The Doctrine of Shabbat

Musicmaster

Musicmaster

Before we start, I'd like it to be understood that I'm not saying that nobody should be keeping the Sabbath as they choose to observe it.?

What I'm going to present here is to address a belief, taught by those who say we should all be living under all or part of the Law of Moses and all the Ten Commandments, especially in that observing Shabbat is required of all followers of Jesus, and that not doing so is sinful and lawless.

That's a false teaching that turns New Covenant Sabbath-keeping from a beautiful, God-honoring practice into a legalistic gateway into the bondage of keeping the entire Law of Moses, which is not required of Christians, and never was.

Keeping Shabbat under the New Covenant is permitted, but it's not required.

What I'm going to do is stick to the pragmatic side of the question: Are Christians required to keep Shabbat?

So what do some who follow Torah-ism teach about Sabbath-keeping?

Torah-ism isn't a monolithic belief system where everybody agrees with each other. In general, here's their position.

There are four common arguments used by those who are under the Law in support of Sabbath-keeping today. Together, these four arguments serve as pillars of what, on the surface, seems like a pretty compelling case.

First, they point to the idea that the Sabbath was established as part of creation.

Genesis 2 says, “And on the seventh day, God finished his work that he had done and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.”

So the seventh day was blessed and made holy by God during creation, which, obviously, was before the Law of Moses was given. Torah-ism views Shabbat as a creation ordinance; something God established from the beginning, just like marriage is a creation ordinance.

Second, Torah-ism points to the fact that a seventh-day Sabbath observance is one of the Ten Commandments, and therefore, it's eternal and it applies to Christians today, even under the New Covenant. Their position is that the Sabbath should be kept forever, just like the other nine commands against idolatry, and murder, and adultery, and so on, are still in effect today.

We can't cherry pick the Ten Commandments and decide we only want to keep nine of them. And the third argument for Sabbath keeping is that nowhere in the New Testament is Shabbat abolished or changed. It wasn't swapped from Saturday to Sunday. The New Testament nowhere teaches that Shabbat is now invalid or that it's ended. Just wanted to make that clear.

The fourth argument: Jesus and His disciples and followers observed Shabbat. And that continued even after His resurrection, and after the New Covenant began.

Even though we see the church gathering and worshiping on the first day of the week in the New Testament, that Sunday worship never replaced Shabbat. It was in addition to it. And Sabbath-keeping continued to be observed well into the early church.

So, that's the basic Torah-ism case for Sabbath keeping today. They've got some strong points. It's the same view held by Seventh-Day Adventists and Seventh-Day Baptists. As stated earlier, if their personal convictions have led them to keep Shabbat, then God bless them! I might disagree with their conclusions, but there's nothing wrong with a Christian keeping the Saturday Sabbath.

However, if all our Torah-ism friends did was keep Shabbat and then live peacefully with their brothers and sisters in Christ, this post wouldn't need to exist!
Sadly, many—well, now certainly not all—but many believers in Torah-ism judge and accuse and challenge Christians who don't keep Shabbat, of being disobedient to God, and therefore questionable in their very salvation, which makes following Torah a matter of salvation, which many of them vehemently deny.

More in next post.

MM
 
My Torah-ism friends label non-Sabbath keeping believers as lawless, living in sin, rebellious, and so on....

They preach that keeping the Sabbath isn't merely an option for followers of Jesus, but that it's a command, a mandate.

That's where their teachings wander away from Scripture and things get dangerously hostile in sentiments and discussion.

So, let's take a look at each of the four pillars in the Torah-ism for Sabbath-keeping.

Pillar number one says that the Sabbath was established as part of creation; that God blessed the seventh day and made it holy even before the Law of Moses was given. So Shabbat, just like marriage, is a creation ordinance for all mankind.

There are several problems with this theory. The first and most obvious is that the creation account in Genesis doesn't command, nor establish, a day of worship or a day of rest. In fact, God issues no commands at all regarding the seventh day of creation. Genesis 2 only teaches that God ceased from his work on the seventh day, and He blessed that day.

In fact, the Hebrew word “shabbat” isn't used as a noun to refer to a day until Exodus 16, after God had rescued Israel out of slavery in Egypt. And here in Genesis 2, we find the Hebrew verb “shavat,” which means “cease” or “rest.”

Therefore, on the final day of creation we read this: “And on the seventh day, God finished his work that he had done and he rested…” Shavat:
he ceased. God doesn't need physical rest, the kind of rest that we would take on a Sabbath. This was a rest of completion. Yahweh was done with His creative work, and so He ceased from it. He “shavat on the seventh day on, from all his work that he had done. God blessed the seventh day and made it holy.”

Why?

Because on it, God rested (shavat) from all his work that he had done in creation. The seventh day was declared holy, and the Hebrew word there for Holy is “qadosh,” meaning to 'set apart' or 'differentiate.' The seventh day of creation is entirely unique. God actually did all His creative work in six days, and the seventh day was different. It was the day when the work of creating ceased.

Notice that, in Genesis 1, the descriptions of the first six days all end with “and there was evening and there was morning, the first day,” and “the second day,” and “the third day,” and so on. However, on the seventh day, the text doesn't conclude that way. That phrase isn't used of the seventh day.

Because of this, the seventh day of creation actually appears to be an endless day that was never meant to come to an end. Do you see that? The cessation from creative work ended perpetually, not something to be picked up at some later time thereafter.

More to come...

MM
 
Continuing:

God set apart the seventh day, and He blessed it, and that day doesn't end.

Then, in Genesis 2, the text moves onward into talking about life in the Garden with Adam and Eve. The seventh day of creation is the Edenic garden setting for humanity. It's the context for life with God as it was intended to be, resting in His presence.
In fact, if Adam and Eve had never sinned, they would still be in the Garden today, living and fellowshipping directly with God, but that was not Yah's intent.

