# Romans 14:5 and the Sabbath



## Tyrese

After reading the post about celebrating Chistmas and other holidays, I now have new issues with the Sabbath that I thought I understood. But just simply reading Romans 14:5 alone, I've run into new problems with the Sabbath in relation to RPW. Let me give my understanding of the text, and how it appears others are understanding it.

Johnny says, Wednesday is the most sacred and holy day of the week (for whatever reason). He is convinced in HIS OWN mind that this is ok.

Steve says, no everyday is exactly the same. I have no special days that I set apart as more holy than others. I think all days are equally special. And He is convinced in HIS OWN mind.

Greg says, no you both are wrong. Sunday is the Sabbath and it is the most holy and noble day of them all. He also says you are not allowed to come up with any special days because you are not at liberty. I hold to the RPW. He says Romans 14 doesn't mean what says and that each one does not have liberty to be convinced in his own mind.

I guess there needs to be a straightforward explanation as to why Romans 14:5 doesn't mean exactly what it says? And how you hold to the RPW in issues regarding days even though their seems to be wiggle room in how one approaches the issue.


----------



## Zach

It is not talking about the Lord's Day, but (I think) about ceremonial holidays. It certainly fits the context better, considering the following verses deal with eating and drinking, common activities for feasts and holidays.


----------



## Scott1

> Romans 14
> 
> 14 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
> 
> 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
> 
> 3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
> 
> 4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
> 
> 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
> 
> 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
> 
> 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
> 
> 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
> 
> 9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
> 
> 10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
> 
> 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
> 
> 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
> 
> 13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
> 
> 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
> 
> 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
> 
> 16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
> 
> 17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.



Scripture interprets Scripture. The Scriptures are intended by God to present a clear message to the creatures. These are two key truths, part of sola scriptura, that the Reformation restored to the church.

The immediate context here are ceremonial food laws or perhaps civil laws given the unique Old Testament theocracy of Israel. Note the illustrations of food, "clean" and "unclean" that follow. This was a major change for Jewish Christians of the first century.

Remember, the ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ (it would be a repudiation of Christ to continue to practice them).
The civil laws expired with the unique Old Testament nation of Israel.



> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Chapter XIX
> Of the Law of God
> 
> ....
> 
> III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, *God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws*, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;[4] and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.[5] All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.[6]
> 
> IV. *To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require*.[7]
> 
> V. *The moral law does forever bind all*, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;[8] and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it.[9] Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.[10]



The sabbath had many ceremonial laws connected with it, and some civil laws connected with it that it does not today. For example, dove offerings. (See Numbers 28 for some examples of the ceremonial laws connected with the sabbath). It's fair to say the Old Testament observance of the sabbath had some differences with the Christian sabbath, as it looks back on the finished work of Christ, and God's plan to go to the nations with the gospel in Christ.


----------



## KMK

Tyrese said:


> After reading the post about celebrating Chistmas and other holidays, I now have new issues with the Sabbath that I thought I understood. But just simply reading Romans 14:5 alone, I've run into new problems with the Sabbath in relation to RPW. Let me give my understanding of the text, and how it appears others are understanding it.
> 
> Johnny says, Wednesday is the most sacred and holy day of the week (for whatever reason). He is convinced in HIS OWN mind that this is ok.
> 
> Steve says, no everyday is exactly the same. I have no special days that I set apart as more holy than others. I think all days are equally special. And He is convinced in HIS OWN mind.
> 
> Greg says, no you both are wrong. Sunday is the Sabbath and it is the most holy and noble day of them all. He also says you are not allowed to come up with any special days because you are not at liberty. I hold to the RPW. He says Romans 14 doesn't mean what says and that each one does not have liberty to be convinced in his own mind.
> 
> I guess there needs to be a straightforward explanation as to why Romans 14:5 doesn't mean exactly what it says? And how you hold to the RPW in issues regarding days even though their seems to be wiggle room in how one approaches the issue.



In your scenario, which one is the Pastor?


----------



## Romans922

Scott1 said:


> 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.



Key word is MAN. So this verse has nothing really to do with the Lord's Day. 

Though as it applies to thinking about the Lord's day. The Lord's Day, the LORD (not man) esteemed one day above all others.


----------



## Tyrese

Scott1 said:


> Romans 14
> 
> 14 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
> 
> 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
> 
> 3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
> 
> 4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
> 
> 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
> 
> 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
> 
> 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
> 
> 9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
> 
> 10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
> 
> 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
> 
> 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
> 
> 13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
> 
> 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
> 
> 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
> 
> 16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
> 
> 17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture interprets Scripture. The Scriptures are intended by God to present a clear message to the creatures. These are two key truths, part of sola scriptura, that the Reformation restored to the church.
> 
> The immediate context here are ceremonial food laws or perhaps civil laws given the unique Old Testament theocracy of Israel. Note the illustrations of food, "clean" and "unclean" that follow. This was a major change for Jewish Christians of the first century.
> 
> Remember, the ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ (it would be a repudiation of Christ to continue to practice them).
> The civil laws expired with the unique Old Testament nation of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Chapter XIX
> Of the Law of God
> 
> ....
> 
> III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, *God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws*, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;[4] and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.[5] All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.[6]
> 
> IV. *To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require*.[7]
> 
> V. *The moral law does forever bind all*, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;[8] and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it.[9] Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.[10]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sabbath had many ceremonial laws connected with it, and some civil laws connected with it that it does not today. For example, dove offerings. (See Numbers 28 for some examples of the ceremonial laws connected with the sabbath). It's fair to say the Old Testament observance of the sabbath had some differences with the Christian sabbath, as it looks back on the finished work of Christ, and God's plan to go to the nations with the gospel in Christ.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the reply. Now in still trying to understand what you are saying, how can Paul know that there is a day that is more important than others, but then turn around and say that it's up to the individual Christian if he chooses to view all days alike. There's a contradiction here. How can a Jew esteem all days alike and know that Sunday is the Sabbath? I think we all can agree that the Sabbath is to be highly esteemed over other days.

Sorry if this is confusing, I'm really trying to get this.


----------



## Tyrese

With respect it doesn't matter who the pastor is because pastors disagree over this topic, and two even the most insignificant of believers have the ability to understand scripture and have disagreements.


----------



## Tyrese

Romans922 said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Key word is MAN. So this verse has nothing really to do with the Lord's Day.
> 
> Though as it applies to thinking about the Lord's day. The Lord's Day, the LORD (not man) esteemed one day above all
> others.
Click to expand...


I agree that this verse is not dealing with the Lords Day specifically. But this verse is dealing with days in general (Jewish or not). The verse says, " esteem EVERY day alike." That where I'm confused. I'm reading the verse as every day means every day. If this is a wrong interpretation I'm open to a correct understanding of EVERY here which is why I started the thread. Thanks.


