very, very bad way to make theology. God’s stopping only had meaning because He later commanded its observance. There is no indication in the creation account in Genesis that anyone paid special attention to God’s stopping, including God Himself.

Certainly there is no sin where there is no law (Romans 4). In Genesis 4 we see God warning Cain to do what is right, and to avoid sin. There must have been a law that Cain knew. When you extrapolate this idea to include the observance of shabbath, and that failing to observe this event is sin, you go far too far. Clearly, there is no mention of such observances until Exodus. Just as clearly, Paul taught that such observances are no longer required, as Christ has come. The command was given for a purpose, and that was completed in Christ.

In other words, Paul is right. Christians are not – and have never been – commanded to observe shabbath.

Be easy.

And you as well, my friend.

Daniel:

Thanks. Good catch! Unfortunately, when you read the verse in context (as all Bible students should) you will see that this is talking about the nation of Israel, and how foreigners living in their country were to live. This wouldn’t apply to Egyptians living in Egypt, or to Babylonians living in Babylon, or to Chaldeans living in Chaldea. Gentiles were only expected to live as Jews if they lived in Israel. I don’t live in Israel, so this wouldn’t apply to me.

Beside that, Paul specifically and unequivocally stated that we are no longer under the Law. If you believe that Numbers 15:15 teaches that we are under the Law, how do you explain Paul saying that we are not?

I would not say that Jesus abolished the Law. The Law had a purpose…a reason for being in force. Jesus fulfilled the Law, which was a tutor – a guardian – for the Jews until Jesus came. I’m sorry to hear that you believe the Law is still in force…whether for Jews or Gentiles. It is not.

Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. (Galatians 3:23-25)

You have been misled, Daniel. You are not covered by God’s grace if you fall. You are covered by God’s grace, period. We aren’t saved by grace after we’ve done our very best…we’re saved by grace when we exercise faith by trusting God for salvation. This is a present reality, not a future reality…we’re not saved later on, after we’re done working for our salvation, where God makes up for what we lack. Instead, we are saved now because God is gracious enough to save us regardless of how well we can follow the Law.

Fortunately, Paul has a direct message for you:

Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. (Galatians 3:15:21)

You are not under the Law. Please don’t take my word for it. Do your own study of the Bible. Read Galatians and see that the Law, which came from God and did perfectly what He intended, is no longer applicable to anyone. Let me know what you think. I’m praying for you.

Robert:

Thanks for writing. With respect, you’re using the word ‘remember’ in only one sense: the one you prefer. Your explanation could be right, but it’s much less likely than that God said ‘remember’ as an instruction about the future. If you were going to the store, I might say ‘remember to get ice cream’, right? That’s not an instruction to recall ice cream we’ve eaten in the past, but to remember – in the future – to get some. The commandments in Exodus 20 aren’t simply a call to remember old things, but instructions for the future. Certainly the Exodus command to sabbath pointed to historical events (a remembrance): both creation and the exodus itself, but the command wasn’t anything like “keep doing what you were commanded to do from the beginning.”

You say that the sabbath was already being kept. I’d like to know where you get this information. You see, the word sabbath means to rest, to stop, to cease. In Genesis, God sabbathed…when He was done creating, He stopped creating. There was no command for Adam and Eve to set aside one day per week to not work. The first command to sabbath comes in Exodus 20, in the context of God’s covenant with the children of Israel. I don’t know why you would say that God didn’t make a covenant with Moses (as their representative)…reading through Exodus, it’s clear that a covenant was made. Exodus 19:5 seems like sufficient evidence to convince anyone. Let me know why you disagree.

You seem to believe that Christians are part of Israel. You cite Romans 11, but it seems you need to read it more carefully. Paul does not say that Christians are Israel…the whole section shows a stark contrast between the two groups! Yes, we are grafted in. No, we are not Israel. We are not Jews, nor are we to adhere to Judaism. We are Gentiles, and heirs to the promise…not the promise to Moses, but to Abraham. Abraham was not commanded to keep a sabbath, was he?

