SABBATH/LAW WRITTEN DEBATE SDA VS EX-SDA

*NOTE*

(The following is from a written debate I did with an SDA on his SDA apologetics website around
10-11 years ago when I first studied my way out of Adventism. That being said I am much more
experienced with Theology/Biblical Studies since then. He asked me to respond to two articles
he wrote concerning T.D. Jakes comments on the sabbath. What follows is my rebuttal. The full
debate can be found on the link below. The way he layed the debate out is rather difficult too
follow. http://adventist-defense-league.blogspot.ca/2009/01/online-debate-regarding-sabbath-
real.html )

REBUTTAL TO EDWIN

It is true that marriage was given in the garden, as even Jesus states this is true (Mtt 19:3-9).
Unlike the sabbath being observed, we find Adam and Eve being made one and a command
giving that man is to leave his parents and be joined to his wife (Gen 2:21-24). Where do we see
such an observance by Adam and Eve in keeping Sabbath? Where do we find a command for
them to keep a 24 hour period of rest continually each and every week?

God did promise Abraham that his descendents would be a great nation, but not only would
Israel be this nation as Paul states, those of faith are of the seed of promise and true
descendents of Abraham (Rom 4:16; 9:7; Gal 3:6-9, 14-29; 4:21-31).

God did give Israel His law, the covenant before they entered the promise land, but you only give
reference to Ex 20. The scriptures are clear that God gave not only the Decalogue at Sinai, but
the entire law of Moses. Ex 20 you have the Ten Commandments, from Ex 21-24 you have
judgments that were given to Moses, Ex 25-31 laws concerning the tabernacle of meeting.

Exodus 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the
blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Up until this point we have at least the 10 commandments and three chapters 21-24 on
judgments. So the covenant was more then just the Decalogue.

Also in Ex34 when speaking of the covenant besides the Ten Commandments you have mention
of at least three of the feasts. Nehemiah sums it up nicely:

Nehemiah 9:13 Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven,
and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments:

Nehemiah 9:14 And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them
precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:

The Sabbath as a sign to show the heathen nations around them that their God is Creator, is
there a particular scripture that states this, or is this your interpretation of the Sabbath as a sign.
To me it would seem that circumcision would be a better sign to the heathen nations that Israel
had a God that was not made with man's hand's as those nations idols.

The Israelite male would think twice before taking wives from these surrounding nations as their
flesh bared witness to their covenant relationship to Jehovah.

One had to be circumcised before partaking of the Passover (Ex 13). It seems the sabbath as a
sign was for them to remember their Creator, but also to remember God as their Redeemer. The
sabbath looked back at the fellowship Adam had with his Creator before the fall. The sabbath
pointed forward to the rest to be found in Christ (Mtt 11:28-30; Heb 4:1-11; Col 2:16,17), and
ultimately, our future rest in eternity.

I believe Sabbatarians, or SDA's do love God, want to please Him, and worship Him everyday of
the week. I understand your frustration when people say, well, I worship everyday, not just one. I
understand how you believe the sabbath to be a commandment on the same level as thou shall
not murder. I don't, and will comment more on this point below.

Before the ten commandments were given, Ex 16 is the only time the sabbath is mentioned from
Genesis to that time. To argue that Gen 2:1-3 mentions the sabbath is to read that into the text.

Now to point to Ex 20:10 and state that that somehow proves the Sabbath was given in Genesis
is grasping at straws in my opinion.

Where in the Exodus command do we find mention of anyone resting on the seventh day in the
garden besides God? There was no command in Genesis 2 for Adam to keep sabbath.

Ex 20, looks back to creation to make the point of why Israel should keep sabbath. It was to point
back and remind them of the perfect rest in the undifiled world God had made.

Exodus 5:5 And Pharaoh said, Behold, the people of the land now are many, and ye make them
rest from their burdens.

It's obvious that Moses didn't give the people sabbath from their burdens while they were in
Egypt.

So it doesn't prove anything to say the word for rested in Genesis could mean sabbath. Again,
there is no solid proof for sabbath keeping before Israel being commanded to keep it in Ex 16.

