Typically, when someone start focusing on the "demeanor that a person, or a group, “seems to display” rather than on the arguments being presented, oftentimes it means that that someone has nothing to say or doesn’t have any valid counter-arguments to propose (unless, of course, this demeanor is the subject of the conversation)…
Your response to another poster essentially says no matter the issue, you must present as always right. I’ll defer to you, you do that better than I ever could. I’m too often too far wrong to speak with such certitude about the wrongness of another and the rightness of myself. Carry on. (edit to add, you are perfectly justified and righteously sanctified in your blithe dismissals. Context is how you come across here. Even if perchance you are right, even if only by most scrupulous letter of the law logic, the spirit still seems entirely amiss.)
Yeah, that’s what I’ve said about a dozen times. The sabbath was given to Israel as the sign of the covenant God made with Israel.
The Jews and Gentiles are all from the seed of Abraham. We aren’t under the Mosaic Covenant, but a part of the Covenant God made with Abraham.
7Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham.8Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” d9So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
10For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” e11Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” f12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” g13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” h14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
So, why would the sign of the Old Covenant (the Sabbath) be needed for the New Covenant? The Old has faded …
13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
Well, there is no mention of Sabbath for the New Covenant believers. The other commandments are there.
Adventism is so focused on Sabbath, that everything, and every other part of the whole story and narrative, is missing. The Sabbath is pulled out of its context and becomes the main thing. Sabbath isn’t the main thing, it’s part of the story regarding Israel.
No, you didn’t understand what I meant. We are not saying the same thing.
You believe that the sabbath was just for the Israelite specifically and that the Christians are not obligated to keep it even if the Jews keep it.
Whereas I am saying that God uses the sabbath as a sign to show who His people are: so, in the Old Testament, His people was the Israelite so they had to keep the sabbath; in the New Testament, His people are those who accept the New Covenant through Jesus, and it is composed of Jews and Gentiles. And because they are His people, they have to keep the sabbath also.
I showed you that, in the Old Testament, God was already talking about the New Covenant and He said what the New Covenant was about: the writing of the law in the inward parts and in the heart (see Jeremiah 31:31-33). And when He spoke about the law He meant the Ten Commandments (see Jeremiah 31:32).
And He added in verse 33 that those who accept this new covenant will be His people.
So, since the New Covenant is about having the Ten Commandments written in the inward parts and in the heart, those under that covenant, namely the Christians, have to keep the sabbath which is part of the Ten Commandments.
The sabbath is not the sign OF the Old Covenant. It is a sign IN the Old Covenant. As I have shown you, the sabbath existed and was asked to be kept by the Jews even before the establishment of the covenant. So, since the Israelite were asked to keep the sabbath even before the covenant, we cannot say that it was the sign of the covenant. It is more correct to say that it was a sign in the covenant. And in the covenant, they were explicitly asked to keep a set of laws that we call the Ten Commandments. But just because there were these requirements in the covenant didn’t mean that these principles didn’t exist before. For example, we’ve seen that the sabbath existed even before the establishment of the covenant (see Exodus 16) but the same can be said about the principles against murder, lying, stealing, disrespecting one’s parents, covetousness, etc. For example, when we read Genesis, we see that God is against murder.
In the book of Acts, we see the Gentiles gathering on the Sabbath. We see also Paul keeping the Sabbath. And, more important, in the Gospel, we see Jesus, our example, the Christ from which we get the name of Christian, keeping the Sabbath.
What we don’t see in the New Testament is Jesus or the apostles saying that the Ten Commandments have been changed into the Nine Commandments (because everybody will say that the nine commandments beside the fourth one are mandatory, not a matter of opinion, personal choice or preference. But many people erroneously think that fourth commandment is a matter of preference now).
…had a wise ole perfessor once ask me, when i chose the imperative “we” to answer a debate challenge, “is that ‘we’ both YOU and the MOUSE in your pocket”? He suggested if my logic was sound then I needed to only answer for myself, and let the mouse squeak for itself.
“I will put my Law in their hearts.” (Jer.31:33) Law=Torah. That’s the Hebrew word for Law. It means teaching and direction. You keep trying to equate it with the ten. It just doesn’t mean that. It was equated with the first five books, and later with the 613 commands found in them. What this is saying is that the entire Torah would be written on the heart. That included all the commands.
