Remember the Sabbath Day to Keep it Holy

[Jayhawker Soule]

who expelled whom from the Temple in the first place?

The Romans.

 

[Muffled]

IMO, it's neither. From reading the bible, it doesn't say God created the earth Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and rested on Saturday. It just said he worked 6 days and rested the 7th. So, for me, my Sabbath is Sunday since I have that day off. For others, it might be some other day of the week since they work Saturday and Sunday. I think the Sabbath being celebrated on either day is due to tradition.

As far as I can tell God never appointed days of the week. If the Jews of Moses time had days of the week, it was from their own device and there would have been a seventh day if they defined their week as seven days.

As far as a Sabbath observance Paul says:

Rom. 14:4 Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own lord he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be made to stand; for the Lord hath power to make him stand. 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord: and he that eateth, eateth unto the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, unto the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

The church settled the controversy between Paul and the Judaizers in favor of Paul. It is not anti-semitism to not wish to be bound to Jewish law. If someone wishes to be bound to it, I have no problem with it as long as they don't try to compel other people to be bound along with them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The church settled the controversy between Paul and the Judaizers in favor of Paul. It is not anti-semitism to not wish to be bound to Jewish law.

Again:

It was not changed. It was rejected and replaced:

Canon XXIX.

Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ. [Council of Laodicea]​

It is not difficult to recognize the precursor to the most virulent antisemitism in this rejection.

The fact remains that the Council of Laodicea rejects, not the idea that Shabbat falls on Saturday, but that it should be observed.

 

[rstrats]

Muffled,
re: "As far as a Sabbath observance Paul says: Rom. 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord: and he that eateth, eateth unto the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, unto the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks."

As for Romans 14:5, the subject of the chapter from start to finish has to do with what people eat. Paul is writing about asceticism. Some in the church at Rome believed Christians should eat only vegetables. Paul calls these people "weak in the faith" (verses 1-2). The stronger in faith know they could also eat meat. Nothing in God’s law prescribes vegetarianism. The stronger in faith knew they were free from non-biblical asceticism. A part of the controversy that had sprung up between the weak and the strong Christians was the esteeming of days. In Rome some people had the pagan idea that on certain days certain foods should or should not be eaten. In this whole chapter Paul was just showing that others should not be offended, particularly weak members who have not yet learned the truth about the proper Christian diet and that they should not be judged by the stronger in the faith. This passage has nothing to do with the Sabbath.

 

[sojourner]

The Romans.

Interesting. I thought it was the Jews...
Are you talking about the destruction of the Temple in 70 c.e.? If so, were the Christians not expelled earlier by the Jewish leadership?

 

[sojourner]

Again:The fact remains that the Council of Laodicea rejects, not the idea that Shabbat falls on Saturday, but that it should be observed.

Interesting stuff. However, at least from a Christian POV, by the time Jesus was on the scene, observance of Shabbat had become, in a manner of speaking, "work," in that there was so much fine print to the Law, that it became difficult to follow correctly, i.e., what did or did not constitute "work." Does not the Council's decision, while it might seem to reject Shabbat, actually restore the spirit of that commandment, making rest more like ... rest?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

However, at least from a Christian POV, by the time Jesus was on the scene, observance of Shabbat had become, in a manner of speaking, "work," in that there was so much fine print to the Law, that it became difficult to follow correctly, i.e., what did or did not constitute "work."

Can you supply a reference to this "fine print"?

Does not the Council's decision, while it might seem to reject Shabbat, actually restore the spirit of that commandment, making rest more like ... rest?

No: "Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day" does not "restore the spirit of that commandment, making rest more like ... rest."

 

[sojourner]

Can you supply a reference to this "fine print"?

No: "Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day" does not "restore the spirit of that commandment, making rest more like ... rest."

for example: walking is not work, but riding a horse is work. One can pull someone out of a well, and that's not work, but cooking a meal is work. One has to "work" to remember what constitutes work and what does not, in order to insure that one is "keepiing the commandment."

By divorcing themselves from that mind-set (ultimately, by replacing Shabbat with The Lord's Day), the Council restored the spirit of the commandment, which is to insure that we all have a day to rest -- not having to think about "doing" -- just being.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I asked for a reference.

 

[sojourner]

I asked for a reference.

A picayune attitude is obstructive -- not constructive. I gave you examples. The Jews at that time had definite ideas about just what constituted work, and what did not constitute work. Remembering and adhering to all of that constitutes, in some form, "doing." However, the spirit of that particular commandment centers around being -- quietness -- so that we can recharge our spiritual batteries. The commandment, as conceptualized by the Pharisees at least, forces one to work at "resting." By doing away with the commandment completely, the Council returned the idea of rest to proper perspective.

 

[McBell]

That sabbath day was originally on saturday but it was changed to sunday after Christ's ressurection.

He tells us to remember to keep it holy so we don't forget to keep it holy.

What verses show that the sabbath is on Saturday?
Or is it traditional that Saturday was the sabbath?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

its friday for muslims, and i always thought it was still Saturday for rest and Sunday for worship hence two days at the weekend!

Getting Saturday off work is a relatively recent phenomenon. In our society, six-day work weeks were prevalent practice right up until 100 years ago or so. Even in the 1930s, it was still common to work a half-day on Saturday.

The five-day work week we have today is a product of societal affluence, not religion.

As for Romans 14:5, the subject of the chapter from start to finish has to do with what people eat. Paul is writing about asceticism. Some in the church at Rome believed Christians should eat only vegetables. Paul calls these people "weak in the faith" (verses 1-2). The stronger in faith know they could also eat meat. Nothing in God’s law prescribes vegetarianism. The stronger in faith knew they were free from non-biblical asceticism.

That seems to be a rather narrow and IMO difficult-to-support interpretation. The freedom from abstaining from foods that Paul talks about wouldn't only apply to people demanding that Christians be vegetarians for non-Biblical reasons, but to all the dietary restrictions that are explicitly Biblical and make up a large part of the Mosaic Laws in the Old Testament; i.e. keeping kosher.

Especially when you look at Romans as a whole, I think it becomes clear that the subject is personal conduct and codified laws generally, not just what to have for dinner.

On top of that, take a careful reading of the chapter at hand: effectively, it says "just as it's okay either way to treat one day as extra-sacred or not, it's okay to eat what you feel like." The implication of this is that it's okay to treat one day as extra sacred or not.

In any interpretation that seems coherent at all, Romans as a whole and Romans 14 in particular both deal with human action generally. Look at the language used: the chapter may begin and end referring to food, but in between it draws a larger connection to all behaviour of Christians.

In particular, look at Romans 14:9:

"For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living."​

When you read this verse, what do you think is the most reasonable interpretation of "this very reason"? Do you think Christ died and was resurrected to save you from the curse of sin, or to save you from the curse of vegetarianism?