# Duration of Sabbath-Keeping



## staythecourse (May 7, 2007)

Based on your understanding of how we are to keep the Sabbath, What is the duration of the Sabbath? When does your Lord's Day begin? When does it begin and when does it end? What Bible references can you give to support your answer?


----------



## Civbert (May 7, 2007)

Midnight to midnight is a legal convention. I don't think the Scriptures mandate a midnight to midnight definition of a day. It's simply convenient to define a day that way. But practically speaking, my day begins when I awaken, and it ends when I go to sleep. I'm not going to violate the intention of the Sabbath as long as I operate that way.


----------



## Guido's Brother (May 7, 2007)

Civbert said:


> Midnight to midnight is a legal convention. I don't think the Scriptures mandate a midnight to midnight definition of a day. It's simply convenient to define a day that way. But practically speaking, my day begins when I awaken, and it ends when I go to sleep. I'm not going to violate the intention of the Sabbath as long as I operate that way.



That's always been my approach too. You solve a lot of problems that way.


----------



## SRoper (May 7, 2007)

Civbert said:


> Midnight to midnight is a legal convention. I don't think the Scriptures mandate a midnight to midnight definition of a day. It's simply convenient to define a day that way. But practically speaking, my day begins when I awaken, and it ends when I go to sleep. I'm not going to violate the intention of the Sabbath as long as I operate that way.





Guido's Brother said:


> That's always been my approach too. You solve a lot of problems that way.



I agree. In addition, I believe that the evening before is a good chance to prepare for the Sabbath.


----------



## Civbert (May 7, 2007)

SRoper said:


> I agree. In addition, I believe that the evening before is a good chance to prepare for the Sabbath.



Me too. But when I stay up late and don't get enough sleep, I think I've violated the intent of the Sabbath. I don't think I've ever stayed up to midnight and then thought to myself "now I have to stop because it's the Sabbath." I may have already sinned by staying up past 11 pm because I'm going to be tired the next day and unable to devote my full mind to worship and prayer.

P.S. It's a sin I commit all too often.


----------



## jfschultz (May 7, 2007)

I would go along with the civil (or social) definition of the day. With the "advantage" of time keeping devices, midnight to midnight has become the norm.


----------



## larryjf (May 7, 2007)

I voted morning to morning.

See Q#6 in the following...
An Exposition of the Assembly's Shorter Catechism by John Flavel


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 7, 2007)

Midnight-to-midnight is the Biblical and precise (precisionist) duration of the Christian Sabbath or Lord's Day. 

One may find the expression "morning to morning" with respect to Sabbath observance in the writings of Puritans, and others, and it is a fine and true expression, but it begs the question of "when does the morning begin?" 

The Puritans and Reformed have understood "morning" to begin at _midnight_. So "midnight-to-midnight" is merely a more precise expression of what is meant by "morning-to-morning." 

Some examples:

Thomas Vincent, _The Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly Explained and Proved from Scripture_:



> Q. 6. When doth this holy day or Sabbath begin, in the evening before, or *that morning from midnight*?
> 
> A. In the evening before, by virtue of that word, "Remember to keep holy the seventh day," we ought to begin to prepare for the Sabbath; *but the Sabbath itself doth not begin until the evening is spent, and midnight thereof over, and the morning after twelve of the clock beginneth*.
> 
> ...



William Gouge, _The Sabbath's Sanctification_:



> Question 48. When begins the Lord's Day?
> 
> Ans. In the *morning, Acts 20:7*.
> 
> ...



John Brown of Haddington, _Systematic Theology_, Book VI, Chap. 1, p. 475:



> *The Christian Sabbath begins in the morning after midnight.* 1. Christ rose early in the morning, Matt 28:1; Mark 16:2,9. 2. It begins where the Jewish sabbath ended, which was when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, Matt 28:1,3. 3. The evening which follows the day of our sabbath pertained to it, John 20:19.



