DID THE CHURCH CHANGE THE SABBATH?

Posted on November 7, 2012 by bfhu

Filed under: Sabbath |

« »

68 Responses

  1. Daniel, on November 9, 2012 at 3:21 pm said:

    What is the true sabbath day anyways. I was brought up to believe that Sunday was the sabbath day. I believe it is the majority of business owners who they claim to be Catholics, Christians, and I don’t care what religion they are, they are the ones who are changing the sabbath day by allowing their businesses to open for business and forcing their employees to work. And perhaps or while perhaps they go and attend their congregation or churches. God understands this situation about his true believers having to work or else which is why I’ve always adviced that leave in God’s hands, pray to him and for as long as you don’t forget him and our savior he will get us through it.

    In other words, he still holds us individually accountable to our sinful ways and for as long as we forgive then we can only prosper through his grace and will make the wealthy sinners pay in the long run. I have always stood to believe that because we are held individually accountable for our actions and continue to follow his laws and praising him everyday does make up the true church of God from within you. My wife worries some when we have to miss some Sunday masses but I explain that Jesus says confess to him from your heart and praise him of his glory everyday and for your belief that he will always be our saviour and obey his laws and teachings that we wil never miss and not even think about not having to go to church.

    Reply
  2. surkiko, on November 9, 2012 at 5:05 pm said:

    I used to be somewhat careless about observing sabbaths and holy days of obligation. I have since repented and went to confession. Nowadays, I repriortize other events around Sunday Mass and Holy Feasts. Even when I’m traveling or vacationing, I always look for a Catholic Church to worship in. There’s almost no excuse when there are several mass times including the vigil one. There will be time when one cannot find a church so I just set aside time to read the bible and pray. Hope this helps someone.

    Reply
  3. Spencer, on November 9, 2012 at 5:50 pm said:

    I’ve always thought that Sunday is the sabbath day, that’s why Christians attend church masses/services to keep the day Holy. So Sunday is the Lord’s Day for worship, thanksgiving and praises & it also fulfills the law of keeping the traditional jewish saturday sabbath holy – since Jesus already fulfilled it. Am I right to say this?

    Reply
  4. marcusmaxis, on November 9, 2012 at 7:58 pm said:

    Im sorry my man but you are following the doctrines of men and not of God. John does not expect you to know that gentiles or any other people are supposed to worship God on Sunday. The Lords day is not Sunday its Satruday! Pure fabrication of men. It is not a doctrine of God or his son by any means. It is simply a doctrine of men.

    Blessed Sunday?????
    ________________________________________________________________________
    1. “Sabbath” is by definition Saturday, the Seventh Day.
    2. Neither Father nor Son is ever documented as having rested on Sunday.
    3. Neither Father nor Son is ever documented as having blessed Sunday.
    4. No law was ever given to enforce the keeping of Sunday as “Sabbath.”
    5. The New Testament nowhere forbids work to be done on Sunday; no penalty is provided for Sunday’s “violation”; no blessing is promised for Sunday’s observance; and no regulation is given as to how Sunday ought to be observed.
    6. Sunday is never in scripture called the Christian “Sabbath”; it is never called a rest day; it is never even called the “Lord’s Day.”
    7. Neither God, Jesus the Messiah, nor inspired men ever said one word in favor of Sunday as a sanctified or holy day. No sacred title is applied to it.
    8. The Roman Catholic institution transferred the thinking from Saturday to Sunday. According to a catechism document, this occurred because Christ(They thought) rose from the dead on a Sunday, and the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles on a Sunday. Why did the Catholic Church feel it could or should make this new law that Sunday is now the NEW Sabbath? Because of the “plenitude of that divine power which Jesus Christ bestowed upon her,” (they say).
    ACTS 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
    MT 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

    Reply
  5. marcusmaxis, on November 9, 2012 at 8:01 pm said:

    You need to read this.

    The Sabbath Was Never Changed

    Reply
  6. Arne Roaldsnes, on November 10, 2012 at 12:49 am said:

    Marcusmaxis, you are absolutely correct on this. Even catholic theologians acknowledge that you won´t find the minutest support in scripture for keeping sunday. And they say that keeping sunday is a sign of the power of the church to change and enforce doctrine.

    I was also brought up keeping sunday as an ordinary, but not catholic, believer. I have studied this subject and see no support for anything than keeping sabbath as the christians did mainly as far as into the 4th century.

    Reply
    • surkiko, on November 10, 2012 at 11:18 am said:

      @ Arne: Again, don’t pretend to answer for Catholics since you are not one. It’s just blurring the issue and not helpful at all.

      Reply
  7. marcusmaxis, on November 10, 2012 at 6:14 am said:

    Arne your catholic arent you?

    Reply
    • billy, on November 10, 2012 at 6:21 am said:

      Marcus,

      Are you a sabbath-worshipping-kosher-eating-circumsicesed christian?

      Reply
    • Arne Roaldsnes, on November 10, 2012 at 6:33 am said:

      Marcusmaxis : It should be evident from my statement above, and all I have written in this blog , that I am not a catholic , at least not in the ordinary sense as meaning Roman catholic. But perhaps you can talk about an original catholicity. If so, maybe I am catholic, at least aiming at.

      Reply
  8. marcusmaxis, on November 10, 2012 at 6:39 am said:

    What denomination are you arne? Which church do you worship at?

    Reply
    • Arne Roaldsnes, on November 10, 2012 at 9:07 am said:

      marcusmaxis , I prefer not to be explicit on this. I like to think that I belong to the church of God. I am certainly not a roman catholic. Whatever I am I would like you to judge from my postings.. I think we agree on the sabbath.

      Reply
      • marcusmaxis, on November 10, 2012 at 9:13 am said:

        I dont understand Arne are you ashamed of the church you attend? I am just curious which church you attend. Whats the big deal?

        Reply
  9. surkiko, on November 10, 2012 at 9:15 am said:

    @ marcusmaxis: Let’s not be too arrogant to come here and expect good receptivity when you don’t show courtesy and respectability. There’s a proper way to put forward your arguments and we can all still agree to disagree if needed.

    May I ask:
    1) What is the difference between the Lord’s Day and Sabbath?
    2) What are Christians supposed to do on the Lord’s Day (and Sabbath, if you need to clarify more)?

    Reply
  10. marcusmaxis, on November 10, 2012 at 12:26 pm said:

    1.The lords day and the Sabbath of the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob is from Friday Sunset to Satruday Sunset.
    2. What are you supposed to do on the Sabbath?
    It is a day of rest and worship of God Almighty and for fellowship with other like minded worshipers of God and his Son. It is not a day to do any of your own pleasures or work as commanded by God.

    Reply
  11. marcusmaxis, on November 10, 2012 at 12:29 pm said:

    I am not trying to be arrogant either. What i am doing is laboring in the word of the lord and fighting against Satans false doctrines of men that put men in the danger of the judgement. The doctrines of God are absolute and well defined. There is no middle ground. There is only truth doctrine and false doctrine.

    Reply
    • surkiko, on November 10, 2012 at 12:40 pm said:

      @ marcusmaxis: I’m leaving the house for a few hours. Will attempt to answer when I return. We shall see if you can be so absolute about your sabbatharianism. Since you asked Arne, what’s your own church affiliation?

      Reply
      • marcusmaxis, on November 10, 2012 at 12:58 pm said:

        I cannot find a church that is biblically correct on doctrine. I would love to have a church I could go to that teaches the truths of God.

        Reply
    • surkiko, on November 10, 2012 at 12:42 pm said:

      Are you saying that the Lord’s Day and Sabbath is the same thing?

      Reply
  12. marcusmaxis, on November 10, 2012 at 12:59 pm said:

    Absolutely

    Reply
    • Arne Roaldsnes, on November 10, 2012 at 2:10 pm said:

      marcusmaxis. The lord´s day is quite different things. Both surkiko and I will agree on that ( well lets celebrate one instance of agreement surkiko! we are beginning to be real friends! ) The sabbath you know very well what is, I suppose, but the lord´s day is entirely different .Both protestants and catholic teach that it is the same as sunday, and that this is the day to keep holy under the new covenant. To find it s original meaning you have to go back to OT where it signifies not one day, but a period of time culminating towards the end where the Lord will punish the earth. This is the prophetic time John was transported to in vision in Rev 1:10. Protestants and catholics hold that this means he was in vision on a sunday ,which doesn´t give much meaning. Compare with 1. thess 5: 1-2: where Paul is talking about times and dates ….” for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night…” It must be obvious that he is speaking of the coming of the lord and not the sunday!

