Was the Sabbath kept prior to the Commandments at Sinai?

[Soyeong]

Shall we follow the one standing in the new temple when he arrives?

I didn't say that.

 

[CrowCross]

I didn't say that.

I'm happy to hear you don't have that opinion.

 

[Fred]

A new covenant can have the same laws (Hebrews 8:10),

Not when it comes to what God has declared:

Hebrews 7:12
For the priesthood changed changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

 

[Soyeong]

Not when it comes to what God has declared:

Hebrews 7:12
For the priesthood changed changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), so any instructions that God has ever given for how to testify about His righteousness are therefore also eternal (Psalms 119:160), and if those instructions were to ever change, then God's righteousness would not be eternal, so Hebrews 7:12 could not be referring to a change of the law in regard to its content, such as with it becoming righteous to commit murder or sinful to help the poor, but rather the context is in regard to a change in the priesthood, which would require a change of the law in regard to its administration.

Again, in Deuteronomy 13:1-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Torah, so either your interpretation of Hebrews is correct and you should think the it was written by a false prophet or your interpretation of Hebrews is incorrect, but either way you should still obey the Torah in accordance with being under the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:33).

 

[Soyeong]

I'm happy to hear you don't have that opinion.

Sorry, it's not clear to me what your question had to do with what I said.

 

[CrowCross]

Sorry, it's not clear to me what your question had to do with what I said.

Are you saying it's a sin to work on Saturday?
and...
Are you saying it's a sin to worship on Sunday?

 

[Fred]

Hebrews 7:12 could not be referring to a change of the law in regard to its content

See my first two sentences in post 17.

 

[Soyeong]

See my first two sentences in post 17.

See post #20.

 

[Soyeong]

Are you saying it's a sin to work on Saturday?

Sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4) and God's law commands not to work on the 7th day (Exodus 20:8-11), so it is a sin to work on the 7th day.

and...
Are you saying it's a sin to worship on Sunday?

No, God's law does not command to refrain from worshiping on Sunday. We should worship God on every day, which includes worshiping God on Sunday and obeying His command to keep the 7th day holy.

 

[Fred]

See post #20.

See post 23.

 

[Fred]

Sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4) and God's law commands not to work on the 7th day (Exodus 20:8-11), so it is a sin to work on the 7th day.

Does God command Christian males to be physically circumcised?

 

[Soyeong]

See post 23.

See post #24. There's no particular reason why different covenants need to have different sets of rules. For example, there are many different marriage covenants that all have the same set of rules.

Does God command Christian males to be physically circumcised?

Either Paul only spoke against becoming physically circumcised for incorrect reasons or according to Galatians 5:2, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised after the Jerusalem Council (Acts 16:4) and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld God's law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason, which should not be mistaken as being a ruling against obeying what God has commanded, as if they had the authority to countermand God.

 

[Fred]

See post #24.

Contradicts Hebrews 8:13.

There's no particular reason why different covenants need to have different sets of rules.

Hebrews 7:12
For the priesthood changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

For example, there are many different marriage covenants that all have the same set of rules.

False comparison.
See Hebrews 8:13.

Either Paul only spoke against becoming physically circumcised for incorrect reasons or according to Galatians 5:2, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised after the Jerusalem Council (Acts 16:4) and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld God's law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason, which should not be mistaken as being a ruling against obeying what God has commanded, as if they had the authority to countermand God.

A simple yes or no will do. I don't need a sermon.

 

[Soyeong]

Contradicts Hebrews 8:13.

Hebrews 8:13 speaks about the Mosaic Covenant becoming obsolete, but does not say anything about God's law becoming obsolete. If you think that Deuteronomy 13:1-5, contradicts your interpretation of Hebrews 8:13, then you should either reject your interpretation of Hebrews 8:13 or you should reject the truth of Hebrews 8:13, but either way you should still obey the Torah under the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:33, Hebrews 8:10).

Hebrews 7:12
For the priesthood changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The change of the law is in regard to its administration, not in regard to its content. The context of Hebrews 7:12 has nothing to do with changes to the content of the law like it becoming righteous to commit murder or sinful to help the poor, so you are taking that verse out of context. Moreover, you are ignoring that your position is contradictory that God's righteousness is eternal while the way to testify about his righteousness changes.

False comparison.
See Hebrews 8:13.

It is an example that demonstrates that a different covenant does not imply that it follows a different set of laws. The Mosaic Covenant becoming obsolete does not mean that the New Covenant does not involve God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33, Hebrews 8:10).

A simple yes or no will do. I don't need a sermon.

While there are incorrect reasons for becoming circumcised that are not in accordance with what God has commanded, such as in order to become saved, therefore are nevertheless correct reasons for becoming circumcised that are in accordance with obeying what God has commanded, such as if a Gentile wanted to eat of the Passover lamb (Exodus 12:48).

 

[CrowCross]

Sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4) and God's law commands not to work on the 7th day (Exodus 20:8-11), so it is a sin to work on the 7th day.


No, God's law does not command to refrain from worshiping on Sunday. We should worship God on every day, which includes worshiping God on Sunday and obeying His command to keep the 7th day holy.

What do you do to keep the 7th day holy? I'm guessing nothing.

 

[Fred]

Hebrews 8:13 speaks about the Mosaic Covenant becoming obsolete, but does not say anything about God's law becoming obsolete.

That's right, because the New Covenant has laws.
The Old Covenant has been abrogated.

 

[Soyeong]

What do you do to keep the 7th day holy? I'm guessing nothing.

Why would you assume that? I refrain from work and spend the day at my congregation.

 

[Soyeong]

That's right, because the New Covenant has laws.
The Old Covenant has been abrogated.

The New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33, Hebrews 8:10). It was a sin to commit adultery in Genesis 39:9 before the Mosaic Covenant, it was a sin during it, it remains a sin after the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete, and that will never change no matter how many covenants God makes or become obsolete because the sinfulness of adultery is not based on a particular covenant, so a new covenant does not mean a different set of laws. All of God's covenants are made with the same God with the same eternal nature, so the way to testify about His nature is therefore likewise eternal.

 

[CrowCross]

Why would you assume that? I refrain from work and spend the day at my congregation.

My position is found here:
However, those who choose to practice Sabbath-keeping should not judge those who do not keep the Sabbath (Colossians 2:16). Further, those who do not keep the Sabbath should avoid being a stumbling block (1 Corinthians 8:9) to those who do keep the Sabbath. ref

 

[Fred]

The New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33, Hebrews 8:10). It was a sin to commit adultery in Genesis 39:9 before the Mosaic Covenant, it was a sin during it, it remains a sin after the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete

Because the New Covenant teaches it is a sin.