Good Morning Bob,

When I said “All I need is the Epistles” I didn’t of course mean to suggest that the Epistles were all I or anyone needs for being equipt to live our lives before God. I beleive The Gospels are essential for our understanding.

When I said “All I need is the Epistles” I meant in context, that I don’t need to go back to the OT or the Gospels to show that the 10 commandments are re-commanded so to speak for the Gentile Believers under the new covenant. It was in response to your statement…

It appears to me that Jesus on the Sermon of the Mount reaffirmes the 10 commandments, and also expands on them showing they must be followed at the heart level not just externally.

The exception of the breaking of the Sabbath/washing of hands/unclean foods to me were clear declarations by Jesus of the new age dawning. The time of the Gentiles and the Fading away of the types/symbols. These lessons were speaking of what Jesus had come to accomplish as later confirmed by Paul the apostle in whom the meaning had been revealed (Romans 14, Collosians 2:16)

It seems to me the main arguments that those who want to support homosexuality are making are along these lines:

1. The OT does not apply to Gentiles under the new covenant.
2. Jesus abolished the law and even purposely broke the law to show his disdain for it, or his opposition to it.
3. Jesus idea of Love is something different then how Paul by the filling of the Holy Spirit Defines Love.
4. Paul says alot of strange things that we should question and we need to go back to Jesus for direction .

I think there is Huge Error and subtle distortions in the above arguements. This new covenant/Time of the Gentiles and Life in the Spirit that Jesus told us was coming, did indeed come and we read scripture tell us that this same Jesus came to Paul the Apostle to give him the revelation to the Gentiles. The Apostles authenticate Paul as having received Apostleship From God to the Gentiles. In 2 Peter, Peter himself confirms this. In the book of Acts God confirms it through the Miracles Paul is able to perform through the Spirit of God witnessed by others. Paul Makes it clear in his Epistles that this Revelation he is given was not taught by men but by God himself. Even Peter had to be corrected in a vision, that this message regarding the Gentiles given to Paul was from God, not man.

Paul constantly reminds that his message is not of man but from God. Here are some samples:

Galatians 1:1
Paul, an apostle – not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father.

Galatians1:12-13
And I make known to you, brethren, the good news that were proclaimed by me, that it is not according to man, for neither did I from man receive it, nor was I taught [it], but through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

When we read Pauls writings He is pretty clear, even redundant… that the 10 commandments are to be upheld (Ephesians, Romans, Galatians etc). Not for Salvation, which is by Grace through Faith, but for Spirit Living. Paul addresses the issue of casting aside the law and living for the Flesh with an unmistakable “Absolutely Not” followed by warnings that those that want to live like that will not inherit the reign of God (which I believe can be shown to refer to the reign of God here and now in our lives vs referring to salvation).

I don’t in any way see Jesus teachings as “inferior” to the apostles. Jesus very words predicted this age of the Gentiles and time of the filling of the Spirit under the New Covenant. But the Fact is Jesus came to the lost sheep of Israel…and even commisioned his Disciples to the lost sheep of Israel…because salvation is first to the Jew and then the Gentile. We see one account of Jesus talking to the Samaritan woman (gentile) and mentioning the time coming where the true Worshippers will worship in spirit and truth. We then see Jesus Promising his disciples the Holy Spirit who will guide them into truth. Followed by Pentecost and the Spirit Filling the Gentiles. This whole age of the Gentiles was planned from eternity, spoken of in the Prophets and OT, and predicted by Jesus. Paul then was Chosen by God and taught by Jesus himself. Paul was then commisioned to reveal this plan. So when we read his writings we can be sure he is not defining Love and living for God of his own, but how he was taught it by Jesus himself, under the filling of the Spirit. So it seems to me that those who have a problem with Pauls words, really have a Problem with God’s words.

There is no question that views may differ on how to interpret and apply the bible even Peter mentions that Pauls words contain some things that are hard to understand which ignorant and unstable people distort as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). I think we all need to pray for wisdom and carefully see if our statements and lives match up with scripture. We need to strive to Love as Jesus Loved, that pure love that he displayed in the Gospels(which forgave the greatest of sins with ease and then said to go and sin no more, that threw over tables in the place of worship and also spoke harsh words to the pharisees), the kind of love that is outlined in the 10 commandments and defined by the Holy Spirit in the writings of Paul. The kind of lives that are in humility before God loving and living by the Spirit and giving no provision for the Flesh.