      Reply
  13. marcusmaxis, on November 10, 2012 at 2:53 pm said:

    Lord is God same thing, thus it is Gods day, the Sabbath. Please provide me with scripture that points out that there is a new Lords day and it is Sunday the first day of the week.

    Reply
  14. marcusmaxis, on November 10, 2012 at 2:54 pm said:

    And that we are commanded to worship of that day.

    Reply
    • Arne Roaldsnes, on November 10, 2012 at 3:50 pm said:

      marcusmaxis, perhaps I was not clear enough. The sabbath is the day commanded in the decalogue ( the 10 commandments ) and is the day Jesus kept and even the apostles all through the Acts. Protestants and catholics teach that i the NT times there is another day for christians which they call Lord´s day which is the same as sunday. In my opinion this is entirely false. I tried to explain to you above that the Lords day is a period of time which will include the Lord´s coming and has nothing to do with sunday. A catholic will tell you differently, but in my opinion there has been just one day to be a resting day and that is the sabbath which goes from sunset friday to sunset saturday.
      Protestants and catholics hold that Jesus rose on sunday and therefore they claim that the church eventually started to use this day as a weakly memorial of Christ´s resurrection. I don´t think there is any evidence of Jesus resurrection on sunday. Whatever stand you take on that issue , it is evident that this had no bearing on the practice of the apostles through the acts where they continue as sabbath keepers.

      Reply
  15. marcusmaxis, on November 10, 2012 at 8:48 pm said:

    Arne what is your game. you go to and support the Catholic church but profess that the sabbath is friday to saturday sunset yet you observe sunday worship. What in the world are you talking about. this site professes the beauty of the conversion to the Catholic church which you support. What are you talking about?

    Reply
    • Arne Roaldsnes, on November 10, 2012 at 10:54 pm said:

      Sorry, you have misunderstood me entirely. I am not a catholic, at least not in the ordinary sense, and by no means do I support the RCC. I have been writing on this blog just to exchange opinions, to broaden my mind and for learning how other people think. I should leave it to bfhu to explain the catholic view on sunday/sabbath ´, or surkiko. I am sorry if I have confused you.

      Reply
      • marcusmaxis, on November 11, 2012 at 6:55 am said:

        yes if you agree with me there is no reason for you to respond to my post. You answered me as though you wrote the blog.

        Reply
  16. marcusmaxis, on November 10, 2012 at 8:53 pm said:

    Oh wait a minuite Arne I thought you were the one who posted this article and video. Are you?

    Reply
    • Arne Roaldsnes, on November 10, 2012 at 11:02 pm said:

      of course I have not posted any video ( the article you ask about I don´quite understand what you talk about ).Pam Forrester is the one who runs this blog and certainly have posted the video. My only activity on this blog is to make comments as I see fit.

      Reply
  17. marcusmaxis, on November 10, 2012 at 9:01 pm said:

    And Arne the day you refer to as the lords day as the day when gods destruction comes on the sinful men of the world is not called the lords day but the day of the Lord. that is what the day of Gods destruction is called not the lords day. John was in no way refering to that day. The Lords day has only one meaning. Gods Sabbath. He said he was in the spirit on the lords day.You are in the spirit of God on his day. No other meaning. Dont confuse the two.

    Reply
  18. surkiko, on November 10, 2012 at 10:26 pm said:

    @ marcusmaxis: To clear up some confusion for you, Pam Forrester or bfhu is the owner of this blog, not Arne. Pam is the one with the conversion story (and we are still working on Arne’s ;))

    Anyway, please bear with me a little longer as I want to understand you properly before addressing the Sabbath question. When you said that “(Sabbath/Lord’s Day) is a day of rest and worship of God Almighty and for fellowship with other like minded worshipers of God and his Son …”, do you mean attending church to hear God’s words – from the pastor or a preacher – and sing songs of praise like in a typical Protestant low-church service? It sounds like a dumb question but I just have to ask.

    Reply
  19. marcusmaxis, on November 11, 2012 at 6:56 am said:

    protestant low church service? please explain.

    Reply
    • surkiko, on November 11, 2012 at 7:57 am said:

      @ marcusmaxis: If you attend a typical “low church” Sunday service, one will encounter bible exhortation and songs almost exclusively. In the more “high church” setting, one will see Holy Communion as the central and regular part of the worship on Sundays. So I need to know which camp you belong theologically so I can address the question of the “practices” on Sabbath/Lord’s Day.

      Reply
      • marcusmaxis, on November 11, 2012 at 8:47 am said:

        so your saying that churches that dont do communion are lower quality or lower to God if they dont do communion on sundays?

        Reply
        • bfhu, on November 11, 2012 at 9:04 am said:

          Dear Marcus,
          Not at all. That is actually an English/Anglican expression to clarify the difference between the Anglican Church worship style versus the Puritan and other styles of worship 500 years ago. At the time it may perhaps have had a pejorative connotation.

          I don’t think Surkiko meant it that way. It is the only vocabulary I know of that denotes this precise differential. And Surkiko’s definition is my understanding as well. But it does have the unfortunate sound to it of being condescending. Sorry. If you can find a synonym that doesn’t carry this kind of baggage I would love to be introduced to it. Thanks.

          Reply
          • marcusmaxis, on November 11, 2012 at 9:23 am said:

            Whatever I really dont care. I dont think you should express it that way there is no other way to percieve what he posted. I just pointed out above in my original post what I think is the truth about Sunday as the Sabbath. Thats all. The Lords day is the same as the Sabbath.

            Reply
            • surkiko, on November 11, 2012 at 9:59 am said:

              @ marcusmaxis: It’s unfortunate that you think that you can come here and use all kind of anti-Catholic and polemic terms and yet become all a sudden very defensive when I’m merely using an ordinary accepted expression as explained by bfhu. It just show your ignorance when everybody else fully understands the usage of the terms “low church” and “high church” without taking offense. Your noncommittal is taken as an answer so don’t complain later that I didn’t give you a chance to explain what’s you really meant by “rest and worship of God Almighty and for fellowship with other like minded worshipers of God and his Son.” I have enough info to address your concern but it has to wait after my “rest and worship … fellowship” and family get-together on the Lord’s Day.

              Reply
              • marcusmaxis, on November 11, 2012 at 10:16 am said:

                Thanks for calling me ignorant I really appreciate that and you have sunk to a new level. Just fills me with joy to know what a true christian you are. NOT!

                Reply
                • surkiko, on November 11, 2012 at 10:30 am said:

                  @ marcusmaxis: It’s merely a statement of facts (that you’ve never heard of low and high church yet acting so arrogant all the time) so don’t be so sensitive and get over it. Do you want me to address your Sabbath issue or not? Let me know so I don’t waste my time.

                  Reply
                  • marcusmaxis, on November 11, 2012 at 11:16 am said:

                    You cant address my Sabbath issue. You can’t provide any scriptural proof that God or Jesus the Messiah ever changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Your church is responsible for almost every false doctrine in the christian community today. You call me arrogant but all I am doing is stating facts about your churches doctrines which i can disprove quite handily and easily.
                    1. Worshiping Mary
                    2. Worshiping the Pope as Gods replacement on earth. “Vicar of Christ”
                    3. The False Trinity Doctrine
                    4. Changing the Sabbath from Satruday to Sunday
                    5. Purgatory
                    and many others.
                    You are a waste of everyones time with your false doctrines. You are a part of the beast worship system. Would you like to sit down with me and discuss your churches false doctrines?
                    Its the only way I will go on with you. I dont have the time to go back and forth for three weeks with postings.

                    Reply
                    • surkiko, on November 11, 2012 at 8:09 pm said:

                      @ marcusmaxis: You are ranting and raving like an animal out of control. I always wonder why a supposedly ‘know-it-all” believer can think that they can come here and be the most rude and obnoxious person. You show no decorum nor respectability. If you want to do apologetics, I suggest trying the bible way with “gentleness and reverence.” Your knowledge of the Sabbath is actually very pathetic. Since we are not going to discuss it, I will leave it to your self-glory and gratification. When you are coherent, maybe we can discuss again if we want to exchange views. Take care.