----------



## Tyrese

Thanks Joshua, listening now. I will respond to you if I have any questions.


----------



## KMK

Tyrese said:


> With respect it doesn't matter who the pastor is because pastors disagree over this topic, and two even the most insignificant of believers have the ability to understand scripture and have disagreements.



Actually, it does matter. Rom 14 is a warning to those in authority not to bind the consciences of their sheep. If none of the three hypothetical people in your scenario have authority over the others, then Rom 14 does not apply to the situation. Who cares if Johnny, Steve, and Greg disagree if none of them is in authority? Johnny is bound by the regulations of his own church regarding worship, as are Steve and Greg. 

If one of them was in authority over the others, then Rom 14 might apply. But if they are all equals then who cares if they disagree? Equals are not able to bind each others' consciences.


----------



## Romans922

Tyrese,

"Another (MAN) esteems every day alike..." In the big scheme of things, it doesn't matter what man esteems, whether it be one day more than the other, or every day the same. 
That's all I am saying. Other comments should be helpful about Romans 14 context. 

Who is lord of the conscience? The Lord alone is lord of the conscience. So if the Lord says something about a day, then your conscience better fall in line or you're in sin (short way to put it). The Lord does do that, He commands the Lord's Day for our good to be a holy day compared to all other days. Romans 14:5 is speaking of "Man's days". What we all are required however is not to follow man's days, but Yahweh's Day (Lord's Day). Make sense?


----------



## Tyrese

KMK said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> With respect it doesn't matter who the pastor is because pastors disagree over this topic, and two even the most insignificant of believers have the ability to understand scripture and have disagreements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it does matter. Rom 14 is a warning to those in authority not to bind the consciences of their sheep. If none of the three hypothetical people in your scenario have authority over the others, then Rom 14 does not apply to the situation. Who cares if Johnny, Steve, and Greg disagree if none of them is in authority? Johnny is bound by the regulations of his own church regarding worship, as are Steve and Greg.
> 
> If one of them was in authority over the others, then Rom 14 might apply. But if they are all equals then who cares if they disagree? Equals are not able to bind each others' consciences.
Click to expand...


I completly agree with all you just said here. But it doesn't play out that way in everyday dealings with other Christians whether it be online or in person. One person says this is my view, and the other person says your wrong. That's why I wrote the scenario the way I did. I also would like to say that your completly right that you should follow all your Church rules for membership (even if I don't agree with every detail).


----------



## Tyrese

Romans922 said:


> Tyrese,
> 
> "Another (MAN) esteems every day alike..." In the big scheme of things, it doesn't matter what man esteems, whether it be one day more than the other, or every day the same.
> That's all I am saying. Other comments should be helpful about Romans 14 context.
> 
> Who is lord of the conscience? The Lord alone is lord of the conscience. So if the Lord says something about a day, then your conscience better fall in line or you're in sin (short way to put it). The Lord does do that, He commands the Lord's Day for our good to be a holy day compared to all other days. Romans 14:5 is speaking of "Man's days". What we all are required however is not to follow man's days, but Yahweh's Day (Lord's Day). Make sense?



Thanks Elder Barnes for your time and help. I working really hard at understanding this. I having a hard time wrapping my mind around God telling us in this verse that some men esteem all days alike, and for that just not to matter that he tells us this. I completly agree that Sunday is the Lords Day and a day appointed by God in His Word. No issues their. But for now I disagree that it doesn't matter what man esteems as important (for now). I respect your view but it doesn't seem to allow for the Christian to be convinced in his own mind which is what the verse says. I'm listening to the sermons Joshua posted right now.


----------



## MW

There is of course no ceremonial holiness in the Lord's day as there was in the Jewish Sabbath. It is the morality of the Sabbath which has been transferred to the Lord's day by a positive appointment of God in the New Testament. What the apostle teaches in Romans 14 and Colossians 2 in no way touches on the issue of the Lord's day.


----------



## J. Dean

Tyrese said:


> After reading the post about celebrating Chistmas and other holidays, I now have new issues with the Sabbath that I thought I understood. But just simply reading Romans 14:5 alone, I've run into new problems with the Sabbath in relation to RPW. Let me give my understanding of the text, and how it appears others are understanding it.
> 
> Johnny says, Wednesday is the most sacred and holy day of the week (for whatever reason). He is convinced in HIS OWN mind that this is ok.
> 
> Steve says, no everyday is exactly the same. I have no special days that I set apart as more holy than others. I think all days are equally special. And He is convinced in HIS OWN mind.
> 
> Greg says, no you both are wrong. Sunday is the Sabbath and it is the most holy and noble day of them all. He also says you are not allowed to come up with any special days because you are not at liberty. I hold to the RPW. He says Romans 14 doesn't mean what says and that each one does not have liberty to be convinced in his own mind.
> 
> I guess there needs to be a straightforward explanation as to why Romans 14:5 doesn't mean exactly what it says? And how you hold to the RPW in issues regarding days even though their seems to be wiggle room in how one approaches the issue.


I think a stronger text against the Sabbath is Colossians 2:16. Seems pretty explicit to me, and MacArthur explains well how that cannot refer to the feast Sabbaths because Paul covered those in his use of the words "festivals" and "new moons."

Also strangely absent from the New Testament-and the epistles in general-is any explicit command to keep the Sabbath, or condemnation for Sabbath breaking.


----------



## J. Dean

Here's an excerpt from MacArthur's article on the Sabbath. I know Sabbatarians don't like to hear it, but MacArthur (and others) have raised good objections to the Sabbath and I've yet to hear satisfactory answers to the contrary:


> 1. In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase “a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day” refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word “Sabbath?” He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

J. Dean said:


> I think a stronger text against the Sabbath is Colossians 2:16. Seems pretty explicit to me, and MacArthur explains well how that cannot refer to the feast Sabbaths because Paul covered those in his use of the words "festivals" and "new moons."
> 
> Also strangely absent from the New Testament-and the epistles in general-is any explicit command to keep the Sabbath, or condemnation for Sabbath breaking.


----------



## MW

J. Dean said:


> Here's an excerpt from MacArthur's article on the Sabbath. I know Sabbatarians don't like to hear it, but MacArthur (and others) have raised good objections to the Sabbath and I've yet to hear satisfactory answers to the contrary:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase “a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day” refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word “Sabbath?” He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons.
Click to expand...


You seem to have forgotten that you are on a confessional board and have, perhaps inadvertently, argued positively against the confessional position. If you have problems with the stated position of this board, please frame them in such a way as gives an opportunity for those who hold to the confessional position to be able to answer.