Thomas Ridgeley, _A Body of Divinity_:



> ...that the beginning of sacred days is to be at the same time with that of civil; and this was governed by the custom of nations. The Jews' civil day began at evening; and therefore it was ordained that from evening to evening, should be the measure of their sacred days. Our days have another beginning and ending, which difference is only circumstantial....We have some direction as to this matter, from the intimation given us, that Christ rose from the dead on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, while it was yet dark. *Therefore the Lord's day begins in the morning, before sunrising; or, according to our usual way of reckoning, we may conclude it begins immediately after midnight, and continues till midnight following; which is our common method of computing time; beginning it with the morning and ending it with the evening.* Again, if the Sabbath begins in the evening, religious worship ought to be performed some time, at least, in the evening; and then, soon after it is begun, it will be interrupted by the succeeding night, and then it must be revived again the succeeding day: And as to the end of the Sabbath, it seems not so agreeable, that when we have been engaged in the worship of God through the day, we should spend the evening in secular employments; which cannot be judged unlawful, if the Sabbath be then at an end. Therefore it is much more expedient, that the whole work of the day should be continued as long as our worldly employments are on other days; and our beginning and ending of religious duties, should, in some measure, be agreeable thereunto. Another scripture brought to prove this argument is in John 20:10. 'The same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus, and stood in the midst and said, peace be unto you.' It is called the evening of the same day; so that the worship which was performed that day was continued in the evening thereof: This is not called the evening of the next day, but of the same day in which Christ rose from the dead; which was the first Christian Sabbath.



Also see Robert Cleaver, _A Briefe Appendix annexed to the former Treatise [A Declaration of the Christian Sabbath], touching the limits of the Christian Sabbath, the Lord's Day: that it beginneth, and endeth after Midnight, and in the Morning: not at the Sun-setting in the Evening._

Again Thomas Vincent on whether the Sabbath is to observed from "waking up to going to bed":



> Q. 5. What are we to understand by one whole day in seven, which is to be kept holy to the Lord?
> 
> A. By one whole day in seven we are not to understand only the whole artificial day, from sun rising to sun setting, or from day-break in the morning until the evening or night, but the whole natural day, consisting of twenty-four hours.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (May 8, 2007)

This is a subject I have looked into with some interest. I come from a non-denom background. By that I mean I never adhered to any demonination after I was born again, though I attended Baptist and Charismatic churches for a time. Within the last several years I have become convinced by Scripture of the doctrines of grace and covenant theology. My family are now members of a Reformed Baptist church. 

In studying the reformed doctrine of the Sabbath Day I have been perplexed by the importance placed on such a thing. Inferences are taken from Scripture, Old Covenant Commandments applied, and not a few reformed theologians are quoted. Mostly, a Christian Sabbath Day to which Christians are bound and expected to obey by certain behaviors is assumed by most Reformed brethren. One of the best and most balanced treatments of the subject I have read to date has been by John Bunyan. Is anyone familiar with the treatise? 

It appears to me from Scripture, namely Romans 14, that we ought to receive those who are in the faith, even the weak. They are justified apart from the Law or precept, whether they be Christian Sabbath keepers or no. The apostle specifically addresses food and days, even saying concerning days, "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Romans 14:5

Should this not be a point of Christian liberty regarding a Christian Sabbath? Before you draw your sword against me dear brethren, please understand that I am seeking wisdom. I am open to either direction the Scripture goes. As most Reformed folks, I am committed to the Scripture first. Reformed theology may be reformed by Scripture, i.e. Reformed and always reforming. 

Bunyan made a good point that to set aside time for the worship of God is moral and eternal. To assign a specific day, as we see under the Old Covenant, was not a moral law. I agree with him. 

I have a few concerns about this issue because depending on our conviction regarding the matter, we could be falsely charging our brethren with sin when they have committed no sin. If they do not regard the day, i.e. Sunday, as you do, then to the Lord they do not regard it. Then the Apostle's exhortation applies to us: "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." Rom 14:13. Often we apply this Scripture to drinking alcohol, where Christians voluntarily limit their freedom in the matter for the sake of their brethren. Quite noble, biblical, and a mature thing for a Christian to do. 

Yet the context and issues addressed in this passage are food and days. 

What say ye?


----------



## larryjf (May 8, 2007)

Geoff,



> The apostle specifically addresses food and days, even saying concerning days, "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Romans 14:5


This would be in reference to ceremonial days.
Remember that there was no real debate in the early Church over the Lord's Day. The debate was over the ceremonial laws of the OT.



> Should this not be a point of Christian liberty regarding a Christian Sabbath?


I would suggest that you would probably not use the same logic with the other 9 commandments.