  20. marcusmaxis, on November 11, 2012 at 7:05 am said:

    And Arnie if these Catholics are trying to convert you from observing the true Sabbath to Sunday worship God help you if you do. You are very lucky to know the truth about the Sabbath, dont even consider Sunday. You know the truth stick with it.

    Reply
    • bfhu, on November 11, 2012 at 9:07 am said:

      I would guess you, Marcus, are a Seventh Day Adventist or an offshoot thereof. SDA’s are traditionally virulently Anti-Catholic. We are not trying to convert Arne. That would be the Holy Spirit’s job. We are merely trying to correct his misconceptions about the Catholic Church, answer his questions, and inform him and others about what the Catholic Church really teaches and believes rather than the propaganda out there.

      Reply
    • Arne Roaldsnes, on November 11, 2012 at 2:33 pm said:

      marcusmaxis; there is no danger with me. I know what I believe. But thanks for your concern, anyway. There is solid evidence that Jesus expected the sabbath to be kept from his prophetic speech in Matt 24:20. and I know how catholics and protestants explains this ( away ) It is also evident that the sabbath will be kept/ enforced in the coming kingdom of God from Es 66: 23.

      Reply
  21. marcusmaxis, on November 11, 2012 at 9:20 am said:

    no I am not SDA. I keep the Seventh Day Sabbath for sure. I am not pushing propaganda just the truths of God.

    Reply
  22. bfhu, on November 11, 2012 at 12:18 pm said:

    Dear Marcus,
    All of these topics have been thoroughly addressed in posts on this blog. I will link them for you and you may read them or not. You do not have to agree but at least you will be exposed to the TRUTH about what the Catholic Church teaches.

    1. Worshipping Mary-Why Do Catholics Worship Mary Catholics Worship Mary! The Hail Mary Proves it.
    Catholics Sound Like They Worship Mary
    2. Worshipping the Pope as Gods replacement on earth. “Vicar of Christ” Kneeling Before the Pope BTW we do not worship the Pope. We merely honor him. He is God’s representative on Earth. But he is merely a man chosen by God as He chose Moses, Abraham, and the Prophets. We no more worship the pope than the Jews worshipped these men.
    3. The False Trinity Doctrine-Are you a cross between Jehovah’s witnesses and SDA?
    Trinity is Not in the Bible Trinity questions
    4. Changing the Sabbath from Satruday to Sunday-How Did Sabbath Change to Sunday? Sabbath to Suday?
    5. Purgatory Where is Purgatory in Scripture? Where Did the Catholic Church Get the Idea of Purgatory? Does God Forgive Us and Then Punish Us in Purgatory? Purifying Fire or Judgement?

    Another Protestant Tradition: Catholics worship Idols.

    Reply
  23. bfhu, on November 11, 2012 at 12:20 pm said:

    BTW, Marcus you have joined this discussion recently. Are you aware that the Scriptures do not tell us to use only Scripture to determine what to believe? Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men.

    Reply
    • Arne Roaldsnes, on November 13, 2012 at 2:08 pm said:

      bfhu, can you explain this a little more. Can you give me the reference to where ” the Scripture do not tell us to use only Scripture to determine what to believe?

      Reply
      • bfhu, on November 13, 2012 at 2:32 pm said:

        Dear Arne,
        Sorry if I was unclear. I do not mean that Scripture says anywhere that we “should NOT use only Scripture to determine what to believe.” The doctrine of Sola Scriptura invented by Martin Luther enjoins believers to believe NOTHING unless it can be found in Scripture. But Scripture tells us NOWHERE, that we should believe NOTHING unless it can be found in Scripture. Because the Scripture does not say anywhere that we should follow the doctrine of sola scriptura, Sola Scriptura is a self refuting doctrine. It is a tradition of man.

        But St. Paul DOES exhort the Thessalonians to cling to the TRADITIONS that he has taught them both oral and written.

        2 Thessalonians 2:15
        Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

        Therefore, we listen to Paul.

        Reply
        • Arne Roaldsnes, on November 13, 2012 at 3:29 pm said:

          Than you. As for 2 .thess , do you think this means that there were certain important, oral traditions that Paul taught that he did not , at least, mention in his written material? Are there ample support for that assertion in the scriptures themselves?

          Reply
  24. marcusmaxis, on November 11, 2012 at 12:46 pm said:

    Like I said I can refute all your churches claims but I would have to sit down with you to discuss. It would take a couple of hours to go through everything.

    Reply
  25. bfhu, on November 13, 2012 at 5:08 pm said:

    Yes Arne. The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity for instance. The JW’s have very good Scriptural evidence for rejecting the Trinity using Sola Scriptura. But, most of Christendom accepts the Trinity. It is not clearly taught anywhere in Scripture. Arne, why do you cling to Sola Scriptura? It is not Scriptural.

    The Bible is not a text of systematic theology. It is a collection of histories, songs, prophecies, biography and circular letters. It was meant to supplement the teaching of the Church, not to replace it.

    Reply
    • Arne Roaldsnes, on November 13, 2012 at 10:32 pm said:

      What I asked , was if there is indications in the writings of Paul/apostles that they should expect there to be an oral tradition delivered by THEM, that contained important teachings not mentioned by written material?

      Reply
      • bfhu, on November 14, 2012 at 6:26 am said:

        Not that I know of. But, back it those days no one probably possessed a complete Bible or even all of what we now know as the New Testament. They didn’t need them, they were taught the Faith orally just as St. Paul indicated. He wasn’t talking about any of the Gospels regarding the written letters but other letters he had written. We have no scriptural indication that the sacred writings were held in high esteem and that all oral teaching of the Faith was suspect until found explicitly in the scripture. This tradition of approaching scripture and oral teaching was started by Martin Luther.

        I think you might find this book interesting Where We Got the Bible… Our Debt to the Catholic Church

        It was written by a Protestant pastor who converted at the end of his research for the book once he found out the true history of the creation of the Bible.

        Reply
  26. Arne Roaldsnes, on November 15, 2012 at 12:13 am said:

    Thank you bfhu: you are certainly right that they didn´t go around with a copy of the Bible in their back pocket at the time. The canon at the time was the OT, and this the Jewish children learnt by heart. So, actually they didn´t need to carry it around, they carried it in heir heart! OT was what mainly is spoken of as ” the scripture ” in the NT. And this, together with the oral instructions from the Apostles, was enough for the people of faith in the early church( and Pauls says it is by itself sufficient for the instruction of the believer ).Personally, I view the OT as ” the Word of God “, the new testament writings being a testimony to the life and teaching of the Messiah and the proofs of the fufillment of OT in Christ, and mainly commentaries on the OT.
    So the church had in the beginning the OT, and then an oral teaching or ” tradition ” from the apostles. But there appears also written material available quite early. Luke wrote his gospel so that Theophilus could read it for himself, and the Bereans ,at least, could read the OT daily, but probably they had to meet in the synagogue to do that. Paul also exhorts that his letter(s) should be read to everyone on the congregation ( 1 Thess 5:27) and that his letters also should be circulated among the congregations ( Kol 4:16,2.Cor1:1)
    As Jews ,the apostles had an ingrained respect for the written word, and I think we can presume that they would pass on the attitude from Jesus that the written oracles were above all oral tradition. Paul exhorts also that they should ” by them ( the apostles ) not to go beyond what is written”.
    In the beginning there was obviously a wast oral tradition, and John says that if all was written that could be written about Jesus teaching and doing, then it would fill all the earth !That´s amazing. And there can be no doubt then ,that we do not have all tradition written.
    This could, at the outset, be a strong argument against ” sola scriptura “, but must it? For now, I will briefly state that I do not think so. I think we have reason to believe that, even though not everything is written down , what is written is the essentials of what the apostles taught, read with the underlying presuppositional understanding from OT. My assertion is then, that there is no real support for the contention that there existed an oral tradition that supported fundamental teaching at substantial variance with what is included in the writings of NT.

    But , I will suggest, if this is something to debate , that we move to the posting under “sola scriptura” or some more appropriate place ,so this posting can be used for debating the sabbath question.

    Reply
  27. bfhu, on November 15, 2012 at 7:17 am said:

    Dear Arne,

    Arne: I think we can presume that they would pass on the attitude from Jesus that the written oracles were above all oral tradition.

    BFHU: I think we could presume that IF that had been the attitude of Jesus. But, Jesus NEVER teaches this attitude. This attitude is a Protestant Tradition NOT supported in Scripture. It is not exegesis but eisegesis.