Yes, Jesus kept the commandments of God. He is a Jew. I am not a Jew, so the instructions given to the Jews were not given to me. This is clearly shown in passages like Acts 15, where the leaders of the Jerusalem church were asked to settle a dispute: whether Gentiles should be required to follow the Law of Moses. There is no way to read this passage and come away thinking that their answer was “yes.” The same issue came up again and again, and was dismissed again and again. Titus was instructed on this matter, as was Timothy. At no point in the Bible are non-Jews told to keep the Law.

You say Jews and Gentiles are no longer separated, and you are (of course) correct. This is clear in Scripture. Unfortunately, you apply it backwards. You seem to think that Gentiles should act as the Jews did…but it’s the other way around. The old covenant has been replaced by the new, and Jews should act as the Gentiles do in following Christ. The evidence is abundant, and clear: we are saved by grace through faith, and not by works. Here is one of the many passages that make this clear…it’s Romans 4:4-5:

Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

I have no doubt about your sincerity, Robert. Please don’t take my disagreement as disapproval. My goal is to simply point to the Scriptures and help you understand.

Jon:

First, thanks for visiting GodWords. I appreciate it.

Here’s an item for your consideration: God did not give us that command. The command to keep the Sabbath was given to the ancient Israelites. After Jesus’ death, some of the Israelite Christians insisted that Gentiles had to become Jews before they could become Christians. You can read about this in Acts 15, Galatians 2 & 3, and Titus 1 (among other places). This was an issue in the early church, and it was decidedly squashed by Jesus’ disciples. You can read their conclusions in Acts 15:22 and following.

Reading these passages shows that Christians were never under the law at all. If you read Galatians 2 and 3, you can see that the Jews were no longer under the law. To suggest that God has given you and I a command to rest on any particular day is to ignore these clear and plain passages.

You say that Jesus observed the Sabbath, and so you will too. This is clearly an error. Jesus observed the Sabbath in the way it was intended, and got harassed by the Jewish leaders for doing so. They claimed that He broke the Sabbath and, based on what you’ve written, you might make the same claim. Let’s not fall into error by only looking at part of the Scriptures. Let’s take them all together, in context, before we make decisions about how we should live. It’s good that you’re working hard to not be deceived by men…I commend you for that. I don’t want you to take my word for it. Take God’s Word for it. Look at the passages I’ve linked, and maybe take some notes. Christians don’t observe the ancient Israelite Sabbath 1) because we’re not ancient Israelites, 2) because the Law is now obsolete, and 3) because the Law never applied to us anyway.

Let me know if you have any questions. I’d be happy to provide more Scriptures to help with your research. Have a great day!

Diuz:

Thanks for your comment. My first response to your question may help you reframe the issue. You say that “The observance of the Sabbath was from the beginning of creation.” That’s clearly not true. The word shabath means “to cease” as in to stop doing something. God did not “observe” a sabbath in Genesis 2. He stopped working, because He was done creating. The only commands in the Bible about observing a sabbath come as part of the Mosaic Law. There are no pre-Law commands to observe a sabbath to honor God’s completion of creation.

Second, the Jews didn’t start with Abraham. The Jews didn’t start with Jacob, or Israel. The Jews are those from the line of Judah.

Third, Sunday worship wasn’t created by Constantine. It’s a myth. Yes, he made a law…but that’s not why Christians observe the first day of the week.

• The early church honored the first day of the week (the “Lord’s day”) because Jesus was resurrected on the first day. John mentions this in Revelation 1:10 when he wrote On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet….
• Justin Martyr wrote about Sunday worship in 155AD, in his First Apology:

  We all hold this common gathering on Sunday, since it is the first day, on which God transforming darkness and matter made the universe, and Jesus Christ our Saviour rose from the dead on the same day. For they crucified him on the day before Saturday, and on the day after Saturday, he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them these things which I have passed on to you also for your serious consideration.

Ancient Jews would go to the synagogue or temple every day. The seventh day was a day where they did more, but it’s not like they only went on Saturdays. The very early church was comprised of only Jews, who continued worshipping every day. Sunday was a special day, and they observed the Lord’s Day from the beginning.