----------



## govols (May 8, 2007)

Welcome Geoff. I am not too far away from you. I actually grew up in Acworth.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (May 8, 2007)

larryjf said:


> Geoff,
> 
> 
> This would be in reference to ceremonial days.
> ...





http://grace-for-today.com/484.htm


A FEW MORE THOUGHTS ABOUT SABBATH KEEPING
Colossians 2:16-17
DON FORTNER

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are six statements that need to be thoughtfully and prayerfully considered. Do not embrace them and do not reject them until you have at least thoughtfully considered them for yourself in the light of Holy Scripture alone.

1. We observe the sabbath of faith, a spiritual sabbath rest in Christ. The Old Testament sabbath was a portrayal of faith in Christ. Like all legal ceremonies, it served no other purpose than to point sinners to Christ. As God ceased from his works on the first sabbath (Gen. 2:1-3), and demanded that the Jews cease from all works in the legal sabbath (Ex. 20:8-11), so sinners, when they trust Christ, cease trying to work their way into God's favor (Matt. 11:28-30; Rom. 3:28; Heb. 4:10).

2. We live in the hope and anticipation of a glorious, eternal sabbath rest with Christ. "There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God" (Heb. 4:9, 11).

3. We gather in the house of God and worship on the Lord's day, and encourage all believers to do the same. Yet, we apply no sabbatical laws to the Lord's day, and make no effort to coerce anyone to join us in the worship of our God, except by the coercion of the gospel.

4. However, there is absolutely no sense in which we keep a legal sabbath day in this age of grace. Why are we so insistent and dogmatic about this? Because Christ, who is the Lord of the sabbath, is Christ our Sabbath. For us to go back to keeping a sabbath day, as the Jews did in the Old Testament, or for us to put on the yoke of legal religion, is to say that Christ fulfilled nothing! Legalism is, in its essence, a denial of Christ's finished work as the sinner's Substitute. That was the reason for Paul's strong denunciation of Peter's behavior at Antioch.

5. Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4). That statement by Paul means exactly what it appears on the surface to mean. It matters not whether you read it in Greek, English, Spanish, French, or Chinese. When the Holy Spirit says, "Christ is the end of the law," he means for us to understand that our Lord Jesus Christ is…

The Fulfillment of the Law. 
The Satisfaction of the Law. 
The Purpose for which the Law was Given. 
The Termination of the Law.

1. If you can find me any place in human language where the word end does not mean end, I will eat my dictionary and my Bible too. If the law is fulfilled, satisfied, and its purpose accomplished in and by Christ, then it finds its termination in Christ.

6. The New Testament expressly forbids sabbath observance by believers. Not only is there no instruction on how believers should keep the sabbath in this gospel age, the practice is specifically forbidden (Col. 2:16-17).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Reformed Baptist (May 8, 2007)

larryjf said:


> Geoff,
> 
> 
> This would be in reference to ceremonial days.
> ...



Thank you for your reply. It is, however, not enough to convince me of a decreed Christian Sabbath. Can you share Scripture that does? I am specifically looking for teaching that tells me I ought to keep the Lord's Day as Old Covenant saints kept the Sabbath. 

Also, I do not use the same logic with the other commandments and see to reason why i should.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (May 8, 2007)

govols said:


> Welcome Geoff. I am not too far away from you. I actually grew up in Acworth.



Hey John, that's pretty cool. We go to Berean Baptist Church in Austell. I have visited your congregation before.


----------



## larryjf (May 8, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4)


Just to clarify, Christ is not the end of the law but the end of the law for righteousness. We are not made righteous by keeping the 10 commandments, but He certainly has not abolished them...
[bible]Mat 5:17[/bible]


----------



## staythecourse (May 8, 2007)

*No 3rd commandment verbatim in NT either*

But we know using the Lord's name in vain is a sin. I have to get to work but they met on Sunday, collected for the poor for Paul to pick up on Sunday. John had his vision on the Lord's Day. And resting one day a week just makes sense. Why? The greed-factor kicks in as it did in Nehemiah's Day. The merchants were plain greedy and defiled the Day. Any wonder that the nation was holier when blue laws were in effect?