I agree we must wrestle with hermeneutical questions or we can find ourselves doing or believing things that God did not say or intend for us. If we want to understand what Love is we need to ask God to help us understand what true Love is as he has revealed and defined in “ton logon tou theou”. We not only read that Jesus is God’s Spoken Word (John1:1) but Jesus himself calls the commands of God spoken of by Moses “ton logon tou theou” (The word of God). In the Book of Acts we see that the Apostles ministry was moved away from serving tables to the explicit purpose of delivering this same “Word of God”.

The way I see it, God’s revelation of how Jesus loved and lived right before God is 100 percent harmonious with what he commanded in the 10 Commandments and what Paul Describes Spirit filled living and Loving to be in the Epistles. It is the same God speaking the Word of God everywhere.

I pray we all have open minds to challenge our traditions and errors and bring everything back to the Revealed Truth, me included. I also Pray we are filled with the knowledge of God’s Love and seek him out with humble hearts.

Hey Steve! You seem to explain non-epistolary Scripture as ‘irrelevant’ just as I surmised in my paragraph 2. But most of the problem I presented with such language seems to remain.

2nd, I’m saying that once you agree that Jesus presents “exceptions” among the commands, it seems inaccurate to assert that He (or Paul) “reaffirms” them as originally given and never passing away.

I also don’t grasp your argument #2, that others say Jesus’ idea of love differs from Paul’s. How are these said to be different? I argued, especially about love, that Paul consistently gets Jesus, and follows His lead.

I sense that you’re arguing that while other Scriptures present moral demands that we now see shouldn’t be followed, Paul’s own perception that homosexuality is rebelliously immoral is an abiding and authoritative value. You phrase this respected conservative perspective by saying that it was “God’s words.” But of course, e.g. the commandments that supported Peter’s rejection of Gentile behavior are equally ‘God’s words.’

So some less conservative interpreters see Scripture as written by men moved by God’s Spirit, yet still reflecting some of the vantage point of their humaness. It’s often thus seen as offering a “progressive revelation,” wherein writers’ reflection of God’s whole picture remains incomplete. Then, it’s more challenging than citing one given text and insisting that everything else is irrelevant. It could make room for becoming convinced, as in your example of Peter, that through present experience God is revealing a fuller untraditional conclusion, which may involve a way of interpreting which Biblical principles call for pre-eminence in shaping our ultimate understanding of God’s will.

There seems to be a 3 position being argued here. Kelly and Shepherd see ALL the law as applicable, even for the gentile church. Steve seems to take the view that Some of the law is applicable for the church. Bob and I would probably agree that it’s somewhere in the middle.

Steve,
You stated “The exception of the breaking of the Sabbath/washing of hands/unclean foods to me were clear declarations by Jesus of the new age dawning.”

Are you saying Jesus broke the Sabbath or would you say he did not?

Could you tell me where you found Peter’s rejection of Gentile behavior? I want to look it up.

Hey Steve. I appreciate what you’ve said about keeping the 9 commandments. You are very knowledgeable. I can see that you take what the Bible says very seriously and think it’s important. So, thanks for that. There are just a few things I want to ask and a couple things I want to comment on.

Could you tell me when Jesus broke the Sabbath or when he ever ate something unclean to show his people that the Instructions of God have passed away? (The washing of the hands is irrelevant because it is not in the “law” of God. It was a tradition of the elders, which is an extra-biblical rule that doesn’t have anything to do with what He says.)

Here, Paul is telling people not to “judge” others by what they eat or drink. To “judge” is literally to “damn”, “condemn” or “reject that which is inferior” (From the Greek). We are not supposed to judge how people celebrate the Sabbath or what they eat or drink. It is God’s job to judge our works. To say that God’s word says we shouldn’t eat things that He calls unclean is not condemning or saying that those people are damned.

Paul is warning us in verses 20-23 against self-imposed worship and false humility.