I agree that Adam had duties and general work to do in the garden as the passage you quote
clearly states so. The question is, how labour intensive was the work before the fall? Was it so
much so that Adam needed a break in his first full day in the garden with God?

We see in the next chapter that part of the curse was that labour wasn't anymore to be a hobby
for man, but was intensified because of his transgression.

Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife,
and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is
the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Genesis 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of
the field;

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for
out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

The seventh day of Genesis 2 could have been a 24 hour period. I can accept that premise
without accepting the conclusion, which is that Adam kept a 24 hour sabbath rest from that day
onward. But for other reasons I tend to believe that it was not a literal day of rest, but an on
going rest that man was to have with his creator in the perfect state of creation before the fall.

First, the book of Hebrews sheds light on the text in question.

Before the writer's discussion on the rest believers are commanded to enter (Heb 3:7-4:1-11) the
writer makes a comparison between Moses and Christ.

Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle
and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

Hebrews 3:2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his
house.

Hebrews 3:3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who
hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.

Hebrews 3:4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

Hebrews 3:5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those
things which were to be spoken after;

Hebrews 3:6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the
confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

Moses prophesied that one greater then he would rise up among the nation of Israel.

Deuteronomy 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee,
of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

Deuteronomy 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee,
and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

This prophet is clearly Messiah, Jesus the Christ fulfilling this passage. Unlike Moses who gave
the word of God in written form, Jesus came as the word (Jn 1:1,14), Moses gave the people
bread from heaven but Jesus Himself is the true bread (Jn 6:35). Jesus states that Moses did
speak of Him (Jn 5:45-47 cf. Jn 4:25).

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

The law came by Moses from God to the people, but it cannot be compared to the gospel that
came by Jesus Christ. No longer a system of rituals that point to the shadow as the reality has
come. No longer a law with a priesthood as the true high priest has come. No longer a physical
tabernacle made with man's hands but a bigger and better tabernacle has been made by our
high priest. No longer a theocracy, a fleshly kingdom, but the true king has come with His
kingdom ushered in by His blood.

The book of Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians who were being strongly urged by their
countrymen to abandon their new found faith in Christ. This pressure was strong enough for this
epistle to be written. The aim of this epistle is for Christians to be settled in the faith and to
understand the relationship of the covenants along with the atonement of Christ. Christ is
superior to the angels (Heb 1:1-2:18) superior to Moses and his tabernacle (Heb 3:1-6; 8:2)
Christ is a superior priest to that of Aaron (Heb 6-7) Christ's covenant is superior (Heb 8-10), and
finally, Christ and all He is superior then the law in general, as we find rest in Him (Heb 3:7-4:1-
11).

With the overall context of Hebrews in view, as Christ and Him being better then all the law had
to offer, and with the immediate context of Heb 3:7-4:1-11 in view (Heb 3:1-6) are we to believe
that the author intends to command these Jewish Christians who are questioning their faith to
now suddenly keep the sabbath?

We find in Acts 15 when the council came together to discuss the issue of gentiles coming into
the faith, whether they should be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they state that they
"give no such commandment" (Acts 15:24b).

Hebrews 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my
wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of
the world.

Hebrews 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the
seventh day from all his works.

Heb 4:3 first states, "we which have believed do enter into rest." Is this saying people of faith
enter into a sabbath rest as under the law?

Hardly, as the context clearly demonstrates the fact by "belief" we do enter that rest which was
since "foundation of the world."

Hebrews 4:6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it
was first preached entered not in because of unbelief
Unbelief is how we neglect to enter this rest, so belief must be how we enter this rest, as v.3 a
tests to as well as v.2 which states those that heard the gospel entered in.

Hebrews 3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in
departing from the living God.

Hebrews 3:19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

So at least three times we see that we enter this rest by belief. "Today" is mentioned four times
in this discussion on the rest (Heb 3:7, 13, 15; 4:7). These Hebrew Christians were tempted to
completely reject Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ and go back to the temple and the law. The
writer uses Gen 2:2 in showing what rest the Hebrew Christians were to enter.