Please: don’t believe everything you hear. Do your own homework…you’ll be much better off when you do. I’m not a Roman Catholic, and I have no desire to defend Constantine about anything…but we should take our information about Christianity from Scripture, not from rumors. We see in the Bible that Christians are not under the Law, and that we have no sabbath command. Rather than worshipping on one day each week, we worship every day.

You ask one final question that’s very important. You ask “how can we keep in check if there is no guideline to help us?”. This is an important part of Christianity. We read many times of our freedom in Christ. We do not share the same spiritual restrictions that the Jews had to observe. We read about the contrast between the Law written on tablets of stone and the ministry of the Spirit. We don’t need an external list of rules…we are indwelled by God Himself!

Paul wrote that anyone who seeks to be justified by the Law has been cut off from Christ. We have no need of the Mosaic Law (which is the 10 Commandments and everything that comes from them). We have God Himself.

Let me know if you have further questions.

Scripture, my friend. Scripture. It’s where Christians begin and end. It is the source of our theology, our guide for living, and our indispensable standard for ideas about God. We should use Scripture, and not our own ideas, when we talk about who God is and what God wants. When you say things like “all through the Bible it was kept” and “only He can change it” and “the original plan for men” you show that you are unaware of what’s actually written in Scripture. For example: the original plan for men was Jesus, the savior. Revelation 13:8 tells us that Jesus (the Lamb) was slain from the creation of the world. THAT was the original plan. Jesus didn’t die because Adam and Eve derailed His plan. God knew that we would sin long before He created us, yet He created us anyway. THAT was the original plan.

You say we should be like our Savior, and follow what He did. Should I then be crucified for the sins of humanity? That’s what He did, right? Of course that’s a silly notion. We aren’t called to do what He did. We’re called to do what He commanded.

Now: how do we know what He commanded? Because His followers wrote it down for us. Scripture. Scripture! That’s where we learn how Christians should live. Did Jesus’ followers provide any information about how gentile believers (Christians that aren’t Jews) should live? Of course they did. Look, for a strong example, at Acts 15. Nobody can read this passage of Scripture and conclude that God intends for gentiles to obey the Law of Moses. You say that “only God can change it,” and you’re right…but you’ve missed the fact that God Himself did change it. There was an old covenant, made with the children of Israel. Then, throughout the Old Testament, God spoke of a new covenant that would take the place of the old. Jesus’ closest friends and disciples taught that the new covenant had arrived. That’s why John the Baptist preached that ‘the kingdom of God is at hand.’ That’s why Paul taught that the sabbath was a shadow of things to come, and that we don’t need the shadow because we have Christ. That’s why the Apostles in the Jerusalem church (Peter, James, John, and others) told gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia that they did not need to follow the Law. God DID change it, as we see in Scripture.

You ask a good question: why would anyone ever want to take away what God created? I’ll ask you a parallel question: why would anyone want to keep what God has set aside? When you go to the market and look at the fruit, you don’t ask “is THIS the fruit I’m not supposed to eat?”. You know that you aren’t in the garden of Eden, so the question is silly. In the same way, we know that we are not under the old covenant. Because Jesus’ followers were inspired by God to write, we have all of the information we need about this subject. We simply have to read it, preferring HIS thoughts to our own. Here is a passage from 2 Corinthians 3:

Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

Diuz:

Thanks very much! You’ve done a LOT of work here, and I appreciate it. I’ll try to respond to each part, and try to keep my reply short enough to be readable.

The key to understanding anything, but especially the Bible, is to be aware of the context. For example: the Bible tells us that Jesus wept. It would be wrong of me to say (in a serious manner) that this passage refers to Jesus weeping over the World Cup results. The ONLY way to understand Jesus’ weeping is in its original context. The passage is found in John 11, where Jesus’ friend Lazarus has died, and Mary and Martha were grieving over their brother’s death. Taking “Jesus wept” in any other sense would simply be wrong. Building any doctrine or theological concept on an out-of-context passage is a huge mistake.

What is the context of Isaiah 8:20? It’s a warning to Israel against consulting mediums and spiritists. Talking about this verse in any other context is a bad idea.