So by saying “keep the Sabbath” we are not being judgmental. Just reiterating what the Bible already says.

I don’t see where any of these verses seem to say that a new age is dawning where we don’t have to keep any of the things that God has previously said was important.

Paul is making a point in these verses that we are supposed to keep the feasts not with “do this, do that, don’t do that” rules. But, with sincerity and truth, remembering what Jesus has done for us. It’s all about remembrance and thanksgiving.

What better time to give thanks than an appointed time dedicated to giving thanks and remembering what God has done for his people in time past and what he will do for them in the future? Obviously, not for salvation. It is not supposed to be done with malice or anything evil.
Why do we not want to keep the feasts and the Sabbath?

I pray the same.
Sincerely,
EvilMIA

Hey Aug,

Sorry for the confusion, I noticed the way I phrased that was horrible and didn’t represent what I meant. I believe Jesus Broke the Sabbath in the eyes of the Pharisees and possibly many other religous people, but not according to the Word of God. I Believe with the New covenant coming Jesus was breaking down walls of falsehood and preparing for people to open up their minds about some changes coming. They had added and diminished what he had told them.

The Sabbath to me is a bit of a complex topic. Here are my thoughts on the Sabbath. I am open to corrections:

1. Jesus Broke the Sabbath according to the pharisees… but not according to the Word of God.

Jesus was born as an israelite under law (galatians 4:4) and was in every way tested and without sin (2 cor 5:21)

Jesus (as he commonly did) was in my opinion exposing the Pharisees man made traditions regarding the sabbath. Here is the Sabbath command:

Six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work" (Exodus 20:9–10).

As I Believe kelly pointed out earlier on this post, The work forbidden by the Sabbath law is “your work.” The law does not forbid works for God… just normal work. Your work is your Daily work, not the “work of God”. I think context demands this. “Your Work” defines the “no work” mentioned later.

The “work” Jesus did on the sabbath was Feed hungry disciples and heal. This from the perpective of the Pharisees because of their additional man made traditions would be breaking the Sabbath, but from the perspective of the Word of God would NOT have been breaking the Sabbath, as feeding and healing is the “Work of God”.

Notice God’s Word requiring “God Work” on the Sabbath below:

The weekly Sabbaths and the annual Sabbaths were proclaimed to be “Sacred assemblies”. (Leviticus 23)

Yet People were told to gather to hear God’s word taught, and for congregational worship which includes the “work” required to travel to the place of assembly and the “work” of the reading and explaining of God’s Word.

On the Day of Atonement the priests did the “work” of slaying animals and offering sacrifices before God. (Leviticus 16).

2. The Sabbath was meant to foreshadow things to come

(Romans 14, Collosians 2:16)

Mans struggle with Sin was dealt with in Jesus death and resurrection, though this may be fully realized at a later time.

4. The Sabbath was part of the Mosaic (Old) covenant between God and the Israelites.

ex 31:16-17, neh 9:14, ezek 20:12

5. Christians are under the new covenant (2 cor:3, Heb 8)

Christians Began to Worship on Sunday (the day of the ressurection) (matt 28:1, 1 cor 16:2)
Church Fathers confirm this.
There is no NT command (post ressurection) to keep the Sabbath (but all other 9 commandments are re-commanded in the epistles)
The Jerusalem Council (acts 15) did not instruct the gentiles to keep the Sabbath.
Paul teaches that Sabbath Keeping is not a requirement (Romans 14:5-6, gal 4:10-11,col 2:16-17)

So the Sabbath was given under the old covenant law and was between Yahweh and the Children of Israel. This was a very important command as it foreshadowed things to come. Jesus (according to Paul) kept the sabbath as an Israelite born under the law (Mosaic Covenant), Though The Pharisees believed he broke the law. We are told in the NT after Jesus death and resurection that we are under a New Covenant and that we are not required to keep sabbath days and things foreshadowing what had come. All other 9 commandments are re-commanded in the NT and expected to be followed, along with an explanation of the New Covenant which is God’s Law written on our hearts instead of stone, and the filling of the Holy Spirit as Jeremiah had prophesied and The NT writers tell us has come.