They were to enter a rest which Israel in the wilderness disobeyed in entering (Heb 3:16-19) and
that Joshua had not given them (Heb 4:8). That rest isn't the weekly sabbath as Israel did keep
the sabbath and Joshua had given them the law, and read it to them before they crossed the
Jordan (Joshua 1). This rest was to be entered "today" not at the end of every week. This is not
an exhaustive exegesis of Heb3:7-4:11 as I haven't even gone into v.9 of Heb 4. I just wanted to
make a few points of how the writer uses Gen 2:2 and the rest which was from the "foundation
of the world."

Second, Noah was given the commands of dominion over all flesh and to be fruitful and multiply
after the flood waters subsided (Gen 9:1-11). This goes back to the point I mentioned earlier
from your article, that marriage and the sabbath were laws before the fall. Noah is told to be
fruitful and multiply the earth at least two times in Gen 9, and yet no mention of a sabbath. We
find the opposite to be true then that of a sabbath through the book of Genesis up to the
sabbath law given to Israel in Ex 16. The curses given to man and the woman cause of their
transgression imply strenuous labour (Gen 3:16-19), Cain was to be a vagabond the rest of the
days of his life and the ground was not to yield its strength to him (Gen 4:12,13), Noah was given
his name as he would comfort his people concerning the ground which was cursed (Gen 5:29),
Jacob worked for fourteen years for Rachel and Leah, six for Laban's flock he "labored with his
hands"(Gen 31:42) and also the Hebrews in Egypt who were slaves.

This brings us to our third and last point. Ex 16, it seems is a strong proof that Israel had not the
Sabbath until this time after they fled Pharaoh. It was one month since they left Egypt (Ex 16:1).
Up until this time Israel was in Egypt. Did the hebrew people have the sabbath while they were
slaves in Egypt? Did they keep Sabbath as they fled Pharaoh?

It has been one whole month, and now God through Moses is giving them His law concerning
the sabbath. I will not get into the text, as I think this point alone should suffice as strong proof
of the Sabbath not being kept in Genesis.

The Sabbath was part of the law which was given to Israel, and not to none Jews (Deut 5:3; Rom
9:4).
Again, I can accept the premise that the seventh day in Gen2:1-3 is a twenty four hour period,
but that still doesn't prove that it was kept at that time or before Israel, but I am inclined to
believe the opposite to be true.

A few points here. I would agree with TD Jakes take on Mk 2:27, as I believe the context, and the
text itself bares this out.

Mark 2:25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and
was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

Mark 2:26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did
eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which
were with him?

Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

You seem to say that David was justified in eating the shewbread, which was an obvious
transgression of the law as if not he wouldn't have made it as King. I agree with this. The needs
of David at the time of him fleeing the wrath of Saul was more important than the ritual laws of
the temple. Remember, it is Christ that is making this point, how it was not lawful for David to do
this, but he did it anyway. So when we get to v 27, Christ is saying that the Sabbath is to serve
man, and not the other way around. Man isn't to be a slave to the Sabbath Jesus was saying, but
it was to be the other way around.

When we go to Matthew's gospel Christ adds another example besides the example given by
Mark.

Matthew 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the
temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

Christ is defending the charge of breaking the sabbath leveled against Him and His disciples. He
first shows an example of David breaking the law when he fled from the presence of King Saul.
Now Christ uses the example of the priest’s work which never stopped, even for the sabbath day.
What does this tell us?

Two things. First, the work of the priest which was ceremonial (which I think you would agree
Edwin) was of more importance to God under the Old Covenant dispensation then the sabbath
command.

Jesus says they "profane the sabbath, and are blameless." Here are a few other translations so
we can get the actual force of this verse.

(NIV) Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the
day and yet are innocent?

(BBE) Or is it not said in the law, how the Sabbath is broken by the priests in the Temple and they
do no wrong?

(CEV) Haven't you read in the Law of Moses that the priests are allowed to work in the temple
on the Sabbath? But no one says that they are guilty of breaking the law of the Sabbath.