Contrary to what our Torah-ism follower friends might suggest, the seventh day of creation doesn't include a command for a weekly rest for humanity. It doesn't even establish a repeated, ongoing pattern of working for six days and resting on the seventh. God didn't go back to
work on the eighth day of creation. On that I'm sure we can all agree.

There's no eighth day of Creation.

Some people refer to Yahshua's Resurrection as the Eighth Day of Creation since His resurrection, and the New Covenant, and the coming down of Holy Spirit at Pentecost, it all happened on the first day of the week. However, that's beside the point. The point is, the seventh day of creation is not the weekly Shabbat. These are two different things.

In fact, if all we were given by Yah was the book of Genesis, there would be no such thing as a weekly Shabbat.

Now, the second problem with the idea that Shabbat began at creation is that there is no biblical evidence that the Sabbath was ever kept by anyone prior to Yah giving it to Israel in the wilderness. There's no mention of it before that.

Now, when the Shabbat is finally given, thousands of years later, after God rescued Israel out of slavery in Egypt, it's linked to the seventh day of creation. It was at that point, as Israel wandered in the wilderness and God began providing them with manna, that God gave the weekly Shabbat to Israel, with creation week was the model on which the rhythm of Shabbat was based, not the other way around. The weekly Sabbath wasn't the basis for creation week.

Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” And the Torah says, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your
son, or your daughter, or your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner whose within your gates.”

That's the commandment, and then Yahweh explains why the pattern of resting every seventh day became His choice. “For…” (So, the reason for this pattern of resting every seventh day is because "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day, therefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

In the same way that God blessed the seventh day of creation and made it holy, or “set apart” from all the other creation days, He also blessed the weekly Shabbat and made it holy or “set apart” from all the other days of the week. So, again, the weekly Shabbat is linked to Creation, with its rhythm being based on how God created. Shabbat would serve as a continual reminder to the Israelites that God supplies us with our every need.

Adam and Eve did nothing to deserve their beautiful surroundings and the plentiful resources in Eden. Those were gifts from God given out of His love. And in the same way, God gave Israel the weekly Shabbat as a continual reminder that He is the source of all their blessings. They don't need to earn them through endless labor. They can rest and trust that God will provide.

Something else interesting is added into the mix when the law is given to Israel a second time in Deuteronomy. The Sabbath command is repeated. “Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy, as your Lord commanded you. Six days you should labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath to the Lord your God.”

Then, there's the fact that the Sabbath is a communal event (not just personal practice), which is also repeated here. “On it you shall do no work, you or your son, or your daughter, or your male servant, or your female servant, or your ox, or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who's within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest, as well as you.”

In Deuteronomy, rather than repeating the fact that the seven day pattern is modeled after creation, God instead commands Israel to do something specific on Shabbat.

“You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.” So, “Therefore,” right, because the Israelites were to remember God rescuing them out of slavery in Egypt. That's why “the Lord commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. God gave them the Sabbath because we humans forget all too easily what He has done for us.

Therefore, the Israelites were commanded to repeatedly and continually remember that they were slaves in Egypt, and that Yahweh rescued them. He is the source of their salvation and their blessings, and they can rest and trust that He'll provide for them, and in that sense, the weekly Shabbat also looked forward to the time when Yah would restore creation to his original Edenic vision. It was a weekly foretaste of how man will dwell with Yah in the Last Days, just like He did in the beginning, in the Garden.

So, the weekly Shabbat is linked to the seventh day of creation in that way. Again, the rest that God took on the last day of Creation Week is not the same thing as the command He gave to Israel thousands of years later at Mount Sinai.

That leads us to the second argument that our Torah-ism friends make about the Sabbath...

MM
 
Continued:

Torah-ism points to the fact that keeping Shabbat is one of the Ten Commandments, which of course, it is.
The verses we just read about the Sabbath are from the giving of what we call the Ten Commandments, or in Hebrew the “aseret ha davarim”—the “ten words.” Therefore, our Torah-ism friends claim that the Sabbath is eternally applicable. They see Sabbath-keeping as a universal moral law, just like the other nine commandments.

:confused:

By way of response to the second pillar, let's look over four ideas:
First, we can't deny that the Sabbath is a bit of an anomaly in the Ten Commandments. Even ancient Jewish thinkers noticed this.

Let's think about this.

The other nine are specifically about issues that, in and of themselves, are moral in nature; worshiping idols, murder, adultery, dishonoring parents, and coveting a neighbors possessions. These are all objectively wrong for all people at all times. Scripture shows God judging mankind for all those things, but the Sabbath doesn't fit that pattern.

For one thing, prior to the Law of Moses, keeping Shabbat wasn't required or commanded of anyone. So it hasn't applied at all times like the other nine. Once the Sabbath commands were given, the only people who were judged by God for not keeping them were the Israelites.

Nowhere in Scripture does God expect or command anyone outside of Israel to keep Shabbat, nor does He ever judge non-Israelites for working on the seventh day. Therefore, the Sabbath command doesn't apply to all people like the other nine.

In fact, it doesn't even apply to all Israelites like the other nine do. The average Israelite kept the Sabbath by resting and not working, but
that wasn't the case with the priests and the Levites who had temple and ministry duties to perform on Shabbat. Therefore, working on the Sabbath was not, in and of itself, sinful.

In fact, it was on a Sabbath day that Jesus said, “My father is working until now, and I am working,” so the moral component in the Shabbat command isn't found in the weekly rest itself, but rather in obedience to the command. So yes, it was immoral for the Israelites not to keep Shabbat because that would have been disobeying God. It's always wrong for anyone to disobey any command of God that applies to them.