    MARK 7:8 For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these.
    9 And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.
    10 For Moses said: Honor thy father and thy mother; and He that shall curse father or mother, dying let him die.
    11 But you say: If a man shall say to his father or mother, Corban, (which is a gift,) whatsoever is from me, shall profit thee.
    12 And further you suffer him not to do any thing for his father or mother,
    13 Making void the word of God by your own tradition, which you have given forth. And many other such like things you do.

    Jesus does not denigrate Tradition as a whole but that “tradition of men” which teaches/causes people to disobey the word of God. Now, I realize that Protestants believe, based on their interpretation of certain scriptures the the Catholic Faith does teach people to disobey God’s word. However, the Catholic Church interprets the scriptures differently. AND this interpretation is historical. It has been the common interpretation of the disputed scriptures from the dawn of Christianity. This is why I am convinced that the Catholic interpretation is authentic and therefore her Tradition does not, in fact teach people to disobey the word of God.

    It is not that the Protestant interpretations are illigitimate or unscholarly. They are usually pretty good exegesis. But, when we have two legitimate interpretations that contradict each other how do we decide which is correct? I am convinced we need to see what the early Church believed about the disputed scripture. When I looked into that I clearly saw that the Catholic interpretation of scripture was the ancient, historical, and authentic interpretation.

    Arne: Paul exhorts also that they should ” by them ( the apostles ) not to go beyond what is written”.

    BFHU: Yes, St. Paul does say this in I Cor 4:6. But, what does he mean by it? As we have established elsewhere. St. Paul died before the Gospels were written. At this point some of his own written letters were still unwritten. So, the use of this passage to declare the Catholic Church “goes beyond what is written” is also true of St. Paul and Gospel writers. At the time of this letter, what exactly was written? THE OLD TESTAMENT.

    And, the Protestant way of interpreting this passage goes against what St. Paul himself says:

    1 Corinthians 11:2 2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

    2 Thessalonians 2:15 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letterfrom us.

    2 Thessalonians 3:66 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.

    What else could St. Paul have been referring to? Therefore, all of Christianity “goes beyond what was written”. So, the Protestant way of interpreting this passage is NOT historically accurate. It is a way of interpreting it that forgets the history. The history of when the NT was actually written and canonized because by the time Protestants came along they took the existence of the NT for granted and forgot that at the time St. Paul wrote his letters there was no NT as we know it. This is a good example of unscholarly exegesis. But I do not mean to say that all Protestant interpretation is unscholarly.

    Also, “to go” is not in the Greek. It is a teaching against pride not oral teaching Tradition.

    Arne: I think we have reason to believe that, even though not everything is written down , what is written is the essentials of what the apostles taught, read with the underlying presuppositional understanding from OT.

    BFHU:     Why must we reason this way? The Scriptures are sacred and precious but they are a collection of writings of various sorts and not at all anything resembling a logical and systematic theology.

    Arne: My assertion is then, that there is no real support for the contention that there existed an oral tradition that supported fundamental teaching at substantial variance with what is included in the writings of NT.


    BFHU:     I totally agree with you. But, that is because we interpret scripture differently than Protestants. And our interpretation preceded Protestant interpretations by centuries….about 1,500 years.

    Arne: But , I will suggest, if this is something to debate , that we move to the posting under “sola scriptura” or some more appropriate place ,so this posting can be used for debating the sabbath question.

    BFHU: OK

    Reply
  28. surkiko, on November 15, 2012 at 11:36 am said:

    I don’t want to be drawn into this discussion about Sabbath just yet. But here’s what I think very briefly:

    The seventh day observation from Genesis (God rested … but seriously, God didn’t need to rest! Then or now.) was never called the Sabbath. With Moses, the Sabbath notion was added for the first time. In Revelation 1:10, if John had truly saw the vision on Saturday, he would have just call it as it is, on the Sabbath. John would have said, “I was in the spirit on Sabbath” instead of introducing a brand new term, “the Lord’s Day.”

    One should ponder why Christ restated on various occasions all of the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) except for one commandment, to keep holy the Sabbath. Christ said:

    1) “You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, honor your father and mother, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mt 19:18-19).
    2) “It is written: ‘The Lord your God shall you worship, and him alone shall you serve'” (Mt 4:10)
    3) “But I say to you, do not swear at all; not by heaven, for it is God’s throne” (Mt 5:34).

    Christ also defended his disciples when the Jews attacked them for not observing the Sabbath. He was to make the momentous statement, “For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath” (Mt 12:1-8) or again, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27). Further, we read in Colossians 2:17-19 where Paul stated: “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day – things which are a mere shadow of what is to com, but the substance belongs to Christ” (To be sure, the “Sabbath day” here included the yearly and seasonal Sabbaths, and the weekly Sabbath). Again, to the Romans: “For one person considers one day more important than another, while another person considers all days alike. Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind. Whoever observes the day observes it to the Lord” (Rom 14:5-6). Nothing about Sabbath here or a particular day which is being observed to the Lord. Let’s not forget that Hebrews 4:8 also make mention of “another day” because the former Sabbath was not obeyed.

    Christians believe that Christ has created everything anew through his redemptive work on earth and rested perpetually in the heavens (2 Cor 5:17). For Christians, we’re to also recall some important events which occurred on Sunday: 1) The Resurrection of Christ on Easter Sunday (John 20:1ff); 2) The Holy Spirit descended upon the Church on Pentecost Sunday (Acts 2:1ff); 3) After His Resurrection, Jesus appeared to the Apostles twice, each on Sunday (John 20:19 & 26). Is there any wonder if Sunday has and is a very significant day for Christians. Maybe thinking of honoring Christ by calling it “the Lord’s Day” on Sunday? Sunday, the first (or the eighth) day of the new creation?

    The fact is that Sabbath has two aspects to it: an essential part to worship the Lord on one day per week and a ceremonial part as to the exact day. The first part is immutable but not the second. It is quite similar to the question of circumcision (now replaced by Christian Baptism) which was the ceremonial initiation under the Old Covenant. Yes, the Catholic Church and the first Christians did decide to move the ceremonial aspect of Sabbath to Sunday for Christians. Thus we see in Acts 20:7: “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread.”

    Acts 20:7 is the unanswered proposition with another visiter here (“marcusmaxis”). Most Protestants are brought up to believe that Sunday worship is just preaching and songs (the “low church” syndrome). Not so with the first Christians. The bible way was and is still to come together primary to “break bread” (that is, sharing in the Holy Communion or Eucharist) in obedience to Christ’s mandate from the Last Supper. This we do on the Lord’s Day which is Sunday.

    It’s very unfortunate that most descendants of Protestantism are so far removed from historic Christianity that they can be very misled and confused when trying to interpret the bible outside the boosom of Mother Church. In fact, the book of Revelation is all about the Catholic Mass (“the heavenly banquet on earth”) but only if “every eyes can see and ears to hear” (Matt 13:16).

    Reply
  29. Arne Roaldsnes, on November 15, 2012 at 4:09 pm said:

    Surkiko, though we are not entirely done with the question on the perpetual virginity, I allow myself a comment here. The word from Acts 20:7 is very interesting and deserves a comment. It is generally thought to represent the first explicit statement on the beginning of sunday worship.
    A more thorough analysis will show this to be false. We must remember that the Jewish day ends and starts at sunset about 6 o´clock p.m. And it is stated that ” on the first day of the week we were gathered together to break bread , Paul preached unto them ,ready to depart on the morrow and continued his speech until midnight.” This can actually be no other time than our saturday evening. The sabbath was over , and now they were together for a farewell party for Paul and were also going to have a meal. But Paul had much to say to them and kept preaching until midnight when Eutychus fell down. There was a lot of fuss then, but since he survived, Paul went back to the table ” and had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while, event to break of day, then he departed.”
    So he kept talking saturday evening and the night to sunday, and left actually on sunday morning after which he walked on foot to Assos, quite a distance.
    The breaking of bread here is, in my opinion, an ordinary meal, or a fellowship meal. It bears no resemblance to a formal eucharist and held at midnight on the night to sunday!
    So you can find no support for sunday observance in this, rather the contrary: Paul found it suitable to take a long days walk on this day: sunday. And for those who uses it as a support for sunday eucharist: ok: then keep your eucharist at midnight saturday night!