(GNB) Or have you not read in the Law of Moses that every Sabbath the priests in the Temple
actually break the Sabbath law, yet they are not guilty?

I believe that the idea that the Pharisees had many man made traditions when it came to the
sabbath and the entire law for that matter. They did in fact have an "oral law" which I believe
came about during their exile in Babylon. But I believe Jesus here and also in Jn 5:9-18 might
have actually broke the sabbath day. I am not one hundred percent on this. Not too dogmatic
about it actually even if i was 100 %, but it seems from Mark and especially Matthew's version of
events that seems to be the case. Why else would Christ give two OT examples of people
actually breaking the sabbath in particular and the law in general and say they were eh ok for
doing so?

The last point I want to make on this section is this. Matt12:1-4 and especially v.5 is prima facia
proof that the Sabbath isn't a moral law but ceremonial in nature!

Jesus states emphatically and in the most clearest terms possible that the priests of the Levitical
system actually BREAK THE SABBATH EACH AND EVERY SABBATH AND THEY ARE COMMANDED
TO DO SO. I believe this is a strong proof text in showing the true nature of the Sabbath
command. The Sabbath is not and cannot be a natural law if it can be broken, especially in the
purpose of satisfying the ceremonial part of the law.

What this means is, that the work of the priest was more important in the eye's of God, and
each time the sabbath rolled around they were to keep plugging away at their work. Ceremonial
law trumps a moral law? No! But a ceremonial law trumps another ceremonial law.

I will respond to Col 2:14-17 below when dealing with your article on that particular passage.

The sabbath as part of the plan of God. If this was so, surely Paul would have listed sabbath
breaking in his many lists of sins when he wrote his epistles (Gal 5; Eph 5; 1Cor 6:9,10; Col 3) but
the sabbath is absent from all lists.

Surely the gentiles who were coming into the faith would need instruction on the Sabbath
command. But we see no such command.

The opposite is found in Acts 15. Also, Paul makes it clear that the sabbaths under the law, yearly
and weekly are not required for Christians under the new covenant (Gal 4:9-11; Col 2:16,17).

As for the sabbath command needed in the Decalogue to show that Jehovah God is the true
creator as apposed to Allah or Buddha, what about the introduction of the ten commandments?

Exodus 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the
house of bondage.

Deuteronomy 5:6 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the
house of bondage.

A few points here. First, I don't think Isaiah's portrayal of the new heavens and new earth is
applicable to a Christian eschatology. I believe it could have been contingent upon Israel's
obedience, a conditional promise as it seems to contradicts John's portrayal in Rev 21,22. For
instance, Isaiah's version states the child shall die a hundred years old (Isaiah 65:20) while John
states there will be no more death in the new Jerusalem/new heavens and earth (Rev 21:4).
Isaiah speaks of the "sinner" being accursed (Isa 65:20) and the "slain of the Lord shall be many"
(Isa 66:16,17). But John states there will be no more death as I already mentioned (Rev 21:4) and
sinners are outside the city (Rev 22:15).

Also, Isaiah's account seems to indicate that this new heavens and new earth/new Jerusalem will
be in the city of Jerusalem (Isa 65:18,19,25; 66:13). This fact Zechariah also makes. That when
Christ returns, it will be to Jerusalem. (I am aware of the SDA idea that Zech 14:4 is speaking
about us coming back with Christ from heaven after the millennium, but Zech 14 indicates this
happens at the Day of the Lord).

Second, why should we apply Isaiah's new heaven and earth to a Christian eschatology and say
reject a literal application of other OT prophetic passages (Zech 12-14; Ezek 37,38; 40-48).

Adventists eschatology leaves no room for a literal future fulfillment of the Jews regaining the
Promised Land, a millennial temple where sacrifices are practised, along with the feasts etc, and
the Lord fighting for and returning to Jerusalem at His parousia. Why should we accept a literal
application of Isa 66:23 which states all flesh shall come before the Lord from one Sabbath to
another and reject the literal application of say a restored sacrificial system of Ezekiel's temple
ch. 40-48 and the keeping of the feasts there?