What is the context of Matthew 24:35? Well…the context would certainly include the previous verse. We can’t clearly understand what Jesus meant without the context: the setting, the audience, and so on. In that passage, Jesus is speaking about the coming judgment of Jerusalem in 70AD. He tells His disciples Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Then, after He said that, He said “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” We must take His words in their original context to understand how He meant them. To illustrate the point, imagine that the context was that Jesus had just mentioned that He was hungry, and then said that His words would never pass away. Those same words would have a completely different meaning, wouldn’t they?

Reading each passage in context isn’t just a good idea. It is the key to understanding…period. EVERY SINGLE TIME we refer to a verse, we should make sure that we’re not removing it from its context to pretend it means something that the writer didn’t intend. That’s one source of really bad theology.

On to Genesis. You seem to be saying that God’s original plan was for mankind to be sin-free, that we were always supposed to live forever, and so on. We know from Revelation 13:8 that Jesus was ‘slain from the foundation of the world.’ Those two ideas can’t be reconciled, so one of them must be wrong. Jesus’ death was part of the plan, before anybody sinned. God wasn’t surprised that Adam and Eve disobeyed…He knew they would, but created us anyway. You’re reading Genesis and extrapolating to make it say something that it can’t say: that the plan was anything other than what actually happened.

You say that God didn’t create man to die. Let me ask you: does God know the future? If not, we need to chat about that. If so, then God created people that He already knew would reject Him. Right? The idea isn’t that God takes pleasure in anyone’s death (as you rightly point out) but that God clearly takes pleasure in creating beings who are free to choose whether to respond to His love.

How can we understand Matthew 5:17? The key to the verse is what Jesus meant by “fulfill.” The Greek word He used is pleroo. The word has two meanings. Which one is the one He used? The first is ‘to supply liberally’…that is, to be generous, as in filling a cup to the brim. That doesn’t seem right, since Jesus wasn’t generously supplying the Law and the Prophets. They had already been given in full measure. The other definition seems to fit just fine. It is ‘to complete.’ Let’s look at the verse again, using this definition:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to complete them.

This is why Paul wrote that the Law was a temporary guardian, until Christ came. The Law was a “shadow” and not the reality. We have the reality in Jesus. Now that Jesus has come and fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, we no longer need that guardian. It’s also important to note that Jesus didn’t say that He came to fulfill only the “ceremonial Law” and leave the “moral Law.” When someone said the Law and the Prophets, they spoke of the entire Jewish Scriptures. Jesus fulfilled them all.

What is the context of Deuteronomy 6, where God gives the Law? Simple: God was talking to Israel. He wasn’t talking to Sumerians, or Chaldeans, or Edomites, or anyone else. Last night I told my wife that she’s my favorite person. I wasn’t talking to you, was I? Certainly you’re a nice person, but the context of my comment was that she is my favorite. In exactly the same way, the context of Deuteronomy matters. We can only understand Deuteronomy when we read it as it was written, without extrapolating, without pretending it says something it doesn’t say. God was talking to the children of Israel, who were going to enter the promised land, who had been slaves in Egypt. To know that this is so, you only have to actually READ Deuteronomy 6. The commands God gave that day never applied to you or me…period. Let’s not pretend that they did.

When you talk about Acts 15, you’re making my point for me. What was the dispute about? Read it in context: look at verse 5. Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” Isn’t that the crux of our disagreement? It seems so. Who wrote the letter? Christians, surely. Apostles, certainly. What else? They were also JEWS. They knew the Law. They knew that whoever fails to keep the whole law was guilty of breaking the whole law. Why then, if the gentiles in Antioch were to be Torah-observant, would they only tell them to do four things mentioned in the Law? Were they purposely trying to make these new Christians fail? Of course not. They were settling a dispute. Some said that gentiles must be required to keep the Law, but the council at Jerusalem clearly and obviously and unequivocally disagreed.