----------



## A5pointer (May 8, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> http://grace-for-today.com/484.htm
> 
> 
> A FEW MORE THOUGHTS ABOUT SABBATH KEEPING
> ...



 thats how I see it


----------



## larryjf (May 8, 2007)

Reformed Baptist said:


> Thank you for your reply. It is, however, not enough to convince me of a decreed Christian Sabbath. Can you share Scripture that does? I am specifically looking for teaching that tells me I ought to keep the Lord's Day as Old Covenant saints kept the Sabbath.


You're welcome.
Scripture that decrees the Sabbath...
[bible]exodus 20:8-11[/bible]
The NT doesn't need to reissue all commands that are to be kept from the OT, it is only if those commands are specifically abrogated that they cease to apply. The moral commands as summed up in the decalogue are not abrogated in the NT. The way in which the "Sabbath" is abrogated in the NT is in the seventh day Sabbath of the OT, the Lord's Day takes its place with the same moral requirements.



Reformed Baptist said:


> Also, I do not use the same logic with the other commandments and see to reason why i should.



I would think that you need the same logic because the Sabbath is as much a part of the decalogue as the other 9 commandments.


----------



## satz (May 8, 2007)

larryjf said:


> I would think that you need the same logic because the Sabbath is as much a part of the decalogue as the other 9 commandments.



Larry,

But what in the bible requires the decalogue to always be taken as a whole? Why could not different logic -based on different pertaining verses- be used on different commandments within the decalogue? Why could there not be one ceremonial command out of the Ten?


----------



## larryjf (May 8, 2007)

satz said:


> Larry,
> 
> But what in the bible requires the decalogue to always be taken as a whole? Why could not different logic -based on different pertaining verses- be used on different commandments within the decalogue? Why could there not be one ceremonial command out of the Ten?



First, i think it would be very strange if only 1 out of the 10 were considered "different."

Second, the Sabbath is not a ceremonial law because it was around even before the fall...
[bible]Gen 2:2-3[/bible]
And in the decalogue itself we see that it starts of by saying "Remember" which would indicate that the Sabbath was practiced before it was inscripturated as such.


----------



## staythecourse (May 8, 2007)

*I tried to make it plain in the poll*

Not YOUR sabbath - THE Sabbath. I don't care how you practice it if it's in violation of God's desire. Back your practice up with Scripture.


----------



## staythecourse (May 8, 2007)

*Best argument so far I've seen*

Morning to Morning which surprised me. I can see where in the OT the day ended in death-night and in the NT the day begins with morning-waking up.


----------



## larryjf (May 8, 2007)

I also said morning to morning because of...
[bible]Mat 28:1[/bible]


----------



## satz (May 8, 2007)

*Warning, unconfessional post coming up*

I believe the bible teaches us that the Old Testament Sabbath was a special covenant sign between God and national Israel. 



> Exodus 31:12-18 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, *Speak thou also unto the children of Israel,* saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for *it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations;* that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. *Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath,* to observe the sabbath throughout *their generations,* for a perpetual covenant. *It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever:* _for_ in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.



Note that these verse mention the Sabbath’s place in creation, but it specifically tells us what the significance of that fact is – it is a sign between the Lord and the children of Israel. 

Also;



> Deuteronomy 5:15 And *remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt,* and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: *therefore* the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.



The reason to keep the Sabbath Day looks back to the Exodus out of Egypt, which makes it a special deal between God and national Israel during the OT. 

With this in mind, we can better understand why the Apostle to the Gentiles later told them in Colossians not to be bound to the Sabbath, which he said was only a shadow of the reality of Christ, just as most of the purely Jewish elements of the OT were.



> Colossians 2:16-17 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.



With all that in mind, I would also note that Sabbath observance is never commanded at all, in the New Testament Epistles. Sabbath breaking is never mentioned in the many lists of sins that occur in the Epistles and that are condemned as being unable to inherit the kingdom of God (Romans 1, 1 Cor 6, Eph 5, Gal 5, Rev 22 etc). I know that is an argument from silence, which is why I say it has to be taken in conjunction with what I have tried to show above, that the seventh day Sabbath was a specific sign between God and his OT covenant people.

The Lord Jesus Christ did observe the Sabbath day during his earthly ministry, but that was because he was born as a Jew under the Law (Gal 4:4). 