Third, the same text (Isa 66:23) mentions "from one new moon to another." Why ignore this and
accept the sabbath? Maybe because it doesn't fit into our theology and is inconvenient? To
argue like some, that is to say, well the sabbath is creational and the new moon's weren't part of
creation, therefore, the sabbath we can apply to the future new heavens and earth and leave the
new moons is nothing but to argue one's preconceived ideas into the text. The same could be
said about Col 2:16,17. That the "sabbath days" are easily rejected as being the weekly Sabbath
because of our pre-understandings. This is not sound exegesis.

It seems to me what Isaiah could be saying is that in the new heavens and the new earth we will
always be in the presence of God, and His Son. Monthly, weekly, non-stop we will be worshiping
in the presence of God. Paradise restored, what was lost in the first Adam, is found even more so
in the second. To read anymore into this text is a stretch.

We find rest in Christ because He has reconciled us back to God by his life, death and
resurrection (Rom 4; 5:8-11; 2Cor 5:15-21). We have been credited with Christ's righteousness
by faith in the atonement (Rom 3:21-28; Rom 4-5; Gal 3:1-10; 2Cor 5:15-21) but also, as you
stated Edward, we are "not to continue in sin by abiding in him." The imputed righteousness of
Christ will lead to the reality of righteousness in our lives (Rom 6:13-20; 1Cor 15:34; Eph 4:24;
5:9; 1Tim 6:11; 2Tim 2:22; 1Pet 2:24 1Jn 2:29; 3:7,10).

What law is being spoken of in 1Jn 3:4. Well, John mentions the word "law" sixteen times in his
gospel (Jn 1:17, 45; 7:19, 23, 49, 51; 8:5, 17; 10:34; 12:34; 15:25; 18:13, 31; 19:7). Each and
every usage of the word "law" by John in his gospel the meaning is "nomos" which is the entire
law of Moses, which of course includes the ten commandments.

Only once in his three letters does he use the word "law" and it is here in this text under
question. The word he uses for "law" in 1Jn 3:4 is "anomia" which means; "illegality, violation of
law, wickedness, iniquity, transgression of law, unrighteousness.

Even though one of the meanings of anomia is violation of law, this does not necessarily mean
he is speaking of the Law of Moses in general, or the Decalogue in particular.

It could be natural law which the heathen went by (Rom 2:14, 15) which would be the moral
commands found in the Torah, law of Moses.

But, for John to use law-nomos 16 out of 17 times, that is, every other time accept in this
instance in John's gospel and this singular usage in his first letter should tell us that the law of
Moses in general, and the Decalogue in particular is not what John had in mind. Even if John did
say "sin is transgression of the law-nomos" does not necessitate that the law is binding on
believers under this new covenant. Paul speaks of the law being the knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20)
and is a schoolmaster to lead the unbeliever to faith in Christ (Gal 3:22-25 cf. 1Tim 1:8-10). That
is to say, the law is a tool that is used to demonstrate the unrighteousness of mankind, as both
Jews and Greeks are under sin (Rom 3:9,19; Gal 3:22).

But for Paul, believers are no longer under the law (Rom 6:14,15; Gal 5:18), that we have died to
the law (Rom 7:4,6; Gal 2:19), delivered from the law so we can serve God by the spirit (Rom 7:6;
2Cor 3:6) as the law works wrath (Rom 4:15) while bringing out bad fruit (Rom 7:5) and all
manner of sin in us (Rom 7:5-11).

In other words, the law has no qualities of sanctification for the believer, it is the spirit that
sanctifies and convicts us of sin (cf. Jn 16:8; Rom 7:1-12; 2Cor 3). Just as the law can't justify
(Rom 3-5) it cannot sanctify (Rom 6-8).

Does this mean we can go out and murder, steal, and commit adultery as many like to say? No,
not at all. That is what is called a "straw man." Some might honestly think that those believers
that state the law isn't for believers under this covenant, but I think most know better. Paul
heard this same objection in his day.