Christians under the New Covenant Began to worship, participate in God’s Work and Celebrate the Ressurection on Sunday. I think a case can be made that this sort of replaces the Israelite Sabbath, as long as it’s clear it has nothing to do with Salvation, which is by the Grace of God.

Bob,

Thanks for the reply. Before I respond I’d like to sort through some of arguements made on this thread and reread some of the articles opposing what I currently see scripture to say. I hope to have a better understanding of where you and others are coming from. Also need to get some family time in. Thanks!!

Steve, I figured you meant that I just had to make sure.

I most certainly disagree with the position that the sabbath was a vocational command. It seems obvious to me to that one has to insert (isogesis) that into the text in order to maintain the idea that Jesus was not in violation of the commandment “thou shalt not do ANY work”.

Tell me, when God sent the manna was it only the cooks who could not collect the manna? The text most clearly forbids people to bake goods, light fires (as if that were a vocation) or to do ANY work.

You seem to be alright with Jesus healing people but what about him telling the man to “pick up your mat” when the commandment states “you shall not carry a load” (jer 17). In Jer did God mean that only particular vocations could not carry a load into Jerusalem? Don’t bring a load our of your houses is part of the command? Is that for movers? And this is what God commanded of their forefathers? Did he? Perhaps God is mistaken about what he told Moses? Where in scripture does God say not to carry a load?

It seems I’ve been ignored on a rather strong point but I’ll drop it again:
If the Disciples were ALREADY eating with dirty hands then why did they not understand Jesus’ parable?
If Jesus’ declaration that you cannot contaminate torah approved foods with dirty hands why are they so perplexed at Jesus’ parable - they were already eating with unwashed hands - THEY KNEW UNWASHED HANDS DID NOT DEFILE THEIR FOOD. So it seems most likely that the catholic and protestant church is right that Mark literally is saying that all foods (jewish and gentile) are for the stomach.
After all if pork can be digested in the stomach just as beef can then what is it about pork that defiles you?

Lastly,
it’s my opinion that you are putting Jesus right there with Bob and I. When Jesus is challenged on the Sabbath laws his response to them is:

**“Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, 4 how he entered the house of God, and (D)they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? 5 Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple [c]break the Sabbath and are innocent?

Now I’ll give you my translation of Jesus’ words: I desecrate the day and yet am blameless. Do you disagree with that? If so then what is his point in using this? If you agree, then he’s as much an antagonist as we are.**

What kind of vocation do you think the Israelite’s had out there in the dessert, Auggy? I don’t think they were shoe salesmen or anything. Their vocation was having enough to eat and moving along when God did.
My example was if you are a postman, a walk may not be rest for you. Walking is not prohibited on the Sabbath.

Jer 17 is more properly “bear no burden”. “Carrying a load into or out of Jerusalem is speaking specifically about doing business. Selling goods or buying goods, which is prohibited on the Sabbath. You can see this more clearly in the book of Nehemiah. Movers? I can’t tell if you are serious here, if you’re trying to confuse the truth or if you just don’t know what the scripture is saying here. I got a pretty good laugh over it anyway, thanks!

The disciples were raised, along with many previous generations to obey the pharisees. The pharisees had this rule (IT WAS NOT TORAH (GOD’S LAW)). Jesus is clearly telling all close enough to hear that the pharisees were wicked in their hearts and their UN TORAH rules were NOT to be obeyed. After learning your whole life to obey the pharisees, they were probably wanting some clarity on Jesus’ words. At least, I would think so.

As a UR believer, you already know the gentile church has had wrong teachings from the inception of the Catholic “Universal” Church. I know it too. Most of their beliefs and practices line up pretty well with my “historical pagan” influences. The “teachers” and “leaders” in Israel were also corrupt. It really doesn’t matter what they teach. It matters what the Bible says. That is what Jesus was telling His disciples.

Have you done any research on what pork is? They eat garbage, they eat other hogs, they will eat people. They are filthy and filled with parasites. If God told us not to eat swine for no other reason than for the fact that you can be infested with parasites and your eating meat grown by ingesting garbage and other animals, shouldn’t that be enough? Swine meat hasn’t changed except to possibly become worse because our garbage is a lot worse than it used to be.
What kind of foreshadow could the food “laws” be? Well, we are the temple of God. Aren’t we? The real temple is in heaven. Our bodies are a foreshadow. The tabernacle in the wilderness and the temple in Jerusalem were foreshadows also and God forbade unclean animals in the temple. It’s worth thinking about. It may also be worth thinking about the fact that you are saying with one little sentence that Jesus wiped out His own law which had kept His people safe and made them a sign to the nations for the previous thousands of years. I don’t buy it.