    Reply
  30. surkiko, on November 15, 2012 at 4:33 pm said:

    @ Arne: As I see it, it’s really a non issue. Firstly, the text clearly states that it was the first day of the week (which is Sunday) so I don’t know how you are going to wiggle out of that one. Secondly, even if you want to go strictly by the Jewish calculation of a day, the Sabbath was over anyway by your own reckoning. Thirdly, it’s perfectly okay for Catholics to attend a “vigil Mass” on Saturday evening which is counted as Sunday obligation. Fourthly, in the end, I guess it’s perfectly okay if you, as an individual, prefer to be more Jewish and follow Jewish customs. The caveat is that we just have to be careful not to cause scandal by passing “judgment … in regard … a Sabbath day” and “considers one day more important than another” but “observes the day observes it to the Lord.” For myself, I prefer to follow the Church.

    Reply
    • Arne Roaldsnes, on November 17, 2012 at 3:25 am said:

      Surkiko; this coming together was clearly on saturday evening. As you know very well , the roman day starts at midnight, so by that reckoning, we cannot argue this happening to be “a first sign that the christians started to assemble on sunday”( as is generally held ). Further, Paul started his strenuous walk early the next morning, which is sunday morning. If he was serious about changing the sabbath to sunday, then of course he would not have planned this way. Then the only natural thing to do, was to plan the service on sunday morning. Obviously Paul hadn´t understood this “basic christian practice”.
      I already stated above that the ” sabbath was over”. That´s the reason Paul planned to walk the next morning.
      This is not about being Jewish or not. , not anymore than not steeling or lying is Jewish or not.God himself rested on the seventh day long before the first jew saw daylight.
      And the fact is, nobody is able to demonstrate one single instance of sunday keeping among the first christians in the Acts.

      Reply
      • surkiko, on January 6, 2013 at 3:31 pm said:

        @ Arne: Happy NY with the hope that you’re still lurking around. I took this slow time to re-visit the Sabbath thread. Sorry that I “left” because it was not my intention to get drawn into the discussion earlier. But it’s a new year so we can now discuss this more extensively as warranted.

        Anyway, you correctly interpreted a “roman day” but then erred in presuming that the early Christians followed the Jewish scheme of sunset-sunset day. They actually used the “civic clock” (Roman-Julian) like everybody else. So when the early Christians said they met on the “first day of the week,” it is highly doubtful that they meant the evening before on Saturday, the sixth day of the week. We would read, for instance, “and very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen” (Mk 16:2).

        Again, the point is that if the early Christians had meant to say that they met on Saturday, they would have said “on the Sabbath” … (just like St. John when he stated “on the Lord’s Day”) … something that a Jewish person would understand without a doubt. The history of the “Lord’s Day” is easily researched on the internet. We should not try to read into the bible something which is completely unhistorical, illogical and incoherent (also called sectarianism).

        Reply
  31. marcusmaxis, on November 16, 2012 at 9:39 pm said:

    Are The 10 Commandments Still Binding?

    How many commandments are contained in the Ten Commandments? Does that sound like a foolish question? Then consider the fact that thousands of religious people would give an answer like “94” or “110.” You see, there is a strange belief on the part of many that the great God-written law of the Ten Commandments was actually a part of the ceremonial law of Moses which contained scores of specific regulations. They do not see the decalogue as being distinct and totally unique because of its divine authorship. Neither do they see the clear limitation which the Bible sets for this moral code by calling it the TEN Commandments.

    It seems quite obvious that one would effectively do away with the “Ten Commandments” by mingling them with ninety or a hundred others and calling them “ordinances” instead of commandments. Such a radical effort has been made to dilute the force of the only words of the Bible which God wrote with His own hand. Furthermore, the claim has been advanced that since the Ten Commandments were a part of the mosaic law of ordinances which ended at the cross, we are no more obligated to obey the decalogue than we are to offer lambs in sacrifice.

    Is there proof positive in the Scriptures that there was no such blending of the ceremonial and moral law into one? Can it be shown that the Ten Commandments were of a permanent, perpetual nature while the ceremonial law of statutes and ordinances came to an end when Jesus died? Indeed there is abundance of evidence to answer these questions with a resounding yes!

    God made known this distinction to His servant Moses, and Moses explained it to the people at Mt. Horeb. “And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it” (Deuteronomy 4:13, 14).

    Please notice how Moses clearly separated the Ten Commandments, which “he commanded you,” from the statutes which “he commanded me” to give the people. The big question now is whether those statutes and judgments, which Moses passed on to the people, were designated as a separate and distinct “law.”

    God answers that important question in such a way that no doubt can remain. “Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them” (2 Kings 21:8). Here we are assured that the statutes which Moses gave the people were called a “law.” Any child can discern that two different laws are being described. God speaks of the law “I commanded” and also the “law … Moses commanded.” Unless this truth is understood properly, limitless confusion will result.

    Daniel was inspired to make the same careful distinction when he prayed for the desolated sanctuary of his scattered nation. “Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him” (Daniel 9:11).

    Once more we see “thy law” and “the law of Moses,” and this time the two are recognized as different in content. There are no curses recorded in the Ten Commandments that God wrote, but the law which Moses wrote contained an abundance of such curses and judgments.

    The major point of difference between the law of God and the law of Moses, though, lies in the way they were recorded and preserved. We have already cited Moses’ statement that God “wrote them (the Ten Commandments) upon two tables of stone” (Deuteronomy 4:13). Compare that with Exodus 31:18, “two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.”

    No one can confuse this writing with the way the mosaic law was produced. “And Moses wrote this law … And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee” (Deuteronomy 31:9, 24-26). This book of statutes and judgments which Moses wrote in a book was placed in a pocket on the side of the ark. In contrast, the law written by God on tables of stone was placed inside the ark of the covenant. “And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee” (Exodus 25:16).

    At this point we can note several distinctions in the two laws. They had different authors, were written on different material, were placed in different locations and had totally different content.

    THE CEREMONIAL LAW IS AGAINST US

    Now let’s take a closer look at the ceremonial ordinances that Moses wrote in the book. They were to repose in the “side of the ark … for a witness against thee.” It is interesting to note that the curses and judgments of this law spelled out penalties for transgression which were totally missing from the Ten Commandments. For this reason, the ceremonial law was considered to be a law which was “against” them. Even in the New Testament we read the same descriptive language in reference to that law. “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” (Colossians 2:14).

    Certainly there was nothing in the Ten-Commandment law that could be defined as “contrary” to Paul and the church to whom he was writing. It was not “against” those early Christians to refrain from adultery, theft, lying, etc. On the other hand, that moral law was a tremendous protection to them and favored every interest in their lives. We have only to read Paul’s exalted description of the Ten-Commandment law to recognize that those eternal principles were never blotted out or nailed to the cross. After quoting the tenth commandment of the decalogue in Romans 7:7, Paul wrote these words, “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good” (verse 12). Then he continued in verse 14, “For we know that the law is spiritual …”

    If the Ten-Commandment law had been blotted out at the cross, would Paul have spoken in such glowing language of its perfection and spirituality? He did not speak of a past law. He said, “the law IS holy … the law IS spiritual.” In other words, it was very much alive and operating when Paul wrote to the Roman church. In contrast he described the handwriting of ordinances in the past tense: “WAS against us … WAS contrary to us.” It is certain he was not speaking of the same law. One was present and one was past.

    Interestingly enough, Paul spoke of the fifth commandment as being in effect when he wrote to the Ephesians. “Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honor thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth” (Ephesians 6:1-3). Again, we find the great apostle affirming that this commandment “IS” not “WAS.” Had it been a part of the ordinances described by the same writer in Colossians, he would have said, “… it WAS the first commandment with promise.”

    In the New Testament Church there was a lot of contention over the subject of circumcision, which was a major requirement of the ceremonial law. In Acts 15:5 we read, “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” As all recognize, this could not be referring in any sense to the Ten Commandments. They do not even mention circumcision. Yet Paul declared, “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God” (1 Corinthians 7:19). If the law dealing with circumcision was now NOTHING (abolished), then what “commandments” was he exalting as being still binding? One would have to be blind not to see two laws here. The moral law remained, while the law of circumcision (ceremonial law) was abolished.

    The truth is that there are numerous references in the Bible which prove that the law of types and shadows, because of its temporary application, was never considered on an equality with the eternal moral law. Its system of sacrifices, human priesthood and feast days were instituted after sin entered the world and always pointed forward to the deliverance from sin which would be wrought through the true Lamb and Priest who was to come—Jesus.

