Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Col. 2:16 and Sabbath Keeping | Acts | Morant61 | 18876 | ||
Greetings Yoshua! You said in your post that there was no verse in the Bible that validates Sunday as the Day of the Lord, but there is a verse in the Bible that invalidates Sabbath keeping - Col. 2:16. Col. 2:13-17 says, "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. 16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." The clear teaching of this passage is that the Law is fulfilled in Christ (Rom. 8:2) and no longer has authority over Christians (Gal. 3:25 and Heb. 7:12). As such, we can no longer be judged about Sabbath keeping. From past experience, I know that you will probably reply that the Sabbath in Col. 2:16 is plural and therefore does not apply to the weekly Sabbath. However, there are two reasons why this argument will not work: 1) The Greek word for Sabbath ('Sabbaton') is used interchangebly in both the singular and the plural. The word is used 68 times in the New Testament, and only once does it refer to more than one Sabbath (Acts 17:2). There we know it refers to more than one Sabbath because there is a numeral in the text telling us that it does. There are even several verses where the plural Sabbath is used with the singular day (Luke 4:16, Acts 13:14, and 16:13) This is conclusive proof that the Sabbath referred to in Col. 2:16 is the weekly Sabbath. 2) The second proof that the weekly Sabbath is referred to in Col. 2:16 is the fact that this list is taken from Num. 28 and 29. In these two chapters, we find the exact same issues dealt with as Paul deals with in Col. 2 - Yearly festivals, monthly feasts, and weekly Sabbaths. So, here we have one clear Bible passage that specifically says that we can no longer be judged based upon Sabbath keeping. It doesn't say that someone can't worship on the Sabbath if they choose to do so. It just says that no one can be judged for not doing it. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Col. 2:16 and Sabbath Keeping | Acts | Makarios | 19009 | ||
Excellent post Tim! Here's a little to "back you up".. :) "Or in respect of a holy day—Margin, part. The meaning is, “in the part, or the particular of a holy day; that is, in respect to it” The word rendered “holy-day”— —means properly a “feast” or “festival;” and the allusion here is to the festivals of the Jews. The sense is, that no one had a right to impose their observance on Christians, or to condemn them if they did not keep them. They had been delivered from that obligation by the death of Christ; Col. 2:14." (...) "Or of the new moon—On the appearance of the new moon, among the Hebrews, in addition to the daily sacrifices, two bullocks, a ram, and seven sheep, with a meat offering, were required to be presented to God; Num. 10:10; 28:11-14. The new moon in the beginning of the month Tisri (October) was the beginning of their civil year, and was commanded to be observed as a festival; Lev. 23:24, 25. Or of the Sabbath days—Greek, “of the Sabbaths.” The word Sabbath in the Old Testament is applied not only to the seventh day, but to all the days of holy rest that were observed by the Hebrews, and particularly to the beginning and close of their great festivals. There is, doubtless, reference to those days in this place, since the word is used in the plural number, and the apostle does not refer particularly to the Sabbath properly so called. There is no evidence from this passage that he would teach that there was no obligation to observe any holy time, for there is not the slightest reason to believe that he meant to teach that one of the ten commandments had ceased to be binding on mankind. If he had used the word in the singular number—“THE Sabbath,” it would then, of course, have been clear that he meant to teach that that commandment had ceased to be binding, and that a Sabbath was no longer to be observed. But the use of the term in the plural number, and the connection, show that he had his eye on the great number of days which were observed by the Hebrews as festivals, as a part of their ceremonial and typical law, and not to the moral law, or the Ten Commandments. No part of the moral law—no one of the ten commandments could be spoken of as “a shadow of good things to come.” These commandments are, from the nature of moral law, of perpetual and universal obligation." Taken from Barnes' Notes on the NT - Nolan |
||||||
3 | Col. 2:16 and Sabbath Keeping | Acts | Reformer Joe | 19025 | ||