Kelly yes the mover was meant in humor. But the argument I make stands: ANY work is not “vocational” work. If your argument is true that the gift of the sabbath was to rest one day out of the week from your vocational work then I would argue that the Pharisees had a better idea than God - TOTAL REST on the sabbath.

Perhaps you simply misunderstood the point but I’ll make it one last time: You say the Disciples were raised under the tradition of the elders (Pharisees) and that is why they were perplexed at Jesus’ parable that eating torah approved foods did not contaminate the food and defile the person. I don’t buy this because they were already eating their food with unwashed hands. So what perplexed them was exactly what Mark said - ALL FOODS. Now was gentile food “food”. Yes it’s uncelan food. One would have to argue from silence that Jesus MADE them eat with unwashed hands. What we DO KNOW is that they were eating with unwashed hands.

I find it hard to believe you really believe that the kingdom of God is about meat; wild. But to each their own. If you don’t want to eat bacon, have at it. I say go for it. But as for telling people they’re disobeying God because they eat pork, that’s a legalistic approach to righteousness which makes no sense to me.

That is why earlier I asked you if eating pork is immoral. If it’s breaking God’s command to eat bacon then one is unrighteouss for eating meat. And if one is unrighteouss for eating a particular meat, then Paul was wrong when he says that God’s kingdom is not about meat. I too don’t buy the legalistic view.

Circumcision is nothing? Or is it?

Lastly, you always seem to argue that the provision of the sabbath means they weren’t breaking the rules. Yet Jesus says “The preist desecrates the day”. If there are provision for a law, then when those provision are met, the law is not desecrated. So do you think Jesus (like Bob and I) was an antagonist to them by using the phrase “desecrates the day”? What do you think he meant by it? I mentioned my interpretation - I desecrate the day and yet am blameless - do you agree?

No one ever said that eating pork takes away your salvation or that we have to not eat it to be saved. It was always about believing and doing right by faith. Even in the OT. (Rom. 4:2) And you are right, circumcision is of the heart only. Not through works. (Deu 30:6; Romans 2:29)

The Priests desecrated the day to do what God says. For an example, they worked in the temple to offer sacrifices, heal people or do other things commanded (John 7:21-24). They didn’t just ignore the Sabbath so they could do what they want. In all the examples of anyone desecrating the Sabbath and being blameless we never see them “going their own way”. Only doing the work of God.

This shows that keeping the commandments is at least somewhat important to God. Of course, now we don’t have to keep them for salvation (because that would be legalistic) but, if such a big point is made through the whole Bible about God blessing us if we keep it, why do we hate it so much and think it’s so terrible?

Ok, that was funny!
You see the problem is, contrary to popular belief, we can’t just make up definitions for words and say “That is, or I have, a better definition than God gives so, I’m going with that.”. That was the sin of the pharisees and why Jesus was so harsh with them. I think the Bible still speaks to that today.

Might want to read Matt 15:1-20 for a cross reference. He calls the pharisees blind guides leading the blind because of THEIR rules and because they DO NOT follow Torah. He calls them hypocrites and says they honor Him with their lips but, their hearts are far from Him. Their rules were vanity.

I did not say the “kingdom of God is about meat”. I said if we are redeemed we should want to obey His commandments. What do you think “COMES OUT OF A MAN” when he doesn’t keep the commandments? Yeah, sin. Maybe that is what Jesus was saying, huh?
For me, it’s more of just sticking to the scripture in this conversation than a legalistic approach and “telling people they are disobeying God”.

Legalism is making up rules that aren’t God’s and following them as if they are, like the pharisees did. It is not “legalistic” to obey God’s commands after He has freely given His life to redeem you.
Play religion and make up your own rules if you wish, I will obey God because He has given me life. The world knows the hypocrisy of the church and loathes it. Many search for the God of the Bible who can save and help them change their dismal lives and you go ahead and tell them what God has said for thousands of years is not a good way to live.

Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets--I did not come to throw down, but to fulfil; for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass.Whoever therefore may loose one of these commands–the least–and may teach men so, least he shall be called in the reign of the heavens, but whoever may do and may teach them , he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens. `For I say to you, that if your righteousness may not abound above that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye may not enter to the reign of the heavens.(Mat 5:17-20)

Obeying God is not legalism. Obeying the dictates of your own mind is.

Who was circumcised of the first century church? Like every other commandment, God wants our hearts. If you are circumcised and you think that will save you, you’re wrong. If your heart is circumcised and you are true to God then your outward circumcision is a sign of that. Same for baptism.

The priests were specifically commanded by God to do His works on the Sabbath and were without sin. There is nowhere in the Bible that God says He took away the commandments.
If Jesus is our sabbath, why should that not be a sign for us, as the sabbath has always been? The Sabbath goes back to Creation. It was part of what God’s people understood BEFORE the written Torah was given. It was given from the dawning of the world. It should be important to us.

Kelly and Evil,
You both failed to answer why Jesus used the word “desecrate” except to mention the pharisees did. I asked specifically if you agree with my interpretation of Jesus’ words - I DESECRATE THE DAY AND YET AM BLAMELESS. I take it your answer is No he did not desecrate the day for to disobey any commandment is sin.

des·e·crate /ˈdɛsɪˌkreɪt/ Show Spelled[des-i-kreyt] Show IPAverb (used with object), -crat·ed, -crat·ing.
1.to divest of sacred or hallowed character or office.
2.to divert from a sacred to a profane use or purpose.
3.to treat with sacrilege; profane.

So Jesus is saying - The preist treats with sacrilege the sabbath and yet is blameless.

But moving along without beating a dead horse; I’m not arguing that Jesus disapproved of the Pharisees interpretations - that’s an axiom. What’s really being discussed is what made the pharisees think that NO WORK AT ALL could be conducted on the sabbath. Obviously without trying to beat around the bush, we see each other as carrying the interpretation of the pharisees. No doubt, that’s what we all do - we see the other party as wrong. So I think we all get it that you believe in your heart that you’re obeying God’s commands. I don’t question that at all. I simply question your interpretation of what God’s commands are. I see the law as obeying justice and mercy - NOTHING MORE. I don’t see pork as having anything to do with justice or with mercy. Anyone who loves justice and mercy and eats cat is ok with me for God’s kingdom is not about meat. However if eating cat offends you and causes you to stumble I’ll refrain. I myself don’t really have an appetite for cat. But I know people who do.

I don’t believe eating pork was ever a sin any more than David’s men could not eat the shewbread. If it goes into the stomach and is destroyed there then it cannot defile you and I take full confidence that pork can be chewed and digested and pooped just like beef.

As for the parasites, God should have taken a few cooking classes and learned how to cook the meat properly (yes more humor). But on a serious note God should have understood that swordfish is not bad for you. And anything in moderation is permissible. If pigs are fed properly and raised in a clean enviroment, is it lawful to eat? LOL.

For me it’s not hard to see why the Pharisees had the additions - A man collects wood on the sabbath, God says he must die. He must have been a lumberjack Seriously - he died becasue the law over and over states YOU SHALL NOT DO ANY KIND OF WORK. If God meant provisional work, he sure made it unclear because all we see through the history is people not collecting manna - when that could have been a good thing - or people dying for collecting wood.

And tell me when the scripture states - do not light a fire - who’s vocation was that?

Sorry, it’s obvious to me that people don’t sympathize with the pharisees enough. God’s law was a burden for the jews and there’s just no other way for me to see it.

Another thought. Kelly you support that it is proper to tell Nazi’s, while hiding jews in your home, that you’re not hiding jews is not a lie, I would challenge you on that.

Bearing false witness to you neighbor is lying. (and your enemies are neighbors).

I would say lie to the Nazis (break the command) in order to support mercy (hiding the jews) and when we do, we desecrate the law and yet are blameless. In truth I would argue we are doing God’s will and therefore are not true law breakers.