    The writer of Hebrews spends much time proving that the law of the Levitical priesthood would have to change in order to accommodate the priesthood of Jesus. He did not spring from the tribe of Levi, but from the tribe of Judah. Therefore, we have reference to Jesus “Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life” (Hebrews 7:12,16).

    This “carnal commandment” dealing with a human priesthood is found in the handwritten law of Moses. It contrasts sharply with Paul’s description of the Ten Commandments as “spiritual” and “holy” and “good.” Nothing could be carnal and spiritual at the same time. Neither could anything be “good” and “not good” at the same time. Yet in Ezekiel we read these words:

    “Because they … had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers’ idols. Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live” (Ezekiel 20:24, 25). Observe carefully how the prophet identifies the Sabbath law, and then immediately says, “I gave them ALSO statutes that were not good.” Keep in mind that the Ten Commandments were called “holy, and just, and good” (Romans 7:12). Because of its curses and judgments against their continual disobedience, the law of Moses was “against” them and was “not good.”

    THE MORAL LAW EXISTED IN EDEN

    The Mosaic Law is never equated with the eternal moral code which operated from the very beginning of human history. Although they were not written down until Mount Sinai, the Ten Commandments were understood and honored by the earliest patriarchs. Even Cain knew that it was a sin to kill, because God told him that “sin lieth at the door” (Genesis 4:7) after he murdered his brother.

    It is impossible for sin to exist where there is no law. The Bible teaches, “for where no law is, there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15). Again we are told, “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). This principle is amplified further by Paul’s statement that “I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet” (Romans 7:7).

    These verses nail down the truth that no sin can be imputed where the Ten-Commandment law is not in effect. God’s statement to Cain about sin lying at the door was in reference to his plan to kill Abel, a violation of one of those commandments. This is absolute proof that the moral law was in effect at that early date. Later, Joseph revealed that he was aware of the binding claims of that same law. He said to Potiphar’s wife, “how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” (Genesis 39:9). He knew adultery was sin.

    Abraham was commended by God in these words: “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws” (Genesis 26:5). It is very obvious that the law which Abraham faithfully obeyed was not the law of Moses, because that law was not given until 430 years later. And we have just established that the Ten Commandments existed before Abraham, condemning even Cain for murder. Neither is it possible for us to conceive that great, godly Abraham was not acquainted with the basic issues of right and wrong contained in the Ten Commandments.

    It is absolutely certain that another law was added 430 years later, and it was in addition to the one Abraham kept so diligently. “And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect” (Galatians 3:17).

    The context of this verse indicates that Paul is talking about the ceremonial law rather than the moral law of the Ten Commandments. In verse ten, he refers to the curses “which are written in the book of the law.” We know this had to be the mosaic law because, as we have already noted, there are no curses recorded in the law written on stone.

    Can we find further confirmation that this later law was indeed the law of Moses? The answer rests in Galatians 3:19. “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions till the seed should come to whom the promise was made …” Here we have two significant facts set forth concerning the law which was added. We are told why it was given and also how long it would remain in effect. These two bits of information will be considered very carefully since they contain compelling evidence in the case.

    FIRST: WHY WAS IT GIVEN? The verse clearly states that it was “added because of transgressions.” This is most revealing because we have just established that “where no law is, there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15). One can’t be guilty of transgressing a law which does not exist. In this case one law obviously did exist; and it had been “transgressed,” making it necessary to add another law 430 years after God’s covenant with Abraham. And since it is recorded that “Abraham obeyed … my laws” (Genesis 26:5), we have to believe that that earlier law, which Abraham observed, was the Ten Commandments. Moses had not yet been born, and it could not have been his law.

    So what must we conclude from this evidence? The Ten Commandments had been transgressed, making it necessary to add the ceremonial law. Upon reflection, this makes a lot of sense. If a law is made forbidding murder, and it is broken, then another law would have to be enacted to prescribe the penalty or punishment for breaking that first law. We have already established that the Ten Commandments contained no curses (penalties) or judgments (punishments), but the mosaic law was characterized by those very things.

    SECOND: HOW LONG DID THIS “ADDED” LAW REMAIN IN EFFECT? The Scripture says, “Till the seed should come.” There is no controversy over the identity of that seed. It is Christ. But do we have evidence that the law which was blotted out and nailed to the cross was indeed the law of Moses? Whichever law it was, it is designated as the “handwriting of ordinances.” Nowhere are the Ten Commandments identified as ordinances. That term is applied to local legal codes which are very narrow and limited, such as “town ordinances” which extend only to the city limits. In comparison, the Ten Commandments are more like the constitution of the United States.

    WHAT LAW WAS BLOTTED OUT?

    But let’s look closer at that text in Colossians 2:14-16 to get the real picture. After describing the “blotting out” and “nailing” of the ordinances, Paul wrote, “Let no man THEREFORE judge you in meat, or in drink.” The word “therefore” means “based on what has just been said, we must come to this conclusion.” In other words, he was saying, “Based upon the fact that the ordinances have been blotted out, THEREFORE let no one judge you in meat or drink.”

    Now we begin to see clearly which law was under discussion. Is there anything in the Ten Commandments about meat and drink?

    But let us read the rest of the text before us: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” (Colossians 2:16, 17).

    Question: Could these sabbath days be talking about the Seventh-day Sabbath of the ten-commandment law? No. Because they are clearly defined as “shadows of things to come.” Please keep in mind that the weekly Sabbath was instituted by God before sin came into the world. THERE COULD NEVER BE TYPES OR SHADOWS BEFORE SIN EXISTED! All the shadows were introduced because of sin and pointed forward to the deliverance from sin through Christ. For example, all the lambs slain represented Jesus, the true LAMB, who would die for the sins of the world. If sin had not entered the world, there would have been no need of a Saviour, and therefore, no lambs or shadows pointing to a Saviour.

    So these “sabbath days which are a shadow” could not possibly be referring to the Seventh-day Sabbath. But what other sabbaths could they be talking about? Were there “sabbaths” other than the weekly Sabbaths? Yes, there were yearly sabbaths which had absolutely nothing to do with the Seventh-day Sabbath of the decalogue. And they were definitely a part of the “ordinance” system which ended at the cross.

    For proof of this, let us go back to the law of Moses and read about these annual feast days which were shadowy sabbaths. “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation” (Leviticus 23:24). Again we read, “Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement … It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest” (verses 27, 32).

    As you can clearly see, these annual sabbaths fell on a different day of the week every year, and God specifically explained that they were not to be confused with the weekly Sabbath. “These are the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, a burnt offering, and a meat offering, a sacrifice, and drink offerings, everything upon his day: BESIDE THE SABBATHS OF THE LORD” (verses 37, 38).

    Now we can understand what Paul was referring to in Colossians when he wrote about meat and drink and sabbath days which are shadows. There were certain prescribed offerings for each of those yearly feast days, and they were shadows pointing to the future sacrifice of Jesus. But the Bible says these were “BESIDE THE SABBATHS OF THE LORD,” or the Seventh-day Sabbath.

    Now it is fully established which law was blotted out and nailed to the cross. At the moment of Christ’s death, the veil of the temple was ripped from top to bottom by an unseen hand (Matthew 27:51). The most holy place of the sanctuary was exposed where the sprinkled blood recorded all the sins of the people. But no more blood needed to be sprinkled; no more lambs needed to be slain; the true Lamb had come to which all those sacrifices pointed. From henceforth, it would be a denial of the Saviour to bring animals. It would be denying that He was the fulfillment of all the shadows and types. Therefore, it would be “against us” or “contrary to us” to continue observing that mosaic law.

    To clarify this issue further, let’s ask a very simple question or two. On the day before Jesus died, would it have been a sin for a man to refuse to bring a lamb in order to have his sins forgiven? The answer, of course, is yes. It would have been a sin, because that was the only way to be forgiven. Another question: Would it have been a sin to refuse to bring that lamb, THE DAY AFTER JESUS DIED? No, because the true Lamb had died, the veil had been rent, and the ordinances blotted out. A law had been abolished by being nailed to the cross—the ceremonial law of Moses. Paul referred to the same law in Ephesians 2:15, “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances …”

    Now let’s ask another question: On the day before Jesus died, was it a sin to steal? Undoubtedly it was. On the day after He died, was it a sin to steal? The answer is yes; it was just as wrong as the day before He died. Obviously, all the blotting out of ordinances, types and shadows did not affect the great moral code of the Ten Commandments in the slightest degree—they all applied afterward as much as before Christ died.