There is a new day of worship in the New Testament, the first day Lord’s Day (Rev 1:10), but the bible never connects the two days together. With respect, it seems the connection many esteemed men try to make between these two days is solely based on the assumption that the Sabbath must still be operating in the NT, which is why the latch onto the Lord’s Day as the most obvious choice. And I am not denying at all that the Sabbath can teach us many principles about what to do with the Lord’s Day, which is to be used for public worship (1 Cor 16:1-2) and spiritual activities (Rev 1:10), but as far as saying the rules and laws pertaining to the Sabbath should be applied directly to the Lord’s Day, Paul forbids it (Col 2:16-17).


----------



## Guido's Brother (May 8, 2007)

I find this to be a balanced approach:

Synod of Dort on Sabbath Observance
Session 164, May 17 PM
Trans. R. Scott Clark

Rules on the observation of the Sabbath, or the Lord's Day, with the agreement of the brothers from Zeeland the following concepts were explained and approved by Doctor Professors of Divinity.

I.

In the fourth Commandment of the divine law, part is ceremonial, part is moral.

II.

The rest of the seventh day after creation was ceremonial and its rigid observation peculiarly prescribed to the Jewish people.

III.

Moral in fact, because the fixed and enduring day of the worship of God is appointed, for as much rest as is necessary for the worship of God and holy meditation of him.

IV.

With the Sabbath of the Jews having been abrogated, the Lord's Day is solemnly sanctified by Christians.

V.

From the time of the Apostles this day was always observed in the ancient Catholic Church.

VI.

This same day is thus consecrated for divine worship, so that in it one might rest from all servile works (with these excepted, which are works of charity and pressing necessity) and from those recreations which impede the worship of God.

Source: H.H. Kuyper, De Post-Acta of Nahandelingen van de nationale Synode van Dordrecht in 1618 en 1619 gehouden een Historische Studie (Amsterdam, 1899), 184-6.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (May 8, 2007)

Guido's Brother said:


> I find this to be a balanced approach:
> 
> Synod of Dort on Sabbath Observance
> Session 164, May 17 PM
> ...




Thanks for that post brother.


----------



## larryjf (May 8, 2007)

satz said:


> Note that these verse mention the Sabbath’s place in creation, but it specifically tells us what the significance of that fact is – it is a sign between the Lord and the children of Israel.


I would say a sign between the Lord and His children, not just children of Israel.



satz said:


> The reason to keep the Sabbath Day looks back to the Exodus out of Egypt, which makes it a special deal between God and national Israel during the OT.
> 
> With this in mind, we can better understand why the Apostle to the Gentiles later told them in Colossians not to be bound to the Sabbath, which he said was only a shadow of the reality of Christ, just as most of the purely Jewish elements of the OT were.


And the Lord's Day looks back to our exodus out of sin by the accomplished work of Christ.
The Jewish Sabbath is what Paul was writing against, not the Lord's Day.



satz said:


> There is a new day of worship in the New Testament, the first day Lord’s Day (Rev 1:10), but the bible never connects the two days together. With respect, it seems the connection many esteemed men try to make between these two days is solely based on the assumption that the Sabbath must still be operating in the NT, which is why the latch onto the Lord’s Day as the most obvious choice. And I am not denying at all that the Sabbath can teach us many principles about what to do with the Lord’s Day, which is to be used for public worship (1 Cor 16:1-2) and spiritual activities (Rev 1:10), but as far as saying the rules and laws pertaining to the Sabbath should be applied directly to the Lord’s Day, Paul forbids it (Col 2:16-17).



I would suggest that the NT Sabbath is directly spoken of in Isa 56.
The Sabbath is mentioned over and over again in this chapter. In verse 4-5 we see that eunuchs who keep the Sabbath are given a place in the house of God, which would not have happened in the OT, right? 

In this chapter we also see that foreigners are included in the Sabbath blessing, not only Israel.

And verse 8 has a distinct NT sound to it...
I will gather yet others to him besides those already gathered.


----------



## staythecourse (May 8, 2007)

*Is there a Sabbath day now?*

I pulled Jenny's post as this affirms what I believe - that there is a Sabbath Day.



> Jesus proclaimed Himself the Lord of the Sabbath (Matt 12:8). As Lord of the day, He has the right to change it from the seventh day to the first. And He did.
> 
> He rose from the dead on the first day of the week (Matt 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1)) and appeared to most of His disciples that day (Luke 24:13, John 20:24).
> 
> ...