But you seem to play both sides of the fence. On the scenario mentioned above you seem to insert your own interpretation on what it means to bear false witness to a neighbor. I have no issue with using liberal interpretations, but you seem to want literal interpretations when needed - that to me is what the pharisees did. They didn’t know what constitutes work exactly and God wasn’t exactly spelling it out for them. If God meant vocational work, he should have said so.

The literal interpretation is exactly what they followed. In the context God says “DO ALL THY WORK” which is beyond vocational. It means ANY work you have including your vocational shall be done before the sabbath.

If you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the work God commanded us to refrain from is vocation, I’d appreciate it if you did. But the passages I’ve read all seem clear to me to say - any work you’re going to do during the week do before the sabbath - for on that day you shall rest ENTIRELY. For the rest in Jesus is COMPLETE and not partial.

That’s probably why you are having a hard time hearing what I’m saying but, I respect your decision not to listen and your choice to end the conversation.
Blessings.

O the happiness of those perfect in the way, They are walking in the law of Jehovah, O the happiness of those keeping His testimonies, With the whole heart they seek Him. (Psa 119:1-2)
And meet me doth Thy kindness, O Jehovah, Thy salvation according to Thy saying. And I answer him who is reproaching me a word, For I have trusted in Thy word.
And Thou takest not utterly away From my mouth the word of truth, Because for Thy judgment I have hoped. And I keep Thy law continually, To the age and for ever.
And I walk habitually in a broad place, For Thy precepts I have sought. And I speak of Thy testimonies before kings, And I am not ashamed. And I delight myself in Thy commands, That I have loved, And I lift up my hands unto Thy commands, That I have loved, And I do meditate on Thy statutes! (Psa 119:41-48)
Good Thou didst with Thy servant, O Jehovah, According to Thy word. The goodness of reason and knowledge teach me, For in Thy commands I have believed.(Psa 119:65-66)
Thy righteousness is righteousness to the age, And Thy law is truth. (Psa 119:142)
The sum of Thy word is truth, And to the age is every judgment of Thy righteousness!(Psa 119:160)

to the age. the age ended when Jesus died on the cross. when a change of priesthood occurs a change in the law comes with it. just as an age ends when Noah steps out of the ark and new laws are given

That’s interesting considering . . . . .
And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.
(Mar 12:28-34)

And . . .
And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (Mat 19:16-17)

And . . .
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
(Rom 3:31)

Kelly, I’m listening I just don’t agree. I think you’re listening you just don’t agree.

In acts 15 men come to the apostles regarding the issue of the gentiles must follow the law of Moses. Peter responds by saying this yoke (the law) was one which their fathers could not carry and that they themselves were saved by grace. Do you not see the connection from our vantage point?

I’m sorry if I implied I was ending the conversation. Truth be told I’ve enjoyed talking to you and Evil. If I offended you with the humor of movers and the pharisees having better ideas then God, well I didn’t mean to offend. I only meant to make points (while using silly and extreme example) in order to show the reasons you gave make no sense to me.

Blessings to you as well.

What are we going to do with this Mag? Much of christianity has already excluded the “ot”. Now we must exclude Psalms and Proverbs from our reading. Then get rid of the references to keeping the commandments in the “nt”. If we keep excluding the Ot scriptures from our belief system we won’t even be able to believe the nt anymore because it is rooted deeply in the Ot. It seems that is where many are, that don’t even believe the Bible is truth. Without it people make up their own god (usually themselves, their own ideas, etc). This is idolatry. If I am in error, I’d rather it was by responding to salvation by “overdoing” God’s Word.

If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
(Joh 14:7)
If ye love me, keep my commandments.
(Joh 14:15)
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
(Joh 14:21)

love God, love others…Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. Notice He didn’t say and make sure you keep all 611 other laws.

those are the laws of the kingdom, the kingdom of God is within us. The mosaic laws were given for the natural. They were given for the literal land of canaan, they had temporal blessings associated with them. If you______ then ______. They were a shadow. The truth has come. All those things were given for our example, on whom the end of the age has come

In romans when he says we establish the law, he just got done saying what the purpose of the law is, to declare sin,
Rom 3:21
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;