Unlike the other nine, the weekly Sabbath command has not applied to all people at all times.
Secondly, the fact that Shabbat was given as one of the Ten Commandments is important, but let's observe the context for the giving of those Ten Commandments.

They were given as part of the Mosaic Covenant. In fact, they're the terms of that of that Covenant. They were conditions that God put on His agreement with the nation of Israel. He told them, “See I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you today.” Referring, of course, to the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses.

“And the curse if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way that I'm commanding you today to go after other gods that you have not known.”

So, the Ten Commandments were the foundational commands that God gave to Israel. Of the 600-plus commands given at Mount Sinai over the course of a year, these ten are the only ones that the people of Israel actually heard audibly from God for themselves. The others they heard indirectly from Moses as he wrote them and they were read to the people.

These ten are the only commands that were written on tablets of stone by God's very finger. Those tablets were later placed in the Ark of the Covenant. The rest of the commands in the Torah were given to support, explain and expound on these ten; to guide Israel in the living out of the Ten Commandments, which, again, were the terms of the Covenant.

Keep that in mind as we continue. We're going to come to that fact later, but there's another important distinction between the Sabbath and the other nine commandments, and we will continue:

MM
 
Please keep in mind that of all the ten commands, only the Sabbath was designated as a sign.

In fact, the word “shabbat” is often used in Scripture as a figure of speech that refers to the entire Covenant.

It's a metonymy.

Similarly, when we refer to the government of England as “the Crown,” so in the same way that the term “the Crown” refers to the entirety of the English government, the term “Shabbat” is often used in Scripture to represent the entirety of Israel's relationship with YHWH.

The Sabbath is called both a sign and a covenant. We see this, for example, in Exodus 31, “Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing it throughout their generations as a covenant forever.” And there it's called a covenant. “It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made Heaven and Earth, and on the seventh day, he rested and was refreshed.

The Sabbath, therefore, is called both “a covenant” and “a sign."

The meaning is the same. Shabbat served as a weekly reminder to Israel of their covenant with God, along with the obligation that covenant entailed. This is reflected in many other verses, too, such as Isaiah 56:6, which refers to “everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast to my covenant.”

Therefore, the Sabbath signifies the entire Covenant and is its key sign.

Now, having said that, the Sabbath wasn't the only command to be kept.

YHWH didn't promise blessings just for keeping the Sabbath. The blessings were attached to the entire Covenant. Sabbath was singled out as a sign of the Covenant, so when we see the prophets issuing warnings about breaking the Sabbath, in context, it was used as shorthand for the entire covenant. These were warnings about breaking the covenant. And Israel certainly wouldn't have been blessed by perfectly keeping the weekly Shabbat, while ignoring all the other commands.

This might be why, in the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath is explained in much more detail than the other nine, and why it was placed somewhat in the middle of the list.

You know, as a sign, it was sort of the glue that binds all the commands together. Shabbat was a weekly reminder to Israel that she was called to keep the entirety of God's commands; to observe the whole covenant.

Let's go on an excursion over to a sidebar to mention something that will often come up in these discussions. We just read Exodus 31 verses 16 and 17, where God says, “Therefore, the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations as a covenant forever.” The Hebrew word there translated into English as “forever” is “olam.” The Hebrew word “olam” doesn't carry the sense of “never-ending” or “until the end of time” that we find in the English word “forever.” It can mean that, but not always.

Sometimes “olam” is used to mean “ancient,” or “long ago,” or “an unknowable length of time.” For example, Exodus 21 talks about a servant who loves the family they serve and they don't want to be set free. In which case, “his master shall bore his ear through with an awl”—so, give him an earring—"and he shall be his slave forever (olam).”

So, in this verse, the word “olam” doesn't literally mean “forever and ever,” but rather for “the rest of the servant's life,” however long that ends up being. We see the same thing with the Levitical priesthood in Exodus 40:15, which says that the sons of the first high priest Aaron should be anointed with oil, “as you anointed their father that they may serve me as priests. And their anointing shall admit them to a perpetual (olam) priesthood throughout their generations.”

Was the Levitical priesthood intended to exist literally forever?

Obviously not.

When the temple in Jerusalem is destroyed in 70 CE, which is an event that God ordained and Jesus prophesied, it brought the Levitical priesthood to an end.

MM
 
Wow. It's nice to have some typing time...

Let's see now, where did I leave off....

Oh, yeah, so the word “olam” in this context couldn't have literally meant “forever and ever.” It's more about an ongoing obligation of an unknowable length of time. On its own, “olam” doesn't necessarily indicate whether or not the situation might change at some point in the future. That's indeed the case with ancient Israelite servants, with Levitical priesthood, and with the Mosaic regulations regarding Shabbat.

There's one last area we need to explore on this second pillar before moving on, and that's this: While all of Yah's commands in the Law of Moses have a moral component to them, many were also tied to a specific time or people.

For example, the Law of Moses includes the following command: “When you build a new house you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house if anyone should fall from it.”

So the architecture of houses in the ancient Near East included a flat roof where people would gather together for various events. This command requires a barrier to ensure that no one falls off the roof of one's house and gets injured or killed. The moral principle behind this command is that we're responsible, within reason, for the safety and well-being of our guests, and that life is sacred. The command itself is bound to a time in history and a part of the world where people often had guests on the roof of their home. So if you don't live at a time or in a culture where your guests gather on your roof, this command, as it was given, wouldn't apply to one. Of course, the moral principles behind it are still very much valid for today. Likewise, many other commands in the Law are tied to ancient Israel as a nation.

This even includes some of the ten. For example, “Honor your father and your mother” Why? “...that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your Yah is giving you.” So the promise attached to this command, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord is giving you, is specific to ancient Israel. Yah isn't giving followers of Jesus a set-apart land today. The moral principles behind this command are still in effect, and, of course, the idea of being respectful and honoring your parents. However, this command, as it was given, doesn't apply to Christians today.