Now, there is in fact a satisfactory answer to the problem you have posed. Are you willing to consider it? It has already been stated in my previous post. The sanctification of the "seventh day," the Jewish Sabbath, has been abrogated by Christ. Nothing is more clear than that. There could be no place for "the first day" if the seventh day itself had not been abrogated.


----------



## Tyrese

J. Dean said:


> Here's an excerpt from MacArthur's article on the Sabbath. I know Sabbatarians don't like to hear it, but MacArthur (and others) have raised good objections to the Sabbath and I've yet to hear satisfactory answers to the contrary:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase “a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day” refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word “Sabbath?” He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons.
Click to expand...


I like Dr MacArthurs point here but I wonder what he would say about Matthew 24:15-28. Vs 20 says, "Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath." Doesn't this assume there is a Sabbath since this is somthing Jesus is prophesying about? I don't just have problems with the Sabbath view, I also have problems with the non sabbatarian view.


----------



## Scott1

J. Dean said:


> I think a stronger text against the Sabbath is Colossians 2:16. Seems pretty explicit to me, and MacArthur explains well how that cannot refer to the feast Sabbaths because Paul covered those in his use of the words "festivals" and "new moons."



No.

The context is the new moon days, feasts and ceremonies that occurred on every sabbath or certain sabbaths.

Again, see Numbers 28.

And remember, the fourth commandment has two parts- work six and rest, cease, "sabbath" one. The context here is not about abrogating God's creation ordinances of work and rest.

Really, where does that idea come from- man doesn't need to work, and doesn't need to cease to worship God?

Don't forget the Jew in the Old Testament coming into the New Testament was seeing the ceremonial laws and the civil law given Israel being set aside because of Christ being its fulfillment, and the unique place of the nation before the Messiah would go to the nations.

This was a very real issue because the Old Testament Israelite had to keep ALL those laws.

We have a "better deal" in the New Testament because the point of those practices was consummated in Christ, to whom they pointed.


----------



## Marrow Man

Sometimes an objection will be offered up: There is no explicit quoting or repetition of the Fourth Commandment in the NT. Ergo, the Fourth Commandment has been abrogated. However,

There is no explicit quoting or repetition of the First Commandment in the NT.
There is no explicit quoting or repetition of the Second Commandment in the NT.
There is no explicit quoting or repetition of the Third Commandment in the NT.

Do we therefore reject the entire first table of the law?

Not only is this a logical fallacy (an argument from silence), it is also a bad hermeneutic. It does fit well with a dispensational framework of handling Scripture (e.g., MacArthur), but this is not a dispensational board, and dispensationalism is a theology novelty, relatively speaking. If one wishes to invoke the "not repeated in the NT" paradigm, then it should be noted that incest, bestiality, and rape are also not mentioned or condemned in the NT; should we assume, under a dispensational hermeneutic, that these are now permissible?

For instance would we say, "Also strangely absent from the New Testament-and the epistles in general-is any explicit command to abstain from bestiality, or condemnation for bestiality"? Of course not. This approach to Scripture simply will not work, and is an improper handling of God's word.


----------



## Randy in Tulsa

In the words of that erstwhile theologian, Huey Lewis, "sometimes bad is just bad." Likewise, sometimes junior is just junior. Freshmen and juniors alike should listen to the moderator. He the man in this thread.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

J. Dean said:


> Also strangely absent from the New Testament-and the epistles in general-is any explicit command to keep the Sabbath, or condemnation for Sabbath breaking.



Heb.4:9 "So then, there remains a Sabbath rest (Greek, “Sabbatism”) for the people of God."

The Greek term is found in the LXX. It means "keeping the Sabbath." The weekly Sabbath was a reminder to the Israelites that they had not yet entered into their true rest. Joshua had given them the land, and a _type_ of the ultimate home-rest. The disobedient were forbidden to enter that rest, a type of denial of heaven. The Sabbath was a reminder that a better rest awaited the people. 

Jesus has indeed entered into his rest, his redemptive work done. And we are advised to take our share of his rest. Ps.95, quoted extensively in the Heb.4 passage, is a song especially for the Sabbath. There's a reason why the writer of Hebrews makes good use of this particular Psalm at this point. The Sabbath is, of all days, a day to memorialize salvation. v2, "Let us *come into his presence* with thanksgiving; let us make a joyful noise to him with songs of praise!" v6, "Oh *come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel* before the LORD, our Maker!" And of course, v11, "They shall not enter my *rest*."

Note the verb (Heb.4:9), απολειπεται, "there remains." It isn't the writer's only purpose to point to a Sabbath of which we do not yet have full possession. The verb "remain" would be singularly odd in that case. The antitype _remains_ to be seen; and so the type (appropriately) also _remains,_ that is, it continues. Compare that clear sense of of this same word (only found about 6X in the NT) just three vv back. Why shouldn't this term be descriptive of our NT-age meetings-with-God? Indeed, it is most appropriate.

In v7, the writer interprets Ps.95:7 to allow that God should _again ordain a day_, not simply use the old Sabbath occasion, which would be a trite understanding of the word "today." The writer implies at least a second-order understanding of the word in this context. And in v8, the writer clearly states God has been speaking "about another day" (περι αλλης... ημερας). The syntax of v8 is striking, "...οὐκ ἂν περὶ ἄλλης ἐλάλει μετὰ ταῦτα ἡμέρας." Literalisticly, "...not then about another he would have been speaking after these things day." "Another" is thrown to the beginning of the sentence for emphasis.

Jesus is God. God still summons us to meet with him, just as ever he did with the Israelites: if nothing else, to remind us that there is a rest up ahead, waiting for us. We are not in heaven yet. In the meantime, we have a foretaste of it in our present-hour meetings with our Lord and Maker, "for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his." The writer to Hebrews isn't just positing the day of our rest when we arrive in glory. Nor is he saying that we are currently, always "at rest in Jesus," a rather crass overrealized eschatology, and pointless since we cannot escape the fact that we are still in the wilderness.



As for condemnation for Sabbath-breaking, the NT does not anywhere resume the temporal severity of the OT laws, so far as the church is concerned. Instead, judgment is reserved to the Last Day. Generally we have corrections of errors concerning the Sabbath day come up among the Jews. It is clear that worship-activity is appropriate to the day. We have Jesus _denying_ that what his disciples are doing picking grains in the fields is Sabbath-breaking, Mk2.23-28; then proclaims good deeds the proper domain of Sabbath-keepers, Mk.3:4; Lk.13:14-16; Jn.7:23. The Sabbath is the one day of which Jesus explicitly declares himself the Lord, and he underscored the fact that the Sabbath was given to men at creation by God for their blessing and well being. How could it be that an *invitation to grace* should ever be dismissed, particularly if the antitype is held forth as that consummation for which man yearns?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Mushroom

Tyrese said:


> Matthew 24:15-28. Vs 20 says, "Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath."