    There are Christians today who still insist that the yearly sabbaths should be observed along with the weekly Sabbath. If such is required, then what were the sabbath days which were blotted out and nailed to the cross? And what was the “holyday” mentioned by Paul as being abolished along with those “sabbath days which were shadows of things to come?” The Greek word for “holyday” is heorte, which is also used to designate one of the yearly festivals of the Jews: “After this there was a feast (heorte) of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem” John 5:1. This is unquestionably one of the holy days that Paul spoke of as being abolished. In contrast, the weekly Sabbath is never referred to as a “feast,” neither is it ever connected to the Jews by such terms as “sabbath of the Jews.” It is only designated as the “sabbath of the Lord.”

    It is of more than passing interest that some of the most noted Bible commentators (including Adam Clarke and Albert Barnes) agree that Paul is not talking about the Ten Commandments being abolished at the cross. Dwight L. Moody, Dr. C. I. Schofield and Billy Graham also strongly affirm that the law abolished was the ceremonial law.

    THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN HEAVEN

    Perhaps we should ask right at this point, what is the significance of the tables of God’s law being placed inside the ark of the covenant?Remember that this spot was the most holy on the earth because it represented God’s throne. God had said, “there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the cherubims” (Exodus 25:22). Below that shekinah glory, symbolizing the presence of God, lay that holy law by which sin was to be defined. And there, as we know from the Scriptures, Jesus, our High Priest, was to plead His blood for sinners.

    The earthly sanctuary was copied by Moses from the pattern in heaven. All its priestly ministry was a type and shadow of the work of Jesus, the true High Priest, in the holy and most holy places of the heavenly sanctuary. “Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us” (Hebrews 9:24). John the Revelator beheld the original sanctuary in heaven where Christ now ministers as High Priest to make atonement for sin. What is sin? “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). Which law? John gives the answer in Revelation 11:19, “… the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament.”

    Think of it for a moment! This is the real thing from which all the Old Testament was patterned. Here is the real Priest, the real mediation, and IN THE ARK OF THE COVENANT, the real Ten Commandments. But please consider this horrendous scenario—IF THE LAW THAT WAS IN THE ARK WAS ABROGATED AT THE CROSS, CHRIST IS MEDIATING FOR THE TRANSGRESSION OF AN OBSOLETE LAW! Keep in mind that John is beholding this heavenly scene years and years after the cross. It is still there today! In the throne room of God, over the mercy seat, where His blood is now sprinkled for the blotting out of sin. Sin is still what it has ever been, and Christ ministers His blood for sin. No wonder the mercy seat is located just above the broken law. Remove the ark containing God’s law and you remove the foundation of His throne, His government. You also remove the law by which sin can be defined and judged. If there be no law, there can be no transgression, and therefore, no need of an Intercessor or a Saviour.

    With the heavenly sanctuary located so definitely in the throne room of God over the ark containing the Ten Commandments, there is not a shred of evidence remaining against the validity of that law. The truth is that all men will be judged on the basis of that eternal code which forms the foundation of God’s government. James wrote, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty” (James 2:10-12).

    Do not by any means miss the tremendous truths contained in these verses. This is the law we will be judged by! Which law is it? James leaves no room for doubt. He quotes two of the Ten Commandments. But notice how he defines this law as a complete unit in itself. He states that we are responsible for keeping “the whole law.” How many commandments are contained in “the whole law”? Exactly ten! What do we become if we break any one of the ten? “A transgressor of the law,” James answers. And that is what sin is called in the Bible. “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4).

    Why did Jesus come? “Thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). Notice that Jesus came to save us from breaking the law, but “… if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1). Here we have a picture of our High Priest, our Advocate, interceding with His own blood in the heavenly sanctuary before the Father’s throne in behalf of those who break His law. Where is the throne located? Over the ark of the covenant containing the law by which James says all “shall be judged.”

    Is there any validity to the argument that the Ten Commandments were all abolished at the cross, and then nine of them restored in the New Testament? This is a specious invention to attempt evasion of the fourth commandment. No Christian has ever found fault with nine of the commandments. Why would they want to get rid of the fourth? Obviously because they are breaking it and do not want to believe that they stand condemned by it. Can they annul the entire decalogue, and then reinstate nine of them? We have proven already that only the mosaic law was annulled—not the Ten Commandments. Further, James has declared that the whole of that law is binding, and breaking any one of them is sin. How can anybody extract the fourth commandment from the Ten Commandments and still call it a “whole law”?

    Incidentally, the Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament more than any of the other nine. This could be tied to the fact that God has apparently chosen the fourth commandment to be the great test issue in His law. In Exodus 16 He used the Seventh-day Sabbath to “prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no” (Exodus 16:4).

    Is there reason to believe that the Sabbath contains a testing quality that cannot be found in any of the other nine commandments? It is an interesting question to contemplate. Besides being worded in a totally different manner (“remember” instead of “thou shalt not”), the fourth commandment is the one which does not have a stigma attached to breaking it. One might abstain from stealing for fear of going to jail, and from adultery for fear of getting shot by an angry spouse. In fact, it is illegal to break some of the Ten Commandments, so they might be obeyed simply to avoid the negative consequences of disobedience. BUT CONSIDER THIS: IN OUR WORLD TODAY, THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT ACTUALLY CARRIES A STIGMA FOR KEEPING IT! In fact, the only reason one would choose to obey it is out of love for Christ and choosing His will above our own. Therefore, it would constitute a special test of genuine love for Christ.

    PROOF THAT THE SABBATH REMAINS

    Although there is a wealth of proof that the Ten-Commandment law and the Sabbath were confirmed by an obedient New Testament Church, I would like to focus on one area of evidence that is often overlooked or misinterpreted. We find it in Hebrews 4, and it probably constitutes the most convincing single reference in favor of Sabbath-keeping to be found in the Bible.

    As a little background, we need to examine the thrust of the whole book of Hebrews. The writer of this letter is showing how many of the elements of the old covenant have been taken away. We can almost feel the anguish of the Hebrew believers as Paul explains to them how the sacrificial system has been taken away, having been fulfilled in Christ. The Levitical priesthood has been removed, being replaced by Christ our High Priest. Were they waiting fearfully to hear him take away the Sabbath also? If so, they must have been tremendously relieved when he wrote these words, “There remaineth therefore a ‘keeping of the sabbath’ (see margin) to the people of God” (Hebrews 4:9). I am using the marginal reading of the King James Version because that is the exact, literal meaning of the original statement.

    The context of Hebrews three and four does not indicate that Paul was trying to convince the Hebrew Christians which day to keep holy. They already knew that. His great burden was for them to enter into a spiritual relationship with Christ—to have an experience of rest from the works of sin. He proved that the children of Israel did not find that true rest because of their lack of faith and disobedience in the wilderness. Although the Greek word for rest, KATAPAUSIS, means simply “cessation from work,” the context seems to indicate that the author is talking primarily about finding a spiritual rest in their experience.

    Nevertheless, the two chapters definitely tie the spiritual rest to the Seventh-day Sabbath-keeping initiated and commanded by God in the beginning. Otherwise, we would not find in verse four a direct quote from Genesis 2:2. “For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works” (Hebrews 4:4).

    The reason for citing God’s resting on the Sabbath from His work of creation is revealed only when we analyze verses nine and ten. Paul says that what remains for God’s people is not KATAPAUSIS (a spiritual rest), but SABBATISMAS, meaning a literal keeping of the Sabbath. Then in verse ten we find the real key which proves beyond a question that the SABBATISMAS rest was not spiritual only, but a cessation from physical work. “For he that is entered into his rest (KATAPAUSIS—spiritual rest), he ALSO (in addition to the spiritual rest) hath ceased from his own works, AS GOD DID FROM HIS.”

    The big question about this verse focuses on the works which one ceases from. Are they works of sin? Are they works to obtain salvation? Or are they the physical works from which we cease on the Sabbath? The answer is plainly revealed by the phrase “AS GOD DID FROM HIS.” Go back to verse four and we begin to understand why this quote from Genesis is included in Paul’s discourse. It is necessary to establish which works God did rest from. God ceased from His physical work of creation on the seventh day, and we are admonished to cease from ours, as He did from His. He did not just enter into a spiritual rest on the seventh day or we might conclude that He was not at spiritual rest on the first six days. The fact is that God is always at spiritual rest. Neither did He have any works of sin or the flesh to cease from. He simply rested on the seventh day from His work of creation, and we are being told by Paul that the ones who truly have received the spiritual rest of salvation will ALSO cease from their physical works on the Sabbath, AS GOD DID FROM HIS.