The bottom line is that Paul, in the NT, talks about faith in Jesus, and the reception of the Spirit as being the real fulfillment of this. It is not a one to one engraving of 613 commands upon the heart. There is no mention of sabbath, which was the covenant sign for Israel in the OT, being part of this experience for Gentiles entering into the life of God’s New Covenant people in Jesus.
In fact, Jesus said that the sign of his people is that, “They will know that you are my disciples by your love for one another.” Paul wrote that love, (for one another) is the fulfillment of the Law…the visible sign of complying with the covenant. He also wrote, “Bear one another’s burdens, and so bring to completion the Law of Christ.” The identity of the people of God is summed up in a faith that expresses itself in love. The sabbath, along with circumcision and food laws, is nowhere mentioned in the NT as the covenant sign.
This also helps explain why so many Christians, who are born again, and receive the powerful, life-giving Spirit, are never convicted about the sabbath. Maybe its not about some grand conspiracy, and really is about that it simply is not required any longer of Christians.
You are trying to enfold one covenant into the other without seeing these distinctions.
Yes, resoundingly, and especially the SPIRIT (as opposed to the letter) of the law!!!
We can parse our dill and cumin six ways to sunday and claim we “kept the law”,
but what does Jesus really mean by all he said?
It is the sign of the (Old) Covenant God made with Israel, as is stated many times in the Old Testament.
We can say it was a sign between God and Israel…not everyone, not Gentiles. Exodus 31:13
"Tell the Israelites, 'Surely you must observe My Sabbaths, for this will be a sign between Me and you for the generations to come, so that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you.
And since God made a Covenant with Israel, this is the sign of that covenant. The Sabbath was for Israel.
If Sabbath was so important after the New Covenant was in effect, there would be much written, and much conviction (by the Spirit) to lead Christians into this crucial belief.
And, as you said, it’s trying to combine the two covenants. Not possible (new wine in old wineskins). So much in the NT writings that unequivocally state that the Old has faded away, it’s called the ministry of death written in letters on stone…
The reason I keep referring to the Ten Commandments is that in Jeremiah 31:33, God said He will write the law in the hearts of his people but before that, in verse 32, He made reference to the first covenant that was based on the Ten Commandments, commandments that were precisely within the ark of the covenant.
In Deuteronomy 9:9, it is written:
“When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant” which the Lord made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water."
So, here, the tables of stone, that is, the Ten Commandments, are explicitly called the tables of the covenant.
In the Old Testament, God was continuously complaining against Israel because they were going after idols (breaking the first and second commandments), they were taking the name of the Lord in vain (third commandment), breaking the sabbath (fourth commandment), dishonoring their parents (fifth commandment), killing (sixth commandment), etc. In other words, they were breaking the Ten Commandments right and left and by doing so, they were breaking the covenant that they had with God.
Now, going back to Jeremiah 31, God is not saying that He will create a new law for the new covenant. He said that He will write “the law” in the hearts of the people of Israel, that is, the law that has already been presented to Israel and that they kept breaking.
So, what is the difference between the old covenant and the new one. The difference is that in the first one, the law was written, by God, on tables of stone, the tables of the covenant (and the Israelite kept breaking it) but in the new covenant, the law, that used to be written on stone, will be written, by God also, in the mind and in the heart this time.
And in both covenants, it is God who is doing the writing of the law.
Have you looked? We attend a non-denom, verse-by-verse sermon church that you would be a good commercial for!
Do those family/friends know your viewpoints you post here? Do you mean it? You can still be friends and related while following the biblical gospel. In fact, someone such as yourself with such a discerning mind could be the deciding factor sharing the gospel for those looking for just that. Does false doctrine trump tradition or? It’s not easy. Most all of my immediate family are SDA, including a pastor. They are perfectly fine with story-telling sermons AKA topical proof-texting with EGW sprinkles each happy sabbath. Have you ever heard a consistent, verse by verse pastor where context is mandatory and proof texting impossible? Yes, it’s a bible study but pertinent to our understanding.
The problem is that the word for Law in the Jeremiah passage is Torah. The Torah is the Torah…the entire thing. It was never used to refer to the ten within Judaism, or in the OT. It simply doesn’t mean the ten.