An irrefutable proof that the Sabbath is not abrogated in the NT age. <Edit: Not wanting to detract from the importance of the Sabbath, I thought it best to delete the superfluous unrelated comments. My apologies.>


----------



## JP Wallace

Tyrese 
Buy read and study Joseph Pipa's 'The Lord's Day' - it will simply and wisely explain all. Basicially: Paul's point is that no man can bind the conscience of any man on any day (or in any thing else for that matter), therefore in fact Wednesday, Saturday, Tuesday CANNOT be the Sabbath, because God has not so commanded it. There MUST be a Sabbath - (4th Commandment), and so the ONLY day which it can be is the one which there is clear evidence of divine authority for and there is only one candidate - the 1st Day, the Lord's Day i.e Sunday the Christian Sabbath. Any other day is an imposition by man against the liberty of the Christian.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

J. Dean said:


> Here's an excerpt from MacArthur's article on the Sabbath. I know Sabbatarians don't like to hear it, but MacArthur (and others) have raised good objections to the Sabbath and I've yet to hear satisfactory answers to the contrary:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase “a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day” refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word “Sabbath?” He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons.
Click to expand...


Dean, I have found this answer to be quite eloquent and a proven answer to your acclaimed refutation. And it is from a Baptist perspective. It is Confessional. It is overtly Biblical and truthful. 