    Don’t you see how this lends a tremendous new spiritual dimension to the keeping of the Sabbath? It memorializes our personal salvation experience. It stands as a blessed weekly reminder of the continual rest from sin that we may have through Christ. No wonder the Sabbath “remains” for the people of God! Our Creator has made it a symbol of the sweetest spiritual blessings available to the human family.

    We can understand why God did this when we pause to think how Sabbath-keeping parallels the salvation experience. What really makes something holy? In Isaiah 58:13 God calls the Sabbath “my holy day” and “a delight.” Listen! It is the presence of God in something which makes it holy. (Remember the burning bush?) God’s presence is in the Sabbath just as His presence is also manifest in the life of a genuine Christian. So why should not true Sabbath-keeping be made a memorial of true salvation in Christ?

    It is no happenstance that the same Hebrew word, CHASID, is used in Isaiah 58:13 to describe the Sabbath (“my HOLY day”) and also in Leviticus 19:2 to describe God’s people (“Ye shall be HOLY”). He dwells in the Sabbath, and He dwells in His people as a sanctifying influence, hence both are called “holy.” This is why God made the Sabbath, from the beginning, a sign of sanctification. “Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them” (Ezekiel 20:12). The New International Version says, “so they would know that I the Lord made them holy.”

    Lest someone raise the stale argument that the Sabbath is only a sign of holiness for the Jews, let me hasten to add this inspired text: “if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:29). All born-again Christians are the true Israel today, and have been sanctified unto God. therefore, the Sabbath is for them.

    This sign of sanctification has been reaffirmed in the New Testament by Paul’s dramatic statement in Hebrews 4:9, 10 that the keeping of the Sabbath remains for God’s people. Because we have entered into His spiritual rest of salvation (“Be ye holy”), he declares that we should ALSO rest from our works, “AS GOD DID FROM HIS” (“my holy day”).

    Someone might suggest that after we enter into spiritual rest there would be no need to observe the memorial of it by keeping the Sabbath physically. But if that were true, we would have to also stop practicing water baptism. Immersion memorializes our death to the old man of sin. We experience that conversion BEFORE entering the water to be baptized. If the physical observance is unnecessary just because we have had the spiritual symbolism fulfilled in us, then we should abandon the physical custom.

    Further, we would have to renounce the practice of celebrating the Lord’s Supper. It also memorializes an experience of the heart in receiving the sacrifice of our Lord by faith. But should we give up the physical observance of the communion just because we have already entered into the spiritual joy of what it represents? Of course not! Then why should anyone suggest that the Sabbath not be observed physically just because it is used as a memorial of union with Christ? Paul says that it REMAINS as a Sabbath rest for the people of God. In their monumental Commentary On the Whole Bible, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown make this comment on Hebrews 4:9, “This verse indirectly establishes the obligation of the Sabbath still” (page 449). It is most interesting that these Sunday-keeping theological scholars, with the highest of linguistic credentials, make such a statement. Yet the relationship of the spiritual rest of salvation and the physical Sabbathkeeping is undeniable in the context.

    So how can we summarize our discoveries about the two laws? Surely it has been established that the Ten Commandments were in a different category than the temporary mosaic law of ordinances. That moral code, encased in the ark of testimony, like the rest of the wilderness sanctuary, was a copy of the true pattern in heaven. So we affirm that it not only was repeated and reinforced in the New Testament but was identified in John’s vision beneath the mercy seat in the heavenly sanctuary, from which Christ ministers His own blood for the transgression of that holy law. From that foundational position, it continues to be the basis for Christ’s intercessory ministry for us in the throne room of heaven. Therefore, it is established as the most unmovable and unchangeable of all God’s decrees.

    Reply
    • Arne Roaldsnes, on November 17, 2012 at 2:11 am said:

      Marcusmaxis, thank you for this thorough expalantion of a very important matter. This is totally in accordance with my own understanding on the main issues. I will copy this for my own use. Your comment on Hebr. 4 was very clarifying, as this have been a little unclear to me. I will have to study this lengthy treatment of yours even more. Thank you.

      Reply
  32. surkiko, on November 17, 2012 at 11:40 am said:

    @ Arne: I want to be sure that I’m not being disrespectful but my initial interjection on the Sabbath question was meant to be swift and brief. I haven’t been and don’t intend to read any of the followup comments and will let other readers contribute to the discussion instead.

    Reply
  33. Judy Mende, on June 7, 2017 at 12:41 am said:

    Of course the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath. God never changes. And do you not think Jesus would keep his Fathers laws? Of course He did! He worshipped on the Sabbath, and his disciple did, even after he went back to heaven. All thru the New Testament.
    In Genesis, the first week of creation, God plainly identifies the week as beginning with “the first day” of creation (Sunday) ending with the “7th day,” the day he blessed and sanctified.
    Was that one literal week? Of course it was. It says about the weeks of creation; “…and the evening and the morning was the first day, as so on they the week. Nowhere EVER in scripture does the 7th day Sabbath in the creation week EVER change, and through to Revelation!! Sunday observance, “the vernerable day of the SUN” (sun worship) was introduced by Constantine, in the third century AD.
    There is much information on the Catholics changing of the Sabbath if you look for it. Even in their own church writings they take credit for it. They boast, “it is the MARK of our authority.” Sound familiar? MARK. You guessed it. This IS the “Mark of the Beast” of Revelation. Everyone seems so confused about it?? How much plainer does it need to be?
    And the “Seal of God” is simply the keeping of the true Sabbath that GOD, not MAN (the Catholics) created. So…in the end there will be two camps; those with the MARK of the Beast (Sunday worship) and those will the SEAL of God (keeping Gods created Sabbath.)
    Which do you choose? One that condemns you to death, or one that gives you eternal life?
    “And the whole world wandered after the Beast.” Revelation 17
    What day does the world keep? All Protestant churches are apostate as well because they are keeping the Catholic Sunday. Even the Catholic church is amazed that the so called Protestants (protest ants?)keep the man made Catholic Sunday. Notice the “sunburst” the pope carries around? What do you think he is worshipping? (I hope you guessed SUN, sun worship, like the pagans of ancient Egypt and Babylon)
    Catholicism is the old pagan worship.
    Even the worship of Mary is from old pagan, Isis and Horus worship. It is blasphemy that Mary is worshipped and prayed to!!! Mary had no super natural powers given to her. This is nowhere in the scripture!!!
    It is pure idol worship! Shame on you!
    You are willingly being deceived!!
    Look at all their pagan symbols of sun worship and idol worship and lucifer worship. It’s all there in plain sight in their cathedrals!!! All over their walls and ceilings and floors!!! Are you looking? This isn’t worshipping Jesus Christ or God!
    Notice his crown. Jesus never wore a crown. (Jesus is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords!) He, Jesus, didn’t wear a crown of Gold! He didn’t parade around in opulence! Do you know what the popes triple crown stands for? Ruler of 1) heaven 2) earth 3) under the earth.
    WHAT!! Who made him ruler? Who gave him power? The Bible says the dragon gave him his power. Who is the dragon? It is Satan himself!!! So Satan gave the Beast ( Catholicism ) his power!!!
    Why does the pope call himself King of Kings!! And Lord of Lords!!! Blasphemy!!!
    He’s a mortal man! A sinful man! Full of vile, deceiving lies, corruption and murderer of millions of innocent men women and children that were following God and the Bible. Why do you think the catholics burned the Bible. They tried to stamp it out so they could go on filling their coffers of money with the promise of forgiveness of sins and praying your loved ones out of purgatory!! There’s no purgatory. Man cannot forgive mans sins. Only Jesus. That was their invention to make money from ignorant people with lack of Biblical knowledge! There’s no purgatory in the Bible!!! Lies!!! Revelation says “come out of her My people.” Get away from her and her evil practices! You say, well how do you know this is the whore of Babylon. Do you understand history? And Biblical history?
    Watch the video, “the bride, the beast and Babylon,” produced by Amazing Facts. Then you will know the truth. Do you want to know the truth?
    In Jeremiah 23 God says; “seek Me and you shall find Me, when you seek Me with all your heart.”

    Reply

Leave a reply to marcusmaxis Cancel reply