Andrew, my dear dear brother, I agree with you on many things but I find the "mid-night to mid-night" more artificial/man-made that the God determining the Day inrefence to the sun's rising and setting. The sun is alluded to as a symbol of Christ many times in the Bible.

Incidently - how you doing brother? You're one of the best.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 8, 2007)

staythecourse said:


> Andrew, my dear dear brother, I agree with you on many things but I find the "mid-night to mid-night" more artificial/man-made that the God determining the Day inrefence to the sun's rising and setting. The sun is alluded to as a symbol of Christ many times in the Bible.
> 
> Incidently - how you doing brother? You're one of the best.



Hey Bryan -- I am doing well, brother, thanks! 

I think what is key for me in my understanding of why the Christian Sabbath begins in the morning, ie., at midnight are the following points:

(1) Christ changed the day from the seventh to the first day of the week (Acts 20.7; 1 Cor. 16.1), and there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God (Heb. 4.9);
(2) This change commences at the Resurrection (Mark 16.9);
(3) The Resurrection took place in the morning before it was light (John 20.1, note also Mark 1.35) and Christ then appeared to his disciples later on the same day in the evening (John 20.19); and
(4) The reckoning of time in the New Testament is often done according to Roman custom (John 1.39; John 19.14), which to me is consistent with the gospel going forth to the Gentiles and the abolition of the ceremonial law, including the evening-to-evening ceremonial Sabbaths spoken of in Lev. 23; Rom. 14; Col. 2; and Paul is expressly said to have preached until midnight (Acts 20.7), which means either he preached on the Sabbath and for several hours after sunset on the following day, which does not make sense to me, and which interferes with Luke's reckoning of days which follow, or else midnight was the end of the day which he sanctified as the Christian Sabbath.

James Ussher and William Ames gave the following reasons for their understanding that the Christian Sabbath begins in the morning, while it is yet dark, ie., midnight:



> James Ussher, _A Body of Divinitie_, p. 244-245:
> 
> Why doth our Sabbath begin at the dawning of the day?
> 
> ...



There is a good article on this subject here, as well as a previous thread where I have collected some writings on the subject. 

I hope this is helpful, brother. God bless!


----------



## staythecourse (May 8, 2007)

*Good material*

I appreciate your pulling some Scripture that dealt with time and Sabbath into this. The time up to midnight seems to be recognized by Paul as part of the current day and not previous day.


----------



## KMK (May 8, 2007)

satz said:


> Larry,
> 
> But what in the bible requires the decalogue to always be taken as a whole? Why could not different logic -based on different pertaining verses- be used on different commandments within the decalogue? Why could there not be one ceremonial command out of the Ten?



This might be used:



> Eph 6:1-3 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour 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.



Why would Paul describe the 5th Commandment as the 'first commandment with promise' unless he was referring to the 5th commandment as it stands in the whole of the 10 commandments. In other words,, if each commandment is to be taken in any order, or in isolation from one another, why would he describe it as the first commandment with promise? However, if he does view the 10 commandments as a whole in the same order as they were given on Sinai, then it makes perfect sense why he would refer to it as the 'first commandment with promise' because it is indeed the first out of the 10 with a specific promise annexed to it.

Also...



> 1 Tim 1 :9,10 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, (those who violate commandment I, II and III) for unholy and profane, (those who violate commandment IV) for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, (those who violate commandment V) for manslayers, (those who violate commandment VI) For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, (those who violate commandment VII) for menstealers, (those who violate commandment VIII) for liars, for perjured persons, (those who violate commandment IX) and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (those who violate commandment X)



Notice how Paul seems to list the most worst kind of violation of each commandment in the order that the commandments appear in the 10 commandments.


----------



## Jie-Huli (May 8, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> http://grace-for-today.com/484.htm
> 
> A FEW MORE THOUGHTS ABOUT SABBATH KEEPING
> Colossians 2:16-17
> ...



Apologies for a slightly off-topic reply.

I strongly disagree with the entirety of Mr. Fortner's argument, but in particular I would like to point out that these statements concerning Romans 10.4 and the meaning of Christ being "the end of the law" are quite absurd.

