But it seems to me that the term "law of Christ" is so vague and the evidence for Sabbath abrogation so weak that I don't see how anyone can conclude that God changed His moral code for human beings. I know we don't agree on the substantive relationship between Christ and Jehovah but, after all, Jesus did say "I and my Father are one" and if by that He didn't mean that they were one in purpose and principle, what did He mean?
It is very vague, and only occurs that one time. But even though we call it that based on that Scripture, commandments are still commandments and violating them is sin.
Agreed, of course.
Christians are under different laws that our pre-Christian brothers and sisters were.
(If you'll grant me the liberty, I'd like to approach this as a conversation more than a contention. So you really shouldn't take anything I say as an attempted rebuke or any other such related personal opposition.)
Surely something as important as this would be stated unequivocally somewhere. And I simply don't find it anywhere. In contrast with the very spectacular drama surrounding the entire event of the giving of the law at Sinai, I find only vagueries in support of the now common "New Covenant" view of morality. And the various theologies that oppose the devolvemenmt of the 4th commandment upon Christians seem to differ from one another and only complement each other amid the effort to justify setting aside the commandment.
Paul said not to judge anyone over a Sabbath, although I don't keep it, I don't frown on anyone who does, however I do find disdain for hypocrisy as you may yourself, I believe that is someone teaches you should keep the Sabbath, then they should be a prime example of observing it, correct?
Under the law covenant, a violation of the Sabbath, was to result in the death of the violator, by his brothers and sisters. You, me,, and everyone you know (I bet) has violated it, I would have been gone years ago. In this time period there would be all kinds of consequences of a faith killing Sabbath violators.
The entrance of hypocrisy into the discussion strikes me as odd since I find no occurrence of it in the way that modern Sabbath-keepers observe and teach the doctrine. If I misstep in keeping it, and no one chooses to come forth to stone me, should I somehow attempt to stone myself in order to avoid hypocrisy? Or, perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comment?
And generally speaking, I really don't understand why this objection always comes up since other commandments also warranted the death penalty during the theocracy of Israel. Also, since the wages of sin is death, all sin is either under a deferred death sentence, or imposed upon Christ Himself.
There is also the consideration of the phrase "let no man judge you in..." This is assumed by those who object to the 4th commandment as meaning "Let yourself not be bothered with..." After all, how can I keep someone else from judging me? The phrase could just as easily mean "Let no man stone you for..." according to the definitions given by the Greek lexicons. This leads back to the theocratical framework of government, which was largely concerned with the management of a traveling camp of possibly 2 million or more barbarians, since all sin has been worthy of death in all ages.
To my poor, finite mind, the more one thinks about the implications of altering or overturning the ten commandments, the more troublesome and numerous become the revelation of inevitable difficulties.
All things operate by law. God is unchanging and His law is a mirror of His character:
Righteous
* God—“The LORD is righteous in all His ways” (Psalms 145:17).
* Law—“All Your commandments are righteousness” (Psalms 119:172).
Truth
* God—“You have redeemed me, O LORD, God of truth” (Psalms 31:5).
* Law—“Your law is truth” (Psalms 119:142).
Goodness
* God—“Good and upright is the LORD” (Psalms 25:8).
* Law—“The law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12).
Everlasting
* God—“Then Abraham called on the name of the LORD, the Everlasting God” (Genesis 21:33).
* Law—“All His precepts are sure, they are upheld forever and ever” (Psalms 111:7 8).
Holiness
* God—“Be holy, for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:16).
* Law—“Therefore the law is holy” (Romans 7:12).
Love
* God—“God is love” (1 John 4:8).
* Law—“Love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13: 10).
Perfection
* God—“You shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48).
* Law—“The law of the LORDis perfect, restoring the soul” (Psalms 19:7).
Spiritual
* God—“God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24).
* Law—“For we know that the law is spiritual” (Romans 7:14).
Just
* God—“He is the Rock. His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice” (Deuteronomy 32:4).
* Law—“The law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12).
Light
* God—“God is light and in Him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5 ).
* Law—“The commandment is a lamp, and the law is light” (Proverbs 6:23).
There had to have been a time in Witness history that the Sabbath was considered compulsory for believers, no? I've actually been thinking of trying to hunt down some old Witness teaching material to see if that is the case.
Yes sir, from 1513 BCE till 33/36 CE, I put in 36 because the Law covenant was kept in force till the end of the week Barn Dan. (Daniel 9:27) 27 “And he will keep the covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week, he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease.. . .
The obvious differences we have in the interpretation of Daniel 9:27 aside, the point of my question was that there appears to be a discrepancy in the Sabbath-keeping history within the time period since C. T. Russell founded the Bible Student movement and the position you take on Sabbatarianism, isn't there?
And I can't see how folks can believe that the Christian church was out of the loop for almost 2000 years on their duty to God as regards the 4th commandment. Aren't the main Kingdom Hall worship services held every Sunday?
Lengthy subject Barn, in a nut shell, there would be a period of apostasy until the end of the appointed times of the nations at which point Jesus would sit on God's throne. 2 Thes 2:3. By the end of the apostles life, that apostasy was already well established and John penned about the many antichrists that had came on the scene. It was prophesied that when Jesus took the crown, and we entered into the last days God's people who were growing among the weeds would be brought together again. Isa 2:2,3 repeated at Micah 4:1,2. We believe that we have been in this period for over 100 yrs now, so one should be able to identify those people by Scripture.
This reply really has me scratching head, Bob. The two queries I posed here seem straightforward enough to me, anyway. Are we to believe that the Christian church as a whole was wrong in assuming that the 4th commandment was enjoining upon them? And isn't the question of whether or not main Kindom Hall worship services were held on Sunday quite the antithesis of a lengthy subject?
Aren't these questions worth asking, Bob?
Amen Barn, when everlasting life is on the line, there are no stupid questions sir. In fact I truly appreciate your asking me, and allowing me to bear testimony for my God on those concerns.
I, in turn, appreciate your kind attention, consideration, and feedback, Bob. You might just have earned a high-ranking position on my unwritten shortlist of people who are a pleasure to reason with. You are definitely winning people over with your polite and friendly manner of discussion. Sorry it took so long to get back to you (I've been very busy this week). I hope nothing I've presented here is offensive. :)