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under
grace.

Romans 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God
forbid.

Sin shall not reign in the life of the believer as he is not under the authority of the law of Moses.

The very next chapter Paul states clearly that sin does reign in the believer's life if he is trying to
hold onto the law for purposes of sanctification. Does this mean we have a license to sin? God
forbid, Paul cries, get this thinking out of your head. We have "died to sin" (Rom 6:2) as we have
died to the law (Rom 7:4,6; Gal 2:19). The spirit will not lead the believer into sin, it will sanctify
him and lead him into a life of serving God in righteousness and holiness.

You quote Rom 7:14, as if Paul is speaking of the ten commandments.

Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

To say Paul is speaking of the Ten Commandments and not the whole law is to, ignore the
context and to miss the meaning of law-nomos.

Romans 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law
hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

Who would "know the law" other than the Jews? They are the ones who received not only the
Ten Commandments but ALL of the law as I showed earlier.

Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that
we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by
the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

"The law" in v.6 is the same as "the letter" of the same verse. The letter is the whole Mosaic
corpus. The Torah, law of Moses, Mosaic Law, Pentateuch, whatever you want to call it, the letter
is the whole deal.

The tenth commandment of the Decalogue is quoted in v.7 being of the same "law" as v.6. Are
we to believe that two different laws are being spoken of within one verse of each other?

Also, the meaning of law-nomos means the Law of Moses. This word is probably used nine out of
ten times when we find the word law in the NT. So in Rom 7:14 there can be no doubt which law
Paul is referring to, for he along with the entire bible writers knew of only one, the Mosaic law.

To whom was Jesus sent to? To whom is Jesus addressing in the context? Gentiles?

Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way
of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Matthew 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of
Israel.

When Jesus says the "sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath" his audience and
accusers are obviously Israelites, not gentiles.

There is no reason to read into the text anymore then what it actually states. I have already dealt
with this above. As for Isa 56: 6-7. Notice the stranger was not only to keep the sabbath but
"taketh hold of my covenant."(v.6) They weren't given the option of keeping just the sabbath or
the ten commandments, but had to keep the whole law. Also, one had to be circumcised before
entering into the covenant. Is that a requirement for Christians today?

So, it doesn't help just a little bit to "proof text" from the OT. This shows in my opinion the
desperation for proving the sabbath command as binding on believers, as there isn't one
command at all in the NT for believers to keep the sabbath, so Sabbatarians have no choice but
to resort to the OT.

I have demonstrated above what the rest is in Heb 4, although not touching upon v.9-10. I find it
hard to believe that this rest of "belief" (Heb 3:19; 4:3) now suddenly changes to a weekly
sabbath rest. Especially since the preceding verse states Joshua never gave them this rest (Heb
4:8) when we know that Joshua reiterated the law to Israel after the death of Moses, before they
were to cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan (Josh 1).

The "rest-sabbatismos" of v.9 is not used anywhere else in the bible. Why wouldn't the Hebrew
writer use "sabbath-sabbaton" which is used every time to denote the weekly Sabbath in the
NT?

Could it be because the writer here doesn't have the weekly Sabbath in mind?

The word for rest here means: From a derivative of G4521; a “sabbatism”, that is, (figuratively)
the repose of Christianity (as a type of heaven): - rest. (Strong’s)

1) a keeping sabbath

2) the blessed rest from toils and troubles looked for in the age to come by the true worshippers
of God and true Christians (Thayer’s)

Not a literal physical rest but a figurative rest as believer's in Christ and the promises of heaven
and the world to come contained in the scriptures. A heavenly rest. This rest has double
application. First, it is a rest of faith, i.e. belief in Jesus as the Christ. Secondly, of the world to
come. A rest which will never cease unlike the sabbath. To read a weekly Sabbath into this text is
gross eisegesis as the context and the Greek meaning for "rest" in v.9 do not allow such a
rendering.
You make the point that this rest is the same as God's rest at creation so this can't be speaking of
a rest of Christian faith (Heb 4:10). First, as asserted by myself twice, the context as well as the
meaning for rest destroys any type of weekly Sabbath rest being read into this passage.
Secondly, this rest we enter by faith is the same as God's. God spoke from heaven the words of
creation and it was so. He fellowshipped with his creation in the garden before the fall. We enter
this same "heavenly" rest today by faith in Christ awaiting our rewards either at death (Heb 9:27)
or at the Parousia of Christ. Heaven is our final destination, we believe this by faith (Heb 11:1),
this is the rest we enter as God did from heaven on the seventh day (Heb 4:4).