What is the context of Romans 3:31? Paul contrasts two laws: the law that requires works and the law that requires faith. Obviously, he means for all to adhere to one law (faith) and not the other (works). This entire section of Romans teaches that righteousness does not come from obeying the written Law, but by faith alone. Look ahead to Romans 4:5 and see: Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

You seem to say that 1 John teaches that obedience is what saves us. Clearly, obedience is important. We should obey. However: just as clearly, the New Testament teaches again and again and again that salvation is not by works, but by grace. Our salvation is not based on our ability to be faithful, but on God’s eternal and unchanging and unfailing faithfulness. What is the context of 1 John 2:4-6? Maybe you’ve misunderstood because, again, you’ve taken these verses out of their context. Look at the previous verse: We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. John isn’t saying that we are saved by keeping His commands. He says that we can tell who knows Christ by who actually obeys Christ. Those who disobey, or hate their brother or sister, do not really know Him. Taken out of context, this sounds like John taught that obedience is the basis for salvation. Taken in context, John is teaching that we can identify those who are His by whether they obey or not. Don’t take Scripture out of context!

You ask “Why Should we keep the Law if we are not saved by the Law?” That’s a good question, but a better question is whether the Law ever applied to anyone outside of ethnic and national Israel. The answer is that it did not, so the whole conversation is a bit silly. The Law that you say we should obey was not given to us, never applied to us, and is shown again and again in the New Testament to not be an issue for gentile Christians. Why should we keep a law that never applied to us? Simple: we should not. We should keep the law that was given to us. That is the gospel, not the Torah.

I know this is long, but I wanted to show you the respect due to someone willing to take the time to write so well. 2000 years is a long time…long enough for lots of unbiblical ideas to spring up, take hold, be developed, and lead many astray. With respect, you have been led astray. What you have written is not what the Scriptures say. My goal is not to discourage you, of course. My goal is to help you redirect your passion for God away from obeying someone else’s laws to abiding in Christ, walking in the Spirit, and having full communion with God. As Paul wrote: we are not under the Law. Study the Scriptures, my friend. Don’t take my word for it, and don’t be afraid to question what you have already been taught. Ask God to help you understand each passage in context, as the author (both God and His writer) intended.

Diuz:

Yes, you are correct. I AM saying that God deals with different groups of people differently. That much is obvious from the Bible. For example: the children of Israel were His “chosen people” and no other people were included. He dealt with them differently, right?

Yes, you are correct. I believe the Bible 100%, and God’s Word does not change. However, it’s not I who claims that the 10 Commandments were only for Israelites…God Himself said it. All you have to do is read Exodus 20 to see this for yourself. It’s right there, over and over. God didn’t bring the Chaldeans or the Chinese or the Phoenicians or the Ethiopians out of Egypt, so they weren’t included in the covenant. Later, when people started following Jesus, His disciples made it clear that converts to Christianity did not also have to convert to Judaism, and did not have to follow the Law. God’s Word does not change, but while all of it was written FOR us, most of it wasn’t written TO us. We’re witnesses to what happened in history, but we were never involved in God’s covenant with Israel. Instead, we are “children of the promise” and heirs of Abraham, who came before the Law.

Again, you seem to misunderstand what “sabbath” means. It means “to stop.” There was no ‘the Sabbath’ in Genesis. There was only ‘sabbathing’ if you will…stopping. There was no command. There were no rules. There was no Law. God blessed the seventh day, but there was no instruction that others should do the same. When the Law was given, it referred to God’s “stopping” as the foundation for the sabbatical regulations…but the Law was only given to the Israelites.

Again, I will point you to Acts 15. As you’ve mentioned, failing to obey the Law in one matter means you have broken the entire Law. Because this was so, there’s NO WAY the Apostles would have written what they did. They did not tell the Gentile Christians to obey the Law, as anyone who reads it as it is written can see.

With respect, my friend: you are trying to prop up an unbiblical idea. As stated again and again in Scripture, we are not under the Law. It was a temporary guardian, until Christ came. Now that He has come, we no longer need a guardian. Until you find some way to re-explain that passage, you won’t gain any ground here. I’m open-minded and waiting, but nobody has succeeded in providing a rational explanation yet. Maybe you’ll be the first!