The same thing applies with the command against coveting your neighbor's ox and his donkey and livestock. These days, we're more likely to covet our neighbors SUV or big screen TV, or some other modern luxury, but the moral principles behind this command still apply. The same thing is true of the Sabbath command.

Exodus 31:17 tells us that Shabbat is “a sign forever between me and the people of Israel.” Is this between Yah and all of humanity? No. It's between Yah and Israel. Again, Yah never judges Gentiles or Gentile nations around Israel for not keeping the Sabbath. Why? It was only given to Israel. Which is why Yah commanded that on the Sabbath, “you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and the Lord your Yah brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm.”

So was the whole world slaves in Egypt? Nope. This remembrance only applies to the people of Israel.

So how can this command be applied universally, binding to all if we aren't Jewish and our people will were never enslaved in Egypt?
Since some commands within the Ten were culture, or people, specific, it tells us that at least some of the Mosaic commands were given to deal with particular applications of Yah's universal principles.

It's important to understand that when Yah commands us not to murder, it's not because of the Ten Commandments. It's because of his universal principle against murder, which is seated in Yahweh's unchanging, moral perfection. It's been true since the beginning of time, long before the nation of Israel and the Law of Moses, Cain was judged for murdering his brother Abel. The same thing applies with sexual immorality.

I realize I'm yammering here, but under the New Covenant, Yah doesn't forbid adultery because of the Ten Commandments. Unfaithfulness and sexual immorality were wrong long before the Law of Moses, as we see in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. I've shared this quote before, but it's worth repeating. An organization of Jewish believers in Jesus wrote this: “The gift of the Torah to the Jewish people at Sinai was not revelatory in the sense of the moral aspect of it. Noah was an “ish tzadik,” or a 'righteous man,' and Abraham obeyed Yah's statutes and commands, even long before the law at Sinai was even given.

Torah is therefore not a revelation of morality, nor is the moral aspect of Torah unique in any way.

A basic understanding of moral law is already embedded, by Yah, in the understanding of mankind. Yah didn't appear to Israel at Sinai to present a moral code. Yah gave the law at Sinai, creating a unique, set-apart nation. There are things given in Torah that are unique to Israel.” The point is this: The Sabbath was given as part of the Ten Commandments, and the Ten Commandments were given as the terms of the Mosaic Covenant. In other words, Shabbat commands were given under, and bound to, and a sign of, the Mosaic Covenant.

However, Jesus has ushered in a New Covenant that displaces the Mosaic Covenant as binding upon us today. It's with intentionality that I'm avoiding the term “supersede,” mainly because I'm so strongly opposed to what is today known as Replacement Theology that was perpetuated by people like Augustine and Luther.

Replacement Theology is worthy of our rejection. It is the idea that the Church has replaced Israel. However, I do believe that in Yah's plan. The New Covenant is superior to the Mosaic Covenant, as the book of Hebrews clearly teaches. The Law of Moses is perfect, and therein is why it is inferior in the sense of our ability to adhere to it perfectly. We simply cannot live it.

“But as it is, Christ has obtained a Ministry that is as much more excellent than the old…” So the ministry of Jesus is much more excellent than the ministry of Moses and the and the Levitical priesthood. Yahshua's Ministry is as much more excellent than the old “…as the Covenant he mediates is better.” So the New Covenant is better than the Mosaic Covenant. “...since it is enacted on better promises. So if that first (Mosaic) covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second” (a New Covenant). The New Covenant is not only better, it displaces (not do away with) the Mosaic Covenant for the Jewish people, and it's a covenant that we Gentile believers have been grafted into, as well.

Hebrews 8 goes on to say, “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”

Less than a decade after these words were written, the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed and the old covenant came to a final end as something to which we are tied today. Yah's promises to Israel remain, and Israel's priority in Yah's kingdom remains.

However, the death and resurrection of the Messiah has ushered in a new age and a new covenant.

What does that mean for the Ten Commandments? Are they now abolished and unimportant?

No, of course not.

They haven't been thrown away. They still stand as the indictment against ALL those who reject Christ Jesus.
The Ten Commandments were given as the terms of the Mosaic Covenant, and were the foundation of the Law. We can't simply extract them from the old, obsolete covenant as is. In fact, it's no longer even possible to observe many of the Mosaic commands as originally written.

MM
 
Whew! This is a very involved topic, with so many particulars that are so easily missed and/or overlooked...sometimes intentionally, but mostly unintentionally.

So, continuing inward, the set of commands that make up the Law of Moses have been reiterated under the New Covenant.

Again, the moral principles behind each Mosaic command still apply under the New Covenant. In fact, in many cases, they're applied in an even more rigorous way.

For example, it's not enough to refrain from adultery. As you will recall, under the New Covenant, Jesus expects us to avoid lustful thoughts. It's not it's not enough to simply love our neighbor. Under the New Covenant, we're also taught to love our enemies, and pray for those who spitefully use us. Likewise, the moral principles included in the Sabbath commands are still in effect.
Ya know, the necessity of rest, and setting time aside for God (personally and communally), and of remembering what He's done done for us in our lives, and of remembering that He is the source of our Salvation. Yah is our ultimate provider and sustainer. We are to tend to the needs of those around us, including those who work for us, and foreigners, and even animals. However, we're no longer required to do these things in the context of a mandated seventh-day rest.

MM
 
Let's move on to Torah-ism’s third pillar on this issue.

We're going to look at some things that Scripture does and does NOT say about the Sabbath that might surprise you.

Our Torah-ism friends usually argue that Sabbath-keeping is still required because nowhere in the New Testament is the Sabbath canceled or changed from Saturday to Sunday. As their argument goes, they therefore reason that the Sabbath command must still be in effect. We must agree with our Torah-ism friends, in that the New Testament doesn't teach that the Sabbath has ended or was changed from Saturday to Sunday.

Does it logically follow, then, that the Sabbath is still required of Christians today?

No!

Here are two reasons why:

First, an assumption of continuity between the Law of Moses and the New Covenant, where one assumes that, if a command isn't explicitly changed or overturned, it must still be in effect...that's a Biblical approach that's erroneous at its core, and is therefore often flawed at its core.

It's not a given.

We see both in the Shabbat commands. Do you see that?

Our Torah-ism friends conclude that since there are no passages in the New Testament that declare the Sabbath has ended, we should allegedly assume that we're still required to rest from work, and remain in our homes on the Sabbath; not build a fire, not cause anyone else to work, and remember we were slaves in the land of Egypt until YHWH rescued us.

Do you think we're still required to gather a double portion of manna on the sixth day in preparation for Shabbat?

We can't assume continuity for that command, but our Torah-ism friends assume that we must still follow all those things 'in principle.'

:confused:

Folks, that was a command given to a specific group of people out in the wilderness, for the specific period of time during which Yah was providing manna. Can we assume that, on Shabbat, we're still required to put out fresh bread before the Lord in the tabernacle? We obviously can’t assume continuity for that command. Right? The tabernacle , which later became the temple, no longer exists. Nor does the priesthood to whom this command was given.

So that too was a time and people specific Sabbath command that doesn't carry over into today, even in the remotest and wildest imagination. Can we assume that on Shabbat we're still supposed to make a burnt offering to the Lord of two male lambs (a year old without blemish) and two-tenths of an ephah of fine flower for a grain offering, mixed with oil, and a drink offering?

We obviously have the same problem with this command, even though our Torah-ism friends will state that those things we'refulfilled in Christ.

Even though this command was never annulled in Scripture, we can't assume perpetuity for it. This is yet another example of a Torah command that was bound to a people (the Levitical priests of Israel) and a time (when the Tabernacle or the temple was standing).

It might seem like I'm trying to be silly by painting the Torah-ism folk's position as absurd, because all of these Sabbath commands just listed are obviously no longer in effect. These are actual Shabbat commands given by Yah in the Torah, and if we want to assume continuity for all the Torah commands that aren't explicitly repealed in the New Testament, then we've got to deal with these Shabbat commands, as well. Otherwise we're cherry picking.

Sabbath is a very serious issue. Yahweh took it very seriously, which brings up another Shabbat command that was never overturned in Scripture.

Are we to assume perpetuity for the Torah commands that require the death penalty for anyone who works on a Sabbath day? Even those Torah-keeping Christians who affirm that those of us today who don't keep Shabbat have at least merited the death penalty, which is the position some do take. They'll readily admit that the death penalty can't be administered today. Their explanation is that the Shabbat death penalty only applied in theocratic Israel. So, even they will agree that some of Yah's commands are specific to times and cultures.

Here's the thing: In our desire to understand and honor the true Jewish roots of the Christian faith, which is a noble endeavor, we can't lose sight of the fact that Jesus is superior to Moses, and that the New Covenant is superior to the Mosaic Covenant. Period. The New Testament makes this very clear, as we just read in Hebrews 8.

So the followers of Jesus today have to view the Mosaic Covenant and the Law of Moses in light of, and through the lens of, the New Covenant that Yah put into effect at the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Remaining consistent is one of the framework problems our Torah-ism friends seem to have on many counts.

MM
 
That brings us to the second point of importance:
While it is true when our Torah-ism friends say that the Sabbath is never overturned or prohibited in the New Testament, the Church is also never commanded to keep the Sabbath anywhere in the New Testament. Not by Jesus, the apostles, nor any New Testament author.
Of course, arguing from a silence, or a negative can be a tricky thing if one is not careful to write their use of those sources (or rather, non-sources). The absence of Sabbath commands in the New Testament is actually a pretty significant detail.

Why?

It's one of the Ten Commandments, right? The other nine are actually taught in the New Testament. Some are even repeated word-for-word, except for the Sabbath. In Torah, not keeping the Sabbath was a death penalty offense. Why, then, isn't it repeated in the New Testament?

We know, by way of common sense and a knowledge of what is, and what is not said, and we can also surmise that it wasn't accidentally overlooked. We can't suggest that the New Testament authors (and Jesus) didn't specifically mention Shabbat because their readers and listeners already knew all about it.

Their readers already knew all about the commands against murder, adultery, greed and idolatry, right? However, those things were all taught and repeated in the New Testament. Why not the Sabbath commands? When the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 debated whether Gentile believers should be required to keep the Law of Moses, they decided that such was not the case. Then they gave the Gentile believers “no greater burden” than four requirements, none of which were Sabbath-keeping. They weren't required to keep the Sabbath.

Now, we know that the New Testament says exactly what Yah wants it to say about the Sabbath, so it's silence on this issue is at the very least noteworthy and significant.

Add to that silence the fact that there are numerous New Testament passages teaching that various elements from the Law of Moses are no longer in effect, from the sacrifices for sin, the Levitical priesthood, the kosher food laws, all the way to the Mosaic Covenant itself. These are
all taught as no longer in effect. There are even passages in the New Testament suggesting that the Torah's times and seasons, which would include the Sabbath, weren't binding under the New Covenant, either.

The Apostle Paul, addressing these issues with the church in Rome, wrote, “One person esteems one day as better than another while another esteems all days alike." So the law required Jews to observe special days, such as the Sabbath, and the festivals, and the new moons. “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord.” So the person who treats a special day as holy does so “unto the Lord.”

The person who treats every day as sacred does so “unto the Lord.” And this idea is echoed in Colossians 2, when the Sabbath is explicitly mentioned. “Therefore, let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival, or a new moon, or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.”

Notice that Paul mentions three things here that absolutely correspond to the various times or cycles of the Jewish calendar: the festivals (which were annual), the new moons (which were monthly), and then the Sabbath (which was weekly). So this passage suggests that under the New Covenant, Sabbath-keeping has become optional rather than required. Let no one pass judgment on you regarding these things.

Even if you disagree with some of the passages just mentioned, or you want to debate their interpretation, the preponderance of evidence is incredibly remarkable. At a minimum, the New Testament portrays the Sabbath in a dramatically different light than does the Torah.

Something has changed. It's in the Tanakh, remembering the Sabbath and keeping it holy was a command written by the finger of Yah and a constant refrain, but it's nowhere found in the New Testament. Believe it or not, the New Testament includes zero commands to keep the Sabbath, so based on all of this, scripture leaves us with the understanding that Shabbat was not, and is not mandated for followers of Jesus. It's certainly permitted, but it's not required in any sense.

Again, the question isn't whether the moral principles behind the Shabbat commands are still valid. They most certainly are! The question is whether the Shabbat commands, as given to Israel at Mount Sinai, as exercised as a sign of commitment to the entirety of the Mosaic Covenant, whether those commands are still in effect.

MM
 
Alright, now lets observe one other thing here:

While we may celebrate the first day of the week, Sunday, as the Lord's Day, since that's the day that Jesus resurrected from the dead, and the day that the church began in Jerusalem, and when Yah sent Holy Spirit on Pentecost, but the Lord's Day is not a replacement for Shabbat. It's also not a “Christian Sabbath.” The fact that Jesus rose on the first day is certainly the reason that Christians began gathering for worship on Sunday, but the New Testament nowhere talks about (or even hints at) a change to the Sabbath day.

Gathering on a Sunday began very early in the First Century Church. There's evidence of it in the New Testament, as well as within early church writings such as the Didache. This was in addition to Saturday Shabbat, not a replacement of it. Sunday gathering are not commanded in the New Testament. We're free to set aside any day, or every day, for the Lord.

This lands us on the fourth and final pillar of the Torah-ism follower's case.

The argument is that, since Jesus kept Sabbath, and his Apostles and disciples kept the Sabbath, even after his resurrection and the New Covenant had begun, all Christians should therefore keep the Sabbath. This is really the weakest of the four pillars.

What common thread, if any, can we see in Jesus, his Apostles and his disciples who kept the Sabbath?

They were all Jewish. As we just read from the Torah itself, the Sabbath was given as a sign between...who?

Between YHWH and Israel. Not between Yah and all of mankind. It was a covenant given specifically to set Israel apart from the other nations. Galatians 4 tells us that Jesus was born under the law. He was Jewish and subject to the Law of Moses, which required the keeping of Shabbat. In other words, Shabbat is a uniquely Jewish institution. So if you are not Jewish, you've never been expected or required to keep a seventh-day Sabbath.

Here's the important point: Jesus himself kept Shabbat because he was a Jewish man who lived his life under the Mosaic Covenant. So if you're not a Jewish person under the Mosaic Covenant today, then you don't need to keep Shabbat. On the other hand, under the New Covenant, the Sabbath was never forbidden, and it never came to an end, so, of course, His disciples and apostles kept the Sabbath. Why wouldn't they?

Because they voluntarily chose to keep the Sabbath, does that somehow mean that we're mandated to do so today? Of course not! Keeping the Saturday Sabbath is certainly permitted, but it's not required of any follower of Jesus today.

As a recap, although the Shabbat command is linked to the creation account in Genesis, the commandment itself to observe a weekly Sabbath wasn't actually given until the Law of Moses. While the Sabbath was given as one of the Ten Commandments, it was specifically tied to the Mosaic Covenant and the people of Israel. Even our Torah-ism friends admit that not all Sabbath commands in the Torah are valid for Christians today.

While the moral principles behind the Sabbath are still in effect, they're no longer lived out in the context of a of a mandated weekly rest. In fact, the New Testament nowhere commands anyone to keep Shabbat.

As we saw, passages like Romans 14 and Colossians 2 indicate that Shabbat is optional for followers of Jesus, not required. The Apostle Paul writes “don't let anyone judge you about those things.”
This is why we see Yashua's disciples and apostles keeping the Sabbath, even after the New Covenant began. It's permitted, but it's not required.
The weekly Shabbat was given at Mount Sinai to the nation of Israel, and it's a number of things. It's a reminder of Yah rescuing Israel out of slavery in Egypt. It's a sign of the entire Mosaic Covenant. It was a gift given to Israel that pointed them to the ultimate rest that Yah's people will have with Him when He redeems all creation in the last days.

In that sense, as a gift and a remembrance, celebrating the Sabbath today is a beautiful thing for Christians to do, but it's not mandatory or required in any sense.

MM
 
C-King said:
I think the NT creates a gray area when referring to the Law as some consider the extended laws of the jews to be included. I find the Law to be referenced many times throughout the Scriptures in a very positive light, giving an indication that the 10 Commandments are a separate concept than the extended Laws of Ordinances and ritual washings, etc.

The Psalms refer to the Law and the Commandments very positively, especially throughout Psalm 119. It was very interesting for me to discover that the term precepts, used in many of the modern versions of the Bible, is actually the term Commandments in many of the earliest Bibles. This alters the message of chapter 119 a lot.

I believe there are many Laws that were done away with at the Cross via Jesus' sacrifice, but they were all extraneous to the 10 Commandments. They were mostly pertaining to sacrificial ordinances, as the Bible tells us, and other 'traditional' rules that were instituted by the jews over the centuries, not the actual 10 Commandments.

Having said all that, I do not believe that keeping the 10 Commandments is a means to achieve Salvation.
Click to expand...
If keeping the Law has no salvific efficacy, what's the point of all the contention about it. Isn't it more in the category if what color church carpets should be?
 
Collasians 2:14, 20
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; ...
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

Hebrews 9:1, 10
1 Then verily the first [covenant] had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. ...
10 [Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.

The Ten Commandments were given ONLY to the Jews, as was the rest of the Mosaic Law.

Why?

Exodus 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine:

Were the people of the other nations forbidden to eat shell fish, pork and other foods denied the Israelites?

No. As a matter of fact, the forbidden meats were commanded to be given to the strangers in the land for them to eat, and nowhere does the Lord say that it was unclean to them. The forbidden meats were forbidden ONLY to the Israelites.

Then there are some who presuppose that denying adherence to the Ten Commandments and all the other ordinances and commandments given only to that one nation, that one people, that we are then laying claim to just living any way we want. That is the fodder of folly. The Lord promised that the day would come when he writes His Law upon our hearts rather than for us to rely upon ordinances written upon tablets of stone and parchments.

Six different times in Matthew 5, Jesus said, "...but I say to you..." He was quoting the Mosaic Law, and six times He declared "...but I say to you..." thus elevating the Law of God VASTLY above the Mosaic Law. They are not one and the same.

MM
 
I’m not even sure how all this works in today’s society. Peoples work days are all over the place including Saturday and Sunday work. Think of the wkd coffee shops, eateries supermarkets, production lines and businesses that open on those days. Some even work so many days straight than time off anywhere from a fortnight to a month. The tourist and airline businesses are very much 24/7. I have heard some say best find another job. Not sure f that is easy choice or a correct one. How are we to view the Shabbat with the complexities of our present world ?
 
Prim90 said:
I’m not even sure how all this works in today’s society. Peoples work days are all over the place including Saturday and Sunday work. Think of the wkd coffee shops, eateries supermarkets, production lines and businesses that open on those days. Some even work so many days straight than time off anywhere from a fortnight to a month. The tourist and airline businesses are very much 24/7. I have heard some say best find another job. Not sure f that is easy choice or a correct one. How are we to view the Shabbat with the complexities of our present world ?
Click to expand...
Good points, Prim. When people point at the Ten Commandments, and claim we are required by God to keep them, they inevitably run aground of the fact that those commandments were the beginning of what God had commanded of the Israelites, and that they vowed, in that covenant, to keep them. They failed to do so, which the Lord knew they would fail. They broke that covenant.

Your points go right to the fifth commandment, which is about the sabbath in Exodus 20. We today are not required to "keep the sabbath." I have asked Torah-followers many times how one "keeps the sabbath." The primary thing at which they inevitably point in the Mosaic Law, where it talks about doing no work and keeping it holy within the fifth commandment itself. Keeping it holy is any of their guesses I've heard, since that has different meanings to different people. I've even heard people claim that going to institutional church services is how one keeps that day holy...

Uh. Yeah. Right....

The antagonists inevitably gravitate toward the fallacious claim that we therefore believe all the morals repeated in the Ten Commandments and in the Mosaic Law are rendered null and void, simply because we believe what Jesus said when He stated that He came to FULFILL the Law. I have never encountered anyone who claimed they could commit adultery on account of the Mosaic Law and the Ten Commandments having been fulfilled. Here is what the Lord said about Israel, which SHOULD have an impact upon our understanding today, but remains ignored:

Jeremiah 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Read that in context. I encourage that.

So, given that not even Israel is no longer required to keep the Mosaic Law and the Ten Commandments, why people today think that we must keep at least the Ten Commandments is a total denial of the very words of the Lord.

Romans 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another...

See that. Rather than works through our physical efforts of studying the Law, and trying to keep it in the strength of our own hands, we keep the works of the Law because the Law of God (NOT the Mosaic Law or the Ten Commandments) is written in our hearts.

Think about it: That which is written in our hearts by the Lord Himself is SO much more powerful and internalized compared to that which is written upon stone or in parchment and paper.

It's also inevitable that the antagonist who lacks spiritual discernment and wisdom will lay claim to their being Deity by way of their words when they then say, "Well, when you don't keep the Sabbath, you're not even keeping what the Lord wrote in the heart."

Do you see how so many have idolized the Mosaic Law and the Ten Commandments to the extent that they show their belief in the idea that the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic Law define the Law of God, which is completely backwards! Jesus spoke God's Law in Matthew 5:21-48. Jesus demonstrated to them the superiority of what was not written upon stones, parchment and paper. Do you get that, folks?

But, it's inevitable that the legalists will stick to the inscribed stones and inked parchments and paper, betraying their lack of spiritual depth and insights. I hear it all the time in my dealings with Torah-ists and the HR crowd. Rather than drink the ink, and choke on the stone slivers from the carving, we must go to the depths of prayer, and give thanks unto the Lord for what He writes in our hearts.

Amen

MM
 
C-King said:
Just curious if you caught my posts #11&13. I think we said a lot of the same things.

Also, in your opinion, which of these Commandments would you say most sincere Christians aren't already keeping?

1. Worship no other gods. (demons)
2. Do not make/worship idols. (demons)
3. Don't take God's Name in vain.
4. (NA for now)
5. Honor parents.
6. Don't murder.
7. No adultery.
8. Don't steal.
9. Don't lie.
10. Don't covet.
Click to expand...

From a legalistic standpoint, it might be said that MOST sincere Christians would be keeping them all at various points, and breaking others at irregular intervals.

The problem with your question is that you're asking about the letter, when the Lord indicated that His Law would become deeper and more profound than the mere letters. Reliance upon the letters for measure of compliance is an inferior life in the existence of any believer who is in Christ. Far too many professing believers beat themselves up over the letters rather than to seek the Lord for Him to live His life through us, which is the greater measure toward living the Law of God in the direction of perfection, given that the ultimate goal is to attain unto the FULLNESS of the stature of Christ Jesus. Fixating our eyes on the letters rather than the Person of Christ is a severe problem in the lives of so many.

Now, please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that one should not study the letter. The letters are only the sign post that points to the Author. He should be our only focus for relationship. I can't possibly have a relationship with the pages set before me, with words written upon them. You likely know this, but perhaps there are others here who have unknowingly elevated that book so highly in their vision that it has blocked their eyes from seeing the One of whom those words speak.

Is that you, dear ones who are out there reading all this?

It's in relationship through which the Lord lives His perfect life through us. That resonates with any and all who have experienced that relationship. When He so fills you, the love for others is an inevitable outflow from the One Who created us all.

So, dare we measure and gauge our alleged "compliance" to the letters, we step down to a much lower step on the ladder of spiritual growth if we are not living my faith and spirit and truth:

Matthew 22:37-40
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Those who have eyes to see...they will see beyond the mere words, and have spiritual eyes filled with the visions of things far deeper than the mere words. Only the Most High can open those eyes for us all.

MM
 
C-King said:
If everything you're claiming here is accurate with Scripture, then we have a real problem.

The New Testament and all its teachings for Christians are very valid to this present day and 'til the very end.

When we see Scripture that appears to say one thing, but we find other Scripture that clearly contradicts it, we are left with only one option; to reconsider the first conclusion. The Bible doesn't contradict itself and God very carefully constructed it to define itself and to explain itself so there would be no misunderstandings - especially about the most important concepts.

Sin is likely one of the most important concepts in all of Scripture. If everything you stated in your post were accurate, we wouldn't have John clarifying the definition of sin in 1 John 3:4. That verse not only proves that Christians can, and do, still sin, but it tells us very clearly that sin is, by definition, the breaking of the 10 Commandments of God.

How do you reconcile John clarifying to us that breaking God's Commandments is a sin with your position about the nullification of all of the 10 Commandments?
Click to expand...

Thanks, C, for the feedback.

I will have to say, no. That is utterly wrong. You are bringing forth a dichotomy that doesn't exist. This is the machinations of human thought that undermine the realities portrayed even within the text. Proper rules for interpretation do not allow for trying to establish that seeming contradictions leave one with having to adopt only the former. That's the escape of many a liberal theologian, and many of them have even been led down that horrid path to even questioning the Deity of Christ Jesus.

No amount of time and space in these forums will allow for a lengthy dealing with the amazing depths of Hermeneutics. Besides, most here would never take the time nor have the patience to read through it all. Suffice it to say that pitting the word of God against itself is an absolutely dishonest way of dealing with the word of God.

I'm not saying that's your intent, but you have brought up a type of contention that has turned many a prospective believer into a twisted mess of understanding. This is the pathway that many a Torah-follower plods down in order to justify their rejection of Paul as a legitimate apostle. It's a dangerous path indeed. I traveled down it, and was almost sucked into the vacuum of relying ONLY upon Torah. It's a spiritual death trap that ensnares only the soul that is not subject to the Spirit:

1 John 2:26-27
26 These [things] have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Men teach falsehoods, but the Spirit speaks ONLY truth. Torah-only teachers are disseminators of much falsehood that is spiritually deadly.

For the casual reader, I advise that you seek out the Spirit of the Lord about all this, and let Him lead you rather than the filthy, lying mouths of mere men:

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Followers of the letter are always prone to falling headlong into the enemy's traps. The idea that we're here to flounder around on our own, having to try and sift through the roar of the voices of men teaching all manner of things, that is NOT where the Lord left us. In Christ Jesus, we have access to Him directly for ALL our instruction so that the roar of men's voices can be tuned out, and your, dear believer, rest in His loving embrace of relationship, understanding, instruction, rebuke, correction, and being lifted up by His loving hands.

MM
 
C-King said:
I see your perspective and I respect it.

I also see that you didn't even consider the passages that I provided from Deuteronomy that demonstrate that the Commandments were given to all mankind, not just Israel.

No intention to debate further, but I would simply ask this one last question.

If somebody knows full well that Christ is our Only Saving Grace and that we cannot save ourselves in any way whatsoever, yet they make the decision, out of a deep love for God, to obey all 10 Commandments, do you believe that person will be sent to hell by God for obeying His Commandments?
Click to expand...

I didn't realize we were debating. I thought this was a discussion.

Can you please state which post number that Deuteronomy reference is located. I believe that the text will bear out that the Ten Commandments were not directed at all of mankind. I say that because I do not adhere to singular verses at the exclusion of all others in a systematic study of any topic. It was never my intention to put you off. I was simply seeking to discuss the topic, which is an important one.

If someone chooses to follow the Ten Commandments, there is no moral crisis in such. The problem arises when some out there state that it is a moral mandate to adhere to them. As I had stated before, it's always a good thing to study ALL of God's word. That's a great way for one to feed upon a diet of substance the Spirit of the Lord can use in helping the student to grow in their Christ-like stature.

To go another step in this, it's also permissible for one to observe the feasts and Kocher diet if they so choose. The problem is when any one dares teach others that it's God's mandate for such observances for all followers of Christ Jesus. We have all manner of liberty in that, but we are not enslaved to such, as is the custom of some Judaisers out there who dare to try and enslave others to what the Lord fulfilled and freed us from.

One will not gain any more glory nor reward for obedience to the letter. It is the Spirit within, and the Law therein what is written in the heart we are all in Christ Jesus beholden.

You see, this is more than just mere perspective. Either the word of God supports it, or it does not. It's all just that black and white. All the liberal shades of gray that I've seen some try to inject into the minds and hearts of others with the chains of enslavement they carry about with them, that's simply questionable practice at the very least, and easily shown for the falsehoods that support them.

MM

MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top