This rest isn't just for the Israelites who neglected the call to enter in under Moses and Joshua,
nor is it for David alone, but for all of us who believe, this "rest remains for the people of God."
God's rest in Gen 2:2, 3 did not stop and begin again. It has continued from then until now.
Therefore, this isn't a perpetual weekly repose but one that is to be non ending until we finally
enter into eternity.

(It should be noted that even the SDA bible commentary on Heb 3:7-4:1-11 states that the rest-
sabbatismos of Heb 4:9 is not the weekly Sabbath)

What laws is the writer of Hebrews referring to? The ten commandment law or the whole deal?
Where is the command against homosexuality found in the Ten Commandments? What about
lying?

There are many moral laws within the law of Moses. The laws written on our hearts and mind is
the whole deal. It is the spirit applying the law to the believer. Two OT texts should suffice.

Deuteronomy 6:1 Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which
the LORD your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go
to possess it:

Deuteronomy 6:2 That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and his
commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son's son, all the days of thy
life; and that thy days may be prolonged.

Deuteronomy 6:7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them
when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down,
and when thou risest up.

Deuteronomy 6:8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as
frontlets between thine eyes.

Deuteronomy 11:18 Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and
bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.

Deuteronomy 11:1 Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his
statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, always.
Both passages show us that in the OT it wasn't part of the law, but the whole corpus that was to
be a "sign" in their mind and heart. Commandments, statues, and judgments, the law of Moses.

To take out the stony hearts and replace them with fleshy ones suggests the working of the spirit
in regeneration and sanctification. It does both, while the law does neither. (cf. Eph 2:1-5). The
spirit gives life, not the letter (2cor 3:6) and that is which we are commanded to serve in (Rom
7:6).

The spirit is the one that takes the whole law and applies it to our lives in a way which was not
done under the old dispensation.

If this is so (and it is), then the obedience of the Spirit within you would, rather then fight against
the law, show God’s character (which is his law – that’s why its called “tables of TESTIMONY” for
they testify) through your actions:

2 Corinthians 4:10-11

(10) Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus
might be made manifest in our body.

(11) For we which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus
might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.

Jesus is the law alive, like I proved in the beginning of this rebuttal. We are saved by his life
(Romans 5:10). His life or righteousness, of obedience (2 Cor. 10:5) will be “manifested through
our mortal flesh.” And since he was a Sabbath keeper…. Well guess what?

If you’re going to argue that he attended the feasts, I’ll take you to those verses you use to trash
the Sabbath, like Ephesians 2:15, which say these are abolished. His law of 10 Commandments,
however, will never be abolished (Isaiah 51:6). It was already shown what laws Isaiah was
speaking of above.

It is not as if now the new covenant is the 10 commandments internalized, or the whole law for
that matter, that we now have power by the spirit to keep the 613 commandments contained
within the law. Rather, it is the spirit of the believer that is united with Christ's spirit which leads
us in sanctification. Does one need to open up their kjv bible to Ex 20 to see what is right or
wrong under the new covenant?

Do they have to read the whole law, Genesis through Deuteronomy to see what sin is? Or how
about the entire NT? Sounds silly doesn't it. But people who think that's how the Christian is to
know what sin is seem to say.

What is the purpose of the given of the Holy Spirit and new nature to us for anyways?

Gal 4:21-31 makes a clear contrast between the two covenants. Paul uses the story of Abraham
and Sarah as an illustration to drive the point home. Sarah's maidservant Hagar and the son
Ishmael who Abraham had with her represent the old covenant which is of the flesh. While,
Isaac represents the new covenant since he came by promise, and not by works of the flesh.