I see that another brother has rightly pointed out that the whole verse reads "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth." I would add further that it is ridiculous for Mr. Fortner to asseverate that the use of the word "end" in this verse must simultaneously bear every variant meaning of the word "end" in existence. "The Purpose for which the Law was Given" and "the Termination of the Law" are two very different concepts indeed, and there is no reason to assume that the use in Romans 10.4 bears both meanings. While the context of Romans 10 is referring largely to the ceremonial law at any rate (as opposed to the moral law, of which the 4th Commandment is a part), it would seem clear to me that this verse is referring primarily to Christ being the fulfillment and ultimate purpose of the law --- NOT the termination of it. The latter half of the verse (left unquoted by Mr. Fortner) makes this obvious.

And as for any place in the human language where "end" does not mean termination, we certainly do not need to look very far. Here are just a few examples from the Scriptures where the word "end" (Greek: telos) means something akin to "purpose" or "result", and cannot possibly bear the meaning of "termination":

Romans 6.21: "What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death."

1 Timothy 1.5: "Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned."

James 5.11: "Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy."

1 Peter 1.9: "Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls."

Would Mr. Fortner actually assert that the salvation of our souls is the "termination" of our faith? Mr. Fortner can eat his dictionary if he so wishes, but as for his Bible I would suggest he just search it a bit more thoroughly.

And finally as to his statement that "It matters not whether you read it in Greek, English, Spanish, French, or Chinese", I must assume he does not actually know anything of these other tongues or their translations of the Scriptures. The Chinese Bible, for one, in its translation of the word "end" in Romans 10.4, uses a phrase which means something akin to "summary" or "fulfillment", and bears no relation at all to a termination.

Kind regards,

Jie-Huli


----------



## staythecourse (May 8, 2007)

*And they'll know we are Christians by our Love*

by our love, and they'll know that we are Christians by our love.


----------



## staythecourse (May 8, 2007)

*Jessica your vote does not count!*

You're married to Andrew! Now you've messed everything up! Your kids cannot vote either.


----------



## jbergsing (May 8, 2007)

Civbert said:


> Midnight to midnight is a legal convention. I don't think the Scriptures mandate a midnight to midnight definition of a day. It's simply convenient to define a day that way. But practically speaking, my day begins when I awaken, and it ends when I go to sleep. I'm not going to violate the intention of the Sabbath as long as I operate that way.


Although I voted "non-sabbaterian", I agree with the above.


----------



## staythecourse (May 9, 2007)

*More on Acts 20:6-11*

The text is pulled from biblegateway.

Under more enjoyable scrutiny of what Paul considers a day, I find they did indeed stay 7 days. This is a log of past events so it's not an intent but a fact.

_6. We sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and came to them at Troas within five days; and *there we stayed seven days.*_ 

We see a gathering of believers (notice the interesting inclusion of "lamps" for apparently no other important reason in v8).

They broke bread or had communion together reminiscent of the last supper (also in the upper room).

He began talking on the last day of the week and went to midnight - but did he talk beyond midnight and still stay within 7 days? After reading the entire passage I think "yes."

_7. On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight. _

8. There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered together. 

9. And there was a young man named Eutychus sitting on the window sill, sinking into a deep sleep; and as Paul kept on talking, he was overcome by sleep and fell down from the third floor and was picked up dead. 

10. But Paul went down and fell upon him, and after embracing him, he said, "Do not be troubled, for his life is in him." 

_11. When he had gone back up and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while *until daybreak, and then left.*_

Bread breaking occurs after midnight, however I will grant Luke uses the singular not plural so it may or may not mean communion. This still helps and does not hurt my conclusion in my estimation. The coup de grâce, again in my estimation, is that Paul stays until daybreak then leaves. If he stayed 7 days we are told he stayed till morning which ended the 7 days. Following protocol as to what Jews considered a day (partial = whole) he arrived in Troas Monday after dawn and stayed through Sunday/Lord's Day leaving before Monday began - dawn.

The day ends at dawn the next day.

Therefore Sabbath is from dawn Sunday/Lord's Day to Monday dawn.

There's my presentation. Go at it brothers. Where is the flaw?


----------



## Reformed Baptist (May 9, 2007)

Read all the posts. I am convinced that many inferences have been made and applications, but nothing to bind my conscience by the Word of God that I must observe one day above another. Let each one be convinced in their own mind.


----------