> Some Reformed Baptists on the Sabbath Concerning Colossians and Hebrews - Blogs - The PuritanBoard
> 
> 
> 
> The London Baptist Confession of Faith
> Chapter 22
> 
> 7. As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished.
> ( Exodus 20:8; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10 )
> 
> 8. The sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all day, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations, but are also taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.
> ( Isaiah 58:13; Nehemiah 13:15-22; Matthew 12:1-13 )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is part of a study of the *triad* (holydays, new moon, and Sabbaths) that a friend Richard Barcellos pointed out in one of his books which benefited me a lot. I quote a portion of it below and part of an article on Hebrews 4:9 by Robert Martin out of the Reformed Baptist Theological Review.
> 
> Here is a portion of an article taken from the Reformed Baptist Theological Review.
> 
> RBTR III:2 - Reformed Baptist Academic Press
> 
> I am posting it here for an examination of Colossians 2:16 and the triad phrase that is used in this passage along next to the Old Testament passage in Hosea 2:11.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Col 2:16) 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*:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Hos 2:11) I will also cause all her mirth to cease, *her feast days*, her *new moons*, and her *sabbaths*, and all her solemn feasts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of Baptist and non sabbattarians like to quote Colossians 2:16 as a passage that declares we need not keep a weekly Sabbath day to the Lord.
> 
> 
> Richard Barcellos is the author. Please forgive my inept mistakes in copying it from a pdf to here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1. The Old Testament prophesies the abrogation and cessation of the Sabbath under the New Covenant.
> *
> 
> The OT clearly prophesies the abrogation and cessation of ancient Israel‘s Sabbaths. It does so in Hos. 2:11, which says, ―I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her New Moons, her Sabbaths--all her appointed feasts." We will make several observations that bear this out. First, Hosea‘s prophecy is dealing with the days of the New Covenant. The phrase ―in that day" (vv. 16, 18, 21) is used prophetically of New Covenant days in Is. 22:20. Revelation 3:7 quotes Is. 22:22 and applies it to Christ. The prophecy in Is. 22:20 mentions the Lord‘s servant, who is Christ. Isaiah 22:20-22 says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it shall be in that day, that I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe and strengthen him with your belt; I will commit your responsibility into his hand. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; so he shall open, and no one shall shut; and he shall shut, and no one shall open.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revelation 3:7, quoting Is. 22:22, says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, ―These things says He who is holy, He who is true, He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The phrase, ―in that day,
> ' refers to the days of Christ–the days of the New Covenant. Paul references Hos. 1:10 and 2:23 in Rom. 9:25, applying them to Christians. ―As He says also in Hosea: ‗I will call them My people, who were not My people, and her beloved, who was not beloved‘" (Rom. 9:25). Peter references Hos. 1:9-10 and 2:23 in 1 Pet. 2:10 and applies them to Christians as well. He says, ―who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy" (1 Pet. 2:10). Hosea is clearly speaking of New Covenant days. According to the NT usage of Hosea, he is speaking of the time in redemptive history when God will bring Gentiles into a saving relationship with Jews. Much of the NT deals with this very issue.
> 
> Second, Hos. 2:11 clearly prophesies the abrogation of Old Covenant Israel‘s Sabbaths, along with ―all her appointed feasts." Hosea uses a triad of terms (―feast days, New Moons, Sabbaths") that is used many places in the OT (1 Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron. 2:4; 31:3; Neh. 10:33; and Is. 1:13-14). Clearly, he is speaking of the abrogation of Old Covenant ceremonial laws. When the Old Covenant goes, Israel‘s feast days, New Moons, Sabbaths, and all her appointed feasts go with it.
> 
> Third, the NT confirms this understanding of Hos. 2:11. It uses this triad of terms in Col. 2:16, which says, ―So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths." In the context, Paul is combating those who were attempting to impose Old Covenant ceremonial law on New Covenant Christians. So Col. 2:16 is clear NT language that sees Hosea‘s prophecy as fulfilled. It is of interest to note that Paul uses the plural for Sabbath in Col. 2:16 (σάββατον). It is not too hard to assume that Paul had the OT triad in mind and Hosea‘s prophecy while penning these words. The NT announces the abrogation of the Old Covenant in
> many places. For instance, 2 Cor. 3:7-18; Gal. 3-4; Eph. 2:14-16; and Heb. 8-10 (cf. esp. 8:6-7, 13; 9:9-10, 15; 10:1, 15-18) are clear that the Old Covenant has been abrogated.
> 
> (Heb. 8:6-7)
> 
> 
> 
> But now He [Christ] has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant [the New Covenant], which was established on better promises. For if that first covenant [the Old Covenant] had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Heb. 8:13)
> 
> 
> 
> In that He says, ―A new covenant, He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Heb. 9:9-10)
> 
> 
> 
> It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience--concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Heb. 9:15)
> 
> 
> 
> And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Heb. 10:1)
> 
> 
> 
> For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Heb. 10:15-18)
> 
> 
> 
> But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, ―This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them, then He adds, ―Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more. Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Old Covenant and all its ceremonies are obsolete and have vanished away (Heb. 8:13). Taking these passages and Col. 2:16 together, they clearly teach that when the Old Covenant goes, the triad of Col. 2:16 goes as well.
> 
> *2. The Old Testament prophesies the perpetuity and continuation of the Sabbath under the New Covenant.*
> 
> Just as there is evidence from the OT that the Sabbath will be abolished under the New Covenant, so there is evidence that it will continue. At first glance this appears contradictory. But on further investigation, it is not contradictory and, in fact, fits the evidence provided thus far for the creation basis of the Sabbath and its unique place in the Decalogue in its function as moral law. Two passages deserve our attention at this point, Is. 56:1-8 and Jer. 31:33. Isaiah‘s prophecy of the Sabbath under the New Covenant is explicit and Jeremiah‘s is implicit.
> 
> *
> Isaiah 56:1-8*
> 
> (Isaiah 56:1-8)
> 
> 
> 
> Thus says the LORD: ―Keep justice, and do righteousness, for My salvation is about to come, and My righteousness to be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who lays hold on it; who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and keeps his hand from doing any evil. Do not let the son of the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD speak, saying, "The LORD has utterly separated me from His people; nor let the eunuch say, "Here I am, a dry tree. For thus says the LORD: "To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, even to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the foreigner who join themselves to the LORD, to serve Him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be His servants--everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and holds fast My covenant--even them I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations. The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, says, ―Yet I will gather to him others besides those who are gathered to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several observations will assist us in understanding how this passage prophesies explicitly the perpetuity and continuation of the Sabbath under the New Covenant. First, the section of the book of Isaiah starting at chapter 40 and ending with chapter 66 points forward to the days of Messiah and in some places to the eternal state. This section includes language pointing forward to the time primarily between the two comings of Christ, the interadvental days of the New Covenant. It is understood this way by the New Testament in several places (see Matt. 3:3; 8:16, 17; 12:15-21; and Acts 13:34).
> 
> Second, Is. 56:1-8 speaks prophetically of a day in redemptive history in which God will save Gentiles (cf., esp. vv. 7 and 8). The language of "all nations" in v. 7 reminds us of the promise given to Abraham concerning blessing all nations through his seed (see Gen. 12:3 and Gal. 3:8, 16). This Abrahamic promise is pursued by the great commission of Matt. 28:18-20. Isaiah is speaking about New Covenant days.
> 
> Third, in several New Testament texts, using the motif of fulfillment, the language of Is. 56:1-8 (and the broader context) is applied to the days between Christ‘s first and second comings (Matt. 21:12-13; Acts 8:26-40; Eph. 2:19; and 1 Tim. 3:15). Compare Matt. 21:13, “My house shall be called a house of prayer," with Is. 56:7, “For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations." This anticipates the inclusion of Gentiles in the house of God, a common NT phenomenon. Compare Acts 8:26-40 (notice a eunuch was reading from Isaiah) with Is. 56:3-5, which says:
> 
> (Is. 56:3-5)
> 
> 
> 
> Do not let the son of the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD Speak, saying, ―The LORD has utterly separated me from His people; nor let the eunuch say, ―Here I am, a dry tree. For thus says the LORD: ―To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, even to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Old Covenant placed restrictions on eunuchs. Deuteronomy 23:1 says, ―He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the LORD. Isaiah is prophesying about a day in redemptive history when those restrictions will no longer apply.
> 
> In Eph. 2:19 the church is called the "household of God" and in 1 Tim. 3:15 it is called "the house of God."The context of 1 Tim. 3:15 includes 1 Tim. 2:1-7, where Paul outlines regulations for church prayer. Now consider Is. 56:7, which says:
> 
> (Is. 56:7)
> 
> 
> 
> Even them [i.e., the foreigners (Gentiles) of v. 6a] I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NT sees Isaiah‘s prophecy as fulfilled under the New Covenant. However, the privileges, responsibilities, and the people of God foretold there (Is. 56) are transformed to fit the conditions brought in by the New Covenant. The people of God are transformed due to the New Covenant; the house of God is transformed due to the New Covenant; the burnt offerings, sacrifices, and altar are transformed due to the New Covenant; and the Sabbath is transformed due to the New Covenant (i.e., from the seventh to the first day). Isaiah, as with other OT prophets, accommodates his prophecy to the language of the Old Covenant people, but its NT fulfillment specifies exactly what his prophesy looks like when being fulfilled. Jeremiah does this with thepromise of the New Covenant. What was promised to "the house of Israel" and "the house of Judah" (Jer. 31:31), is fulfilled in the Jew-Gentile church, the New Covenant people of God, the transformed Israel of OT prophecy.
> 
> With these considerations before us, it seems not only plausible but compelling to conclude that between the two advents of Christ, when the Old Covenant law restricting eunuchs no longer restricts them, and when the nations (i.e., the Gentiles) are becoming the Lord‘s and frequenting his house, which is his Church, a Sabbath (see Is. 56:2, 4, 6) yet remains. Isaiah is speaking prophetically of Sabbath-keeping in New Covenant days. The English Puritan John Bunyan, commenting on Isaiah 56, said, "Also it follows from hence, that the sabbath that has a promise annexed to the keeping of it, is rather that which the Lord Jesus shall give to the churches of the Gentiles."7
> 
> Again, the essence of the Sabbath transcends covenantal bounds. Its roots are in creation, not in the Old Covenant alone. It transcends covenants and cultures because the ethics of creation are trans-covenantal and trans-cultural. The Sabbath is part of God‘s moral law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also concerning the Hebrews 4:9 passage concerning a Sabbath rest...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Heb 4:4) 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Heb 4:5) And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
> (Heb 4:6) Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
> (Heb 4:7) Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
> (Heb 4:8) For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
> (Heb 4:9) *There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.*
> (Heb 4:10) For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
> (Heb 4:11) Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those guys who quote the Colossians and Hebrew verses need to know that there are legitimate discussions and commentaries that support a sabbatarian view. I read an article by Robert P. Martin in the Reformed Baptist Theological review were he spoke on these verses. I am going to leave a quote from this article here concerning the Hebrews passage and the terms used.
> 
> Reformed Baptist Theological Review
> vl. 1.2 A Sabbath Remains.. The Place of Hebrews 4:9 in the New Testament's Witness to the Lord's Day by Robert P. Martin
> (Heb 4:9) There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
> 
> In it he notes the Word used here is σαββατισμός and not κατάπαυσις
> 
> (rest).
> G4520
> σαββατισμός
> sabbatismos
> 
> This is an obscure term evidently that is used in just a few other places outside of the scriptures but used only once in the New Testament. Robert Martin says,
> 
> 
> 
> *"I think that it is of interest that "in each of these places the term [σαββατισμός] denotes the observance or celebration of the Sabbath," i.e., not "a Sabbath rest" as a state that is entered into but "a Sabbath-keeping" as a practice that is observed. This, of course, corresponds to the word's morphology, for the suffix -μός indicates an action and not just a state. see A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 151.
> Reformed Baptist Theological Review Vl. 1;2 p.5*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words there is still a 1 in 7 where we are still required to observe a Sabbath day.
> 
> Obviously the article consists of the surrounding verses but it is a good read and again, the essence of the Sabbath transcends covenantal bounds. Its roots are in creation, not in the Old Covenant alone. It transcends covenants and cultures because the ethics of creation are trans-covenantal and trans-cultural. The Sabbath is part of God‘s moral law.
Click to expand...


----------



## louis_jp

What Randy said. The Day of Atonement especially is a Sabbath day, Num. 16:31, Lev. 23:32 (note also the "days of solemn rest" for the other festivals in Lev. 23), which fits with the Colossians passage in that he just pointed to the cross of Christ where we have forgiveness of sins, vv. 13-14, "Therefore" don't observe the festival, new moon, or sabbath, which is practically a term of art for the ceremonial system, see esp. Ezek. 45:17.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Marrow Man said:


> There is no explicit quoting or repetition of the First Commandment in the NT.
> 
> Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” 12 And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13 Then the priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of their city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, intending to sacrifice with the multitudes.
> 
> 14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out 15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them" Acts 14:11-15
> 
> There is no explicit quoting or repetition of the Second Commandment in the NT.
> 
> "Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen."- 1 John 5:21
> 
> There is no explicit quoting or repetition of the Third Commandment in the NT.
> 
> "But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your “Yes” be “Yes,” and your “No,” “No,” lest you fall into judgment." -James 5:12



I am not disagreeing with you regarding the Sabbath, just with your assertion that these commandments are not repeated in the NT


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Bill The Baptist said:


> I am not disagreeing with you regarding the Sabbath, just with your assertion that these commandments are not repeated in the NT



Bill,
As you must admit, those are _analogies_ to the first three of 10C. And of course, as has been demonstrated in this thread, even the 4th has its necessary analogy as well. So, I think that the spirit in which Tim answered the original assertion met the challenge of that assertion. That is, the absence something explicitly quoting a command cannot be a sufficient criteria for denying its abiding validity. The relevance of moral law is built on a far more sophisticated exegetical foundation than mere prooftexting.


----------



## Marrow Man

Bill The Baptist said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no explicit quoting or repetition of the First Commandment in the NT.
> 
> Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” 12 And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13 Then the priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of their city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, intending to sacrifice with the multitudes.
> 
> 14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out 15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them" Acts 14:11-15
> 
> There is no explicit quoting or repetition of the Second Commandment in the NT.
> 
> "Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen."- 1 John 5:21
> 
> There is no explicit quoting or repetition of the Third Commandment in the NT.
> 
> "But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your “Yes” be “Yes,” and your “No,” “No,” lest you fall into judgment." -James 5:12
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not disagreeing with you regarding the Sabbath, just with your assertion that these commandments are not repeated in the NT
Click to expand...


No, you are missing my point. An "explicit quoting or restatement" of a commandment would be like Romans 13:9, Ephesians 6:2-3, or James 2:11. Those are explicit, direct quotes from the second table of the law. What you have listed above may be described as inferences or applications of commandments, which I do not dispute (one could point to 1 Timothy 1:9-10), but they are not direct quotes as with the verses I referenced. I am attempting to address the argument of the person who points out that 4th commandment is not directly quoted in the NT by pointing out that the same could be said of the whole of the first table of the law.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Marrow Man said:


> No, you are missing my point. An "explicit quoting or restatement" of a commandment would be like Romans 13:9, Ephesians 6:2-3, or James 2:11. Those are explicit, direct quotes from the second table of the law. What you have listed above may be described as inferences or applications of commandments, which I do not dispute (one could point to 1 Timothy 1:9-10), but they are not direct quotes as with the verses I referenced. I am attempting to address the argument of the person who points out that 4th commandment is not directly quoted in the NT by pointing out that the same could be said of the whole of the first table of the law.



I see your point, and I agree that Scripture is often less explicit than we would like, but that lack of clarity is often the result of an assumption on the part of the writer that certain things are simply understood. The writers of the NT would most likely have operated under the assumption that the Ten Commandments were well understood, and thus did not neccesarily feel the need to repeat them verbatim. I just wanted to make sure that it was clear that even though we may not see the commandments repeated explicitly, we most certainly can find the principle being applied.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Contra_Mundum said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not disagreeing with you regarding the Sabbath, just with your assertion that these commandments are not repeated in the NT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill,
> As you must admit, those are _analogies_ to the first three of 10C. And of course, as has been demonstrated in this thread, even the 4th has its necessary analogy as well. So, I think that the spirit in which Tim answered the original assertion met the challenge of that assertion. That is, the absence something explicitly quoting a command cannot be a sufficient criteria for denying its abiding validity. The relevance of moral law is built on a far more sophisticated exegetical foundation than mere prooftexting.
Click to expand...


Agreed. See my response to Tim above.


----------



## timmopussycat

Brad said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 24:15-28. Vs 20 says, "Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath."
> 
> 
> 
> An irrefutable proof that the Sabbath is not abrogated in the NT age. <Edit: Not wanting to detract from the importance of the Sabbath, I thought it best to delete the superfluous unrelated comments. My apologies.>
Click to expand...


Actually this is not certain. For if Christ is here referring to the then future destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, "the Sabbath" would be referring to the day on which the Jewish community in that city would still be practicing the old covenant Sabbath.


----------



## Mushroom

timmopussycat said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 24:15-28. Vs 20 says, "Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath."
> 
> 
> 
> An irrefutable proof that the Sabbath is not abrogated in the NT age. <Edit: Not wanting to detract from the importance of the Sabbath, I thought it best to delete the superfluous unrelated comments. My apologies.>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually this is not certain. For if Christ is here referring to the then future destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, "the Sabbath" would be referring to the day on which the Jewish community in that city would still be practicing the old covenant Sabbath.
Click to expand...

Considering that He was privately addressing the disciples, it is irrelevant to this discussion as to whether He was referring to the destruction of the temple. He told _them_, not the apostate unbelieving Jewish community still engaged in temple worship, to pray that _their_ flight would not be in winter or on the Sabbath in a future time obviously after His ascension yet before His return. That is the age His disciples still occupy except in the minds of full preterists, which I assume to be relatively rare on the PB. So there remains a Sabbath for the people of God in the NT age.


----------



## KMK

Tyrese said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> With respect it doesn't matter who the pastor is because pastors disagree over this topic, and two even the most insignificant of believers have the ability to understand scripture and have disagreements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it does matter. Rom 14 is a warning to those in authority not to bind the consciences of their sheep. If none of the three hypothetical people in your scenario have authority over the others, then Rom 14 does not apply to the situation. Who cares if Johnny, Steve, and Greg disagree if none of them is in authority? Johnny is bound by the regulations of his own church regarding worship, as are Steve and Greg.
> 
> If one of them was in authority over the others, then Rom 14 might apply. But if they are all equals then who cares if they disagree? Equals are not able to bind each others' consciences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I completly agree with all you just said here. But it doesn't play out that way in everyday dealings with other Christians whether it be online or in person. One person says this is my view, and the other person says your wrong. That's why I wrote the scenario the way I did. I also would like to say that your completly right that you should follow all your Church rules for membership (even if I don't agree with every detail).
Click to expand...


If Greg is trying to convince Johnny and Steve of their error in an online discussion, he is wasting his time. By adopting their views, Johnny and Steve have already rejected 2000 years of church history and authority. They certainly aren't going to be persuaded by some random guy on the internet. The problem with these online discussions is you never know what kind of weaker brothers are 'listening in'. I would avoid such scenarios altogether.


----------



## Scott1

One observation that might be helpful in understanding the applicability of the ten commandments to us in the New Testament.

The Sermon on the Mount, the longest recorded discourse by our Lord in the New Testament is about the broad applicability of the ten commandments. E.g. being angry without cause is related to the six commandment, lust in the heart related to the seventh commandment, etc.

The broad application of them has always been why, since the Fall, man stands guilty before a Holy God. Indeed, His standard is perfect obedience (Matthew 5:48). The underlying principles being:

1) God is holy and cannot tolerate sin
2) Man sins against God in thought, word and deed
3) Only faith in Christ's perfect righteousness allows us to be justified before our Holy God

Far from saying He was abrogating the Law (Ten Commandments), He specifically says He has not come to destroy (abrogate) it (see Matthew 5:18).

This includes commandment four, as well as the others.


----------



## jwithnell

Tyrese, it is important here to distinguish _whether or not_ one observes a sabbath and what is specifically addressed in the passage you cited. In the first instance, a Sabbath rest on the first day of the week is recognized by the reformed confessions; your best bet would be to refer to the scriptures given with whatever confessional text you are using. 

Otherwise,we need to exercise caution and not take the phrase, "one man considers every day alike" out of context. The Roman church was dealing with the conflicting viewpoints of the resident "Greek" believers and the returning Jewish Christians. Paul places the peace of the church and the growth of individuals above petty conflicts over keeping the Jewish holidays (which had been conflated by this point in history) or eating certain kinds of meat.


----------



## timmopussycat

Brad said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 24:15-28. Vs 20 says, "Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath."
> 
> 
> 
> An irrefutable proof that the Sabbath is not abrogated in the NT age. <Edit: Not wanting to detract from the importance of the Sabbath, I thought it best to delete the superfluous unrelated comments. My apologies.>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually this is not certain. For if Christ is here referring to the then future destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, "the Sabbath" would be referring to the day on which the Jewish community in that city would still be practicing the old covenant Sabbath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering that He was privately addressing the disciples, it is irrelevant to this discussion as to whether He was referring to the destruction of the temple. He told _them_, not the apostate unbelieving Jewish community still engaged in temple worship, to pray that _their_ flight would not be in winter or on the Sabbath in a future time obviously after His ascension yet before His return. That is the age His disciples still occupy except in the minds of full preterists, which I assume to be relatively rare on the PB. So there remains a Sabbath for the people of God in the NT age.
Click to expand...


I am not saying that there does not remain a Sabbath for the people of God in the NT age. Nor am I a full preterist, although I do think that some of the Olivet discourse refers to pre-70 events.

Given that the term "Sabbath" was never used for anything else but the seventh day in the Gospels and that it continued to be used for the seventh day by Christian writers well into the book of Acts. (Acts 13:14, 16:13, 17:2) and, that, the top of my head, I can't remember any instance in the NT where the term "the Sabbath" is also specifically identified as the Christian first day of the week, I don't see that we have warrant for thinking that Christ, in Matt. 24:20, used the word in any other way than the Jewish seventh day. It does not take too much imagination to realize the reasons why Christ's disciples could well have found fleeing from an otherwise predominantly Jewish community would have been more difficult on the Sabbath than on other days.


----------



## Marrow Man

Bill The Baptist said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are missing my point. An "explicit quoting or restatement" of a commandment would be like Romans 13:9, Ephesians 6:2-3, or James 2:11. Those are explicit, direct quotes from the second table of the law. What you have listed above may be described as inferences or applications of commandments, which I do not dispute (one could point to 1 Timothy 1:9-10), but they are not direct quotes as with the verses I referenced. I am attempting to address the argument of the person who points out that 4th commandment is not directly quoted in the NT by pointing out that the same could be said of the whole of the first table of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see your point, and I agree that Scripture is often less explicit than we would like, but that lack of clarity is often the result of an assumption on the part of the writer that certain things are simply understood. The writers of the NT would most likely have operated under the assumption that the Ten Commandments were well understood, and thus did not neccesarily feel the need to repeat them verbatim. I just wanted to make sure that it was clear that even though we may not see the commandments repeated explicitly, we most certainly can find the principle being applied.
Click to expand...


Thanks for that rejoinder, Bill, and I am glad we are in agreement on the abiding validity of the moral law of God.


----------



## Tyrese

JP Wallace said:


> Tyrese
> Buy read and study Joseph Pipa's 'The Lord's Day' - it will simply and wisely explain all. Basicially: Paul's point is that no man can bind the conscience of any man on any day (or in any thing else for that matter), therefore in fact Wednesday, Saturday, Tuesday CANNOT be the Sabbath, because God has not so commanded it. There MUST be a Sabbath - (4th Commandment), and so the ONLY day which it can be is the one which there is clear evidence of divine authority for and there is only one candidate - the 1st Day, the Lord's Day i.e Sunday the Christian Sabbath. Any other day is an imposition by man against the liberty of the Christian.



Thanks Pastor Wallace I will go ahead and get this as soon as I can. Lol I have a limited book allowance. But this is important so I will make it a priority.


----------



## Tyrese

My wife wants to join in so it's taking me a little longer to get through the sermons. I listened to the first sermon but I need a little more time to go over a lot of what he said. Very interesting points might I add.


----------



## Tyrese

Brad said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 24:15-28. Vs 20 says, "Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath."
> 
> 
> 
> An irrefutable proof that the Sabbath is not abrogated in the NT age. <Edit: Not wanting to detract from the importance of the Sabbath, I thought it best to delete the superfluous unrelated comments. My apologies.>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually this is not certain. For if Christ is here referring to the then future destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, "the Sabbath" would be referring to the day on which the Jewish community in that city would still be practicing the old covenant Sabbath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considering that He was privately addressing the disciples, it is irrelevant to this discussion as to whether He was referring to the destruction of the temple. He told _them_, not the apostate unbelieving Jewish community still engaged in temple worship, to pray that _their_ flight would not be in winter or on the Sabbath in a future time obviously after His ascension yet before His return. That is the age His disciples still occupy except in the minds of full preterists, which I assume to be relatively rare on the PB. So there remains a Sabbath for the people of God in the NT age.
Click to expand...


Agreed. I think if God wanted to fully convince us that their was no longer a Sabbath for Christians, than I think Jesus would have left out his comment about the Sabbath as he does seem to be speaking about future events. Vs 17 says, "For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." He is describing His second coming right? Jesus also says, "The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath." Being that the Sabbath applies to all men I would assume Jesus is talking about a NT Sabbath. I mean I could be wrong.


----------



## Mushroom

timmopussycat said:


> I am not saying that there does not remain a Sabbath for the people of God in the NT age. Nor am I a full preterist, although I do think that some of the Olivet discourse refers to pre-70 events.
> 
> Given that the term "Sabbath" was never used for anything else but the seventh day in the Gospels and that it continued to be used for the seventh day by Christian writers well into the book of Acts. (Acts 13:14, 16:13, 17:2) and, that, the top of my head, I can't remember any instance in the NT where the term "the Sabbath" is also specifically identified as the Christian first day of the week, I don't see that we have warrant for thinking that Christ, in Matt. 24:20, used the word in any other way than the Jewish seventh day. It does not take too much imagination to realize the reasons why Christ's disciples could well have found fleeing from an otherwise predominantly Jewish community would have been more difficult on the Sabbath than on other days.


Tim, I love you brother. I am somewhat confused about what you are saying, however. Are you stating that there is no day, one in seven, set aside as a Sabbath-day for NT believers?


----------



## JoannaV

I've heard Pipa's book mentioned often enough on here that I finally ordered it!


----------



## Michael Doyle

J. Dean said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> After reading the post about celebrating Chistmas and other holidays, I now have new issues with the Sabbath that I thought I understood. But just simply reading Romans 14:5 alone, I've run into new problems with the Sabbath in relation to RPW. Let me give my understanding of the text, and how it appears others are understanding it.
> 
> Johnny says, Wednesday is the most sacred and holy day of the week (for whatever reason). He is convinced in HIS OWN mind that this is ok.
> 
> Steve says, no everyday is exactly the same. I have no special days that I set apart as more holy than others. I think all days are equally special. And He is convinced in HIS OWN mind.
> 
> Greg says, no you both are wrong. Sunday is the Sabbath and it is the most holy and noble day of them all. He also says you are not allowed to come up with any special days because you are not at liberty. I hold to the RPW. He says Romans 14 doesn't mean what says and that each one does not have liberty to be convinced in his own mind.
> 
> I guess there needs to be a straightforward explanation as to why Romans 14:5 doesn't mean exactly what it says? And how you hold to the RPW in issues regarding days even though their seems to be wiggle room in how one approaches the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> I think a stronger text against the Sabbath is Colossians 2:16. Seems pretty explicit to me, and MacArthur explains well how that cannot refer to the feast Sabbaths because Paul covered those in his use of the words "festivals" and "new moons."
> 
> Also strangely absent from the New Testament-and the epistles in general-is any explicit command to keep the Sabbath, or condemnation for Sabbath breaking.
Click to expand...


I am interested to hear your argument against those who refuted your claims. Seems a bit disingenuous to make the statements you have made without engaging the conversation as if your points are final and irrefutable.


----------



## timmopussycat

Brad said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not saying that there does not remain a Sabbath for the people of God in the NT age. Nor am I a full preterist, although I do think that some of the Olivet discourse refers to pre-70 events.
> 
> Given that the term "Sabbath" was never used for anything else but the seventh day in the Gospels and that it continued to be used for the seventh day by Christian writers well into the book of Acts. (Acts 13:14, 16:13, 17:2) and, that, the top of my head, I can't remember any instance in the NT where the term "the Sabbath" is also specifically identified as the Christian first day of the week, I don't see that we have warrant for thinking that Christ, in Matt. 24:20, used the word in any other way than the Jewish seventh day. It does not take too much imagination to realize the reasons why Christ's disciples could well have found fleeing from an otherwise predominantly Jewish community would have been more difficult on the Sabbath than on other days.
> 
> 
> 
> Tim, I love you brother. I am somewhat confused about what you are saying, however. Are you stating that there is no day, one in seven, set aside as a Sabbath-day for NT believers?
Click to expand...


I am saying nothing against the propriety of Christians observing the Lord's day in obedience to the fourth commandment. All I am saying is that the term "Sabbath" in Matt. 24:20 most likely refers to the seventh day.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think it is important to note that the Lord's Day being the Christian Sabbath is a truth that is developed by good and necessary consequence and not by specifically appealing to a single verse upon which the entire truth stands or falls. If our only standard for Christian truth is proof-texting and we do not permit logical inferences from several principles that portions of Scripture, taken together, teach then we would have to jettison many Christian doctrines that are at the foundation of the Christian faith. 

Appeals to a dispensational foundation to reject the notion of a Christian Sabbath are puzzling. If one subscribes to a Reformed Confession, built upon the foundation of a Reformed hermeuntic, then it is schizophrenic to reject that same hermeneutic when studying the issue of the Sabbath.


----------



## TylerRay

Tyrese said:


> J. Dean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an excerpt from MacArthur's article on the Sabbath. I know Sabbatarians don't like to hear it, but MacArthur (and others) have raised good objections to the Sabbath and I've yet to hear satisfactory answers to the contrary:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase “a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day” refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word “Sabbath?” He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like Dr MacArthurs point here but I wonder what he would say about Matthew 24:15-28. Vs 20 says, "Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath." Doesn't this assume there is a Sabbath since this is somthing Jesus is prophesying about? I don't just have problems with the Sabbath view, I also have problems with the non sabbatarian view.
Click to expand...



Since MacArthur is a dispensationalist, I imagine that his answer would be that Jews will still be keeping the Sabbath (since it is a command for Jews) when Christ returns (dispensationalists have a futurist interpretation of Matt 24). 

If you reject dispensationalism, there must be a binding Sabbath keeping remaining for the people of God. Matt 24 is a proof of this.


----------