Nolan: It seems to me that Barnes' view contradicts Tim's rather than supports it, if I am understanding Tim to say that the Fourth Commandment is no longer applicable to believers. --Joe! |
||||||
4 | Col. 2:16 and Sabbath Keeping | Acts | Makarios | 19028 | ||
Hello Joe, The following is a little bit "easier reading", and it also supports what Tim and I are trying to say.. "This liberation of believers pertains also to festivals such as a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath Day (cf. Gal. 4:10). Those who would bring Christians under the bondage of the Law make artificial distinctions between the “ceremonial” and “moral” law, and so they say the Sabbath has not passed away. That this is false can be seen from the following: (1) The Sabbath command is the only one of the Ten Commandments not repeated in the New Testament. (2) The early believers, following Christ’s resurrection and appearance on Sunday (Mark 16:1; John 20:1), met on Sundays (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). (3) The Bible nowhere distinguishes between the so-called “moral” and “ceremonial” laws (this distinction was not made before the 13th century A.D.) (4) This Colossian passage explicitly condemns those who command Sabbath obedience. (5) As Paul put it, the Old Testament Law (including the Sabbath) was only a shadow of the things that were to come. The reality or “substance” (, lit., “body”), however, is to be found in Christ (cf. Heb. 8:5; 10:1). What the Old Testament foreshadowed, Christ fulfilled (cf. Matt. 5:17; Rom. 8:3-4). A “shadow” is only an image cast by an object which represents its form. Once one finds Christ, he no longer needs to follow the old shadow." (The Bible Knowledge Commentary: NT) Your Brother in Christ, Nolan |
||||||
5 | Col. 2:16 and Sabbath Keeping | Acts | Reformer Joe | 19052 | ||
I understand the Dallas Theological Seminary view, as wrong as it is on this point. This quote doesn't seem to be in line with what you pasted earlier from Barnes. So, according to the DTS authors of the Bible Knowledge Commentary, we are down to 9 commandments, only those specifically re-stated in the New Testament (another proposition I disagree with, since Christ was a Sabbath advocate, although not in the legalistic sense that the Pharisees were). Why aren't these other nine part of the "shadow of things to come"? Why can I disregard a Sabbath rest, but not consider that pesky anti-murder law to be a thing of the past as well? After all, there is no distinction between ceremonial and moral law, is there? I know you are only quoting someone else here, Nolan, but I do agree with Barnes' view a lot more than those who insist that something must be repeated in Paul's epistles to carry any weight for the believer. After all, is ALL Scripture profitable or not (2 Timothy 3:16)? --Joe! |
||||||
6 | Col. 2:16 and Sabbath Keeping | Acts | Makarios | 19057 | ||
Joe, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" (2 Tim. 3:16) You obviously need to go back and re-read what I have posted concerning Barnes' Notes on Col. 2:16. Did you REALLY read that Joe? Also, on which day do you go to church Joe? Do you worship on Saturday or Sunday? Here is MY evidence for Sunday being the correct day for us to assemble, according to church history. * * * (Repost) * * * We should worship on Sunday, the "Lord's day." Although the moral principles expressed in the Ten Commandments are reaffirmed in the NT, the command to set Saturday apart as a day of rest and worship is the only commandment not repeated. There are very good reasons for this. 1. New Testament believers are not under the Old Testament law (Romans 6:14; Galatians 3:24,25; Hebrews 7:12). 2. Jesus resurrected and appeared to some of His followers on the first day of the week (Sunday) (Matthew 28:1). 3. Jesus continued His appearances on succeeding Sundays (John 20:19,26). 4. The descent of the Holy Spirit took place on a Sunday (Acts 2:1). 5. The early church was thus given the pattern of Sunday worship, and this they continued to do regularly (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). 6. Sunday worship was further hallowed by our Lord who appeared to John in that last great vision on "the Lord's Day" (Revelation 1:10). 7. Finally, in Colossians 2:16 we read, "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day." (NIV) This verse indicates that the distinctive holy days of the Old Testament are no longer binding on New Testament believers. It is for reasons such as these that Christians worship on Sunday, rather than on the Jewish Sabbath. Your Brother in Christ, Nolan |
||||||