Galatians 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the
mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

Galatians 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is,
and is in bondage with her children.

The old covenant which came from Sinai generates bondage says Paul (cf.Gal 2:4; 4:3, 9; 5:1).
The old covenant from Sinai is the law in general but more specifically the Ten Commandments.
Paul calls it bondage, and the children of the covenant who did not believe were in bondage to
that law and covenant.

Galatians 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

As stated earlier, the children of promise are those who have faith in Christ. These are the true
decedents of Abraham. This new and better covenant is a covenant of faith as "the just shall live
by faith" (Rom 1:17). This covenant is lived out by faith which is given to us by the spirit in
regeneration. We live by faith, and obey in faith.

Galatians 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after
the Spirit, even so it is now.

The non believing Jews were persecuting believers as we see in the book of Acts and in 1Thess
2:14-17. But not only that, Paul is more concerned here but those who "bewitched" (Gal 3:1) the
Galatians Christians in going back under the law.

Galatians 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for
the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

Galatians 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Cast out the old covenant, which included the law from Sinai, as the immediate context makes
clear. Get rid of it and never look back seems to be the jest of what Paul is saying here. The two
covenants, one by promise, and the other by the flesh or, bondage are sharply contrasted here.
So much so that Paul states the old covenant including the law, shall not heir with the new
covenant. In other words, you cannot mix law and grace; you cannot have Sinai with Calvary.
Paul says get rid of Sinai and the covenant as it has nothing to do with believers under the new
better ministration.

Another passage which clearly demonstrates the uselessness of the law in the life of the believer
and the differences of the covenants is 2Cor 3:7-11 (cf. Rom 7:1-12). We read,

2 Corinthians 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious,
so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his
countenance; which glory was to be done away:

2 Corinthians 3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

2 Corinthians 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the
ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

2 Corinthians 3:10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason
of the glory that excelleth.

2 Corinthians 3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth
is glorious.

We have two glories being contrasted here.

If we follow the flow of the passage, it is easy to see that one glory is the old covenant, or in
particular the tablets of stone, and another glory of the new covenant which is by the spirit. In
v.7 Paul mentions two glories. Some try to soften the force of this passage by saying that the
glory which is done away in v.11 isn't the tablets of stone (the Ten Commandments) but the
glory of the face of Moses. This is ridiculous as it destroys the natural flow of the passage.

The first glory of v.7 is indeed the Ten Commandments, "But if the ministration of death, written
and engraven in stones, was glorious." Paul here speaks of a past tense glory of the Ten
Commandments. It had glory in some respect, but insignificant compared to the spirit. The
second glory of v.7 is that of Moses face which shined as he came down the mount the second
time (Ex 34:29-35). Now Paul is contrasting two covenants here. He is not contrasting Moses face
with the new covenant, but that of the old with the new, as the immediate context clearly
demonstrates.

2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter,
but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

So in v.8 when Paul says, "how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?" He is
comparing the ministration of the spirit with that of v.7 "the ministration of death, written and
engraven in stones." Two ministrations. The ministration of the spirit is more glorious asserts
Paul then that of the Ten Commandments.

2 Corinthians 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the
ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

So up until now there can be no doubt as to what two glories Paul is comparing here. He is
clearly comparing the covenant contained in the Ten Commandments with the new covenant.
Paul here in v.9 calls the Ten Commandments "ministration of condemnation" and rightly so. The
Ten Commandments condemned man as guilty and a law breaker. Again, he is comparing two
ministrations. In v.7 he calls the Ten Commandments the "ministration of death" but in v.9
"ministration of condemnation" both are the same. This ministration in v.9 had glory, the same
as did v.7.

2 Corinthians 3:10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason
of the glory that excelleth.

2 Corinthians 3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth
is glorious.

The ministration of the spirit exceeds in glory to that of that old. And in the clearest terms
possible Paul says the Ten Commandