Why we are not supposed to keep the Sabbath

[HIM]

Another possibility is that he is objecting to being told to eat clean animals of unknown provenance. Since Leviticus talks about certain events that can make an otherwise clean food unclean (akatharos), that could be what Peter is objecting to

Are you referring to a scripture passage about intermingling of animals? If so, which one?

Anything touching the unclean or defiled was defiled or unclean until cleansed.

An Animal that is created unclean was never cleansed or made clean. It remained so. But if something touched it. it was defiled therefore unclean.

Just like if someone or something came in contact with a menstruating woman, a corpse or any s thing that was unclean or defiled.

Lev 5:2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.

Lev 7:19 And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire: and as for the flesh, all that be clean shall eat thereof.

Does the text state what God has cleansed?

Yes explicitly, by not mentioning the unclean.

Acts 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

It looks to me like the purpose of the vision is to tell Peter not to be afraid to go into Cornelius s house. In Acts 10:28, Peter says he has learned not to call any person common or unclean.

Yes.

Thus it seems reasonable to me that God is cleansing not only that which is common, but that which is unclean. And that's true of both animals and humans

God never said He cleansed the unclean animals. He only mentions cleansing the common in respect to the vision

In Romans 14:20, Paul writes that everything is clean (καθαρά)

The context is things that were defiled by circumstance, therefore common not that which was created unclean.

Lev 5:2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.

Lev 7:19 And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire: and as for the flesh, all that be clean shall eat thereof.

 

[Diamond72]

Instead of preaching, select one verse you believe is saying that we (Christians) are told to keep the Mosaic Law Sabbath rest.

Do you know what the Sabbath is? It is a day of rest, a day of worship and a day of fellowship. Why would anyone NOT want to keep the Sabbath? The Sabbath was made to benefit man. There is nothing better than to worship God with our Brothers and Sisters in the Lord. Maybe the problem is people are in a "dead" church that does not know HOW to enter into the presence of God. I have never seen a dead church but I hear people talk about them.

 

[Leaf473]

Seems you be looking for another loophole.

Foul, personal attack

I'm exploring your reasoning

Anything touching the unclean or defiled was defiled or unclean until cleansed.

An Animal that is created unclean was never cleansed or made clean. It remained so. But if something touched it. it was defiled therefore unclean.

Just like if someone or something came in contact with a menstruating woman, a corpse or any s thing that was unclean or defiled.

Lev 5:2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.

Lev 7:19 And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire: and as for the flesh, all that be clean shall eat thereof.

Leviticus 5:2 talks about the clean becoming unclean

So following that out, everything in the sheet would be unclean

Assuming the things in the sheet were touching each other

ἡ ψυχὴ ἐκείνη, ἥτις ἐὰν ἅψηται παντὸς πράγματος ἀκαθάρτου, ἢ θνησιμαίου, ἢ θηριαλώτου ἀκαθάρτου, ἢ τῶν θνησιμαίων βδελυγμάτων τῶν ἀκαθάρτων, ἢ τῶν θνησιμαίων κτηνῶν τῶν ἀκαθάρτων

Λευιτικόν - Κεφάλαιο 5 - Septuagint Text of Leviticus - The Septuagint: LXX

5 ΕΑΝ δὲ ψυχὴ ἁμάρτῃ, καὶ ἀκούσῃ φωνὴν ὁρκισμοῦ, καὶ οὗτος μάρτυς, ἢ ἑώρακεν, ἢ σύνοιδεν, ἐὰν μὴ ἀπαγγείλῃ, λήψεται τὴν ἁμαρτίαν. 2 ἡ ψυχὴ ἐκείνη, ἥτις ἐὰν ἅψηται παντὸς πράγματος ἀκαθάρτου, ἢ...

www.septuagint.bible

If we don't assume they were touching, then there may have been clean animals in the sheet, as well

Yes explicitly, by not mentioning the unclean.

Acts 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

I believe that would be implicit, not explicit

It's a possible reading, but not one required by the text

Yes.

God never said He cleansed the unclean animals. He only mentions cleansing the common in respect to the vision

The text doesn't state what God cleansed. It just says that what he has cleansed, don't call common

When it comes to humans, there are things that can make a human not just common but unclean

For example, for all Peter knew, someone in Cornelius's house had this kind of skin condition
πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας, ὅσας ἐὰν ᾖ ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν ἡ ἁφή, ἀκάθαρτος ὢν ἀκάθαρτος ἔσται, κεχωρισμένος καθήσεται, ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς αὐτοῦ ἔσται ἡ διατριβή

Λευιτικόν - Κεφάλαιο 13 - Septuagint Text of Leviticus - The Septuagint: LXX

13 ΚΑΙ ἐλάλησε Κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν καὶ ᾿Ααρὼν λέγων· 2 ἀνθρώπῳ ἐάν τινι γένηται ἐν δέρματι χρωτὸς αὐτοῦ οὐλὴ σημασίας τηλαυγής, καὶ γένηται ἐν δέρματι χρωτὸς αὐτοῦ ἁφὴ λέπρας, ἀχθήσεται πρὸς...

www.septuagint.bible

Thus God made unclean humans clean. But this is contrary to what is stated in the law

If we are comparing Peter's story in Acts 10 and 11 to Romans 14, then we see that Romans is talking about a change in the law

Which would then reasonably be applied to food and days as well as humans

The context is things that were defiled by circumstance, therefore common not that which was created unclean.

Lev 5:2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.

Lev 7:19 And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire: and as for the flesh, all that be clean shall eat thereof.

That's a possible reading of the context of Romans 14

It looks to me like the more probable reading is that it refers to all foods, all days, all things

 

[Leaf473]

Do you know what the Sabbath is? It is a day of rest, a day of worship and a day of fellowship.

Why would anyone NOT want to keep the Sabbath?

I love the idea of the Sabbath, it's the ritual I disagree with,

the ritual of evening of a certain day to evening of the next day

The Sabbath was made to benefit man. There is nothing better than to worship God with our Brothers and Sisters in the Lord. Maybe the problem is people are in a "dead" church that does not know HOW to enter into the presence of God. I have never seen a dead church but I hear people talk about them.

 

[HIM]

Foul, personal attack

That ain’t how I see it, but I edited it nonetheless. Take care.

 

[HIM]

It looks to me like the more probable reading is that it refers to all foods, all days, all things

It doesn’t matter what it looks to you, me or anyone for that matter. What matters is what was written by the Spirit through Paul.
Paul did not mention the un clean. You assume that he meant it. Good for you.
I’m done with this. Take care.

 

[Aaron112]

the ritual of evening of a certain day to evening of the next day

In the beginning, YHVH Created......

His Perfect Plan

 

[Leaf473]

It doesn’t matter what it looks to you, me or anyone for that matter. What matters is what was written by the Spirit through Paul.

Paul did not mention the un clean.

That's correct. But he does say, "all things".

You assume that he meant it.

Not an assumption; what is stated is: "all things".

Good for you.
I’m done with this. Take care.

And may the peace of the Lord be always with you

 

[Clare73]

Premises:
1. The Sabbath was a part of the Mosaic Law and of the Mosaic Law only.
2. The Law was only for Jews, since Moses till Christ.
3. Even the book of Genesis was a theological part of the Mosaic Law and is not literal (namely in its creation account).

If these premises are all true, we are not supposed to keep the Sabbath.

True. . .the Sabbath rest was for man and from physical work.

The OT Sabbath rest was for man and was from physical work for his natural life.
The NT Sabbath rest in Jesus Christ is for man and is from spiritual work for his spiritual life (salvation, which is only by faith in Christ).

 

[DamianWarS]

Premises:
1. The Sabbath was a part of the Mosaic Law and of the Mosaic Law only.
2. The Law was only for Jews, since Moses till Christ.
3. Even the book of Genesis was a theological part of the Mosaic Law and is not literal (namely in its creation account).

If these premises are all true, we are not supposed to keep the Sabbath.

You will have to be more clear. There are a lot of useful things from law, even for christians, a lot of the NT for example is based off of law, it even quotes it. Sabbath is also an explicit NT value (it's mentioned a lot)

So if the law is only for the Jews, or Sabbath only for the Mosaic law then what aspect is only for the Jews/Mosaic law? Is it only for the Jews to stand on? Only for the Jews to eat? There needs to be some sort of qualifier in there to establish what aspect of the law is only for the Jews because there is certainly a lot that extends beyond the Jews.

For example, reading the 4th commandment we see that it is spoken to the context of the head of the household who is responsible with keeping sabbath for their household and those under their care. Even slaves and animals need to be given rest. The thing with slaves and animals (or for that matter any member of their household) is they have no authority to rest and they may only rest if rest is given to them by one with authority, the one with authority is the master of the household. That is a powerful salvation metaphor. As we too cannot take salvation because we have no authority to take it. The only way to receive salvation is for it to be given to us by the one with authority who is our master.

These are values still alive and teachable for today embedded in law in plain sight. They are not just for the Jews or locked in a bygone system of law. They are for all to hear and all to receive. So you will need to unpack what you mean by only for the Jews.

 

[BobRyan]

Premises:
1. The Sabbath was a part of the Mosaic Law and of the Mosaic Law only.
2. The Law was only for Jews, since Moses till Christ.
3. Even the book of Genesis was a theological part of the Mosaic Law and is not literal (namely in its creation account).

If these premises are all true, we are not supposed to keep the Sabbath.

And if they are all false? What then?

1. Sabbath is to be kept for all eternity after the cross - even after the 2nd coming - in the New Earth Is 66:23 where "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to bow down". Acts 18:4 "every Sabbath" Paul preached the gospel to both gentiles and Jews. No text says "Every week day 1 - Paul preached to both gentiles and Jews".

2. Sabbath was "made for mankind" Mark 2:27 not "made just for Jews"

3. Creation week in Gen 1-2:3 is literal as even the Law of God dictates
in Ex 20:8-11 "for in six days the Lord made... and rested the seventh day.."

 

[sparow]

Premises:
1. The Sabbath was a part of the Mosaic Law and of the Mosaic Law only.
2. The Law was only for Jews, since Moses till Christ.
3. Even the book of Genesis was a theological part of the Mosaic Law and is not literal (namely in its creation account).

If these premises are all true, we are not supposed to keep the Sabbath.

Where do these premises come from, have you made them up? That the law in anyway is abrogated is always assumed or concocted by men. The reason the Law was given to Israel through Moses is God made a covenant of which the Sabbath is a critical part. If a person was not in covenant with God, the Sabbath would not apply or be a premise or sign.

 

[trophy33]

And if they are all false? What then?

In a formal argument, if premises are true, then the conclusion is also true.

If premises are false, then the conclusion is also false.

If we cannot agree on whether the premises are true or false, then we cannot get to the conclusion and we are stuck.

 

[trophy33]

Where do these premises come from, have you made them up?

I formulated them after thinking about the issue and after seeing that the conversations about the issue are messy, random and chaotic, full of sectarian bias and repetitive.

 

[Jerry N.]

Romans 11:11-31

If we are graphed into the root of Israel, then keeping the Sabbath is a good thing. It is for mankind. However, it is better to keep the Sabbath for devotion to God and out of conviction rather than fear. The Sabbath is indeed eternal. Fear alone will make it difficult and unpleasant, and that is not pleasing to God.

 

[trophy33]

Romans 11:11-31

If we are graphed into the root of Israel, then keeping the Sabbath is a good thing.

This is a very strange choice of words and an illogical conclusion. Not found in the biblical text you provided.

 

[Jerry N.]

This is a very strange choice of words and an illogical conclusion. Not found in the biblical text you provided.

I referenced more than was really needed, because Paul does not say directly that the olive tree is Israel. However, that is what has been understood by many scholars.
The key verses are 16 - 18:
“16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.”

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

This is a very strange choice of words and an illogical conclusion. Not found in the biblical text you provided.

Your premises contain true elements but are all false therefore we cannot conclude anything from them. You cannot disprove the sabbath observance with this. You simply do not know scripture.

1. The Sabbath was a part of the Mosaic Law and of the Mosaic Law only.
2. The Law was only for Jews, since Moses till Christ.
3. Even the book of Genesis was a theological part of the Mosaic Law and is not literal (namely in its creation account).

Can you spot the mistakes for each? Just do your homework and see.

I just hope you are not a Math teacher.

 

[trophy33]

I referenced more than was really needed, because Paul does not say directly that the olive tree is Israel. However, that is what has been understood by many scholars.
The key verses are 16 - 18:
“16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.”

The root is Jesus. Both Jews and Gentiles are branches, in this image of Paul.

 

[Jerry N.]

The root is Jesus. Both Jews and Gentiles are branches, in this image of Paul.

In Romans 11:16:

“If the firstfruit is holy: The firstfruit probably represents the first Christians, who were Jewish. Their conversion was something holy and good for the church. After all, each of the apostles and most of the human authors of Scripture were Jewish. If the conversion of this firstfruit was good for the Gentiles, how much better will it be when the complete harvest is brought in!”

“Many commentators take the firstfruit here as the patriarchs, but it fits better to see it as the original core group of Christians – who were each Jewish.”

Enduring Word Bible Commentary Romans Chapter 11
I should have referred to the "firstfruit," but the olive tree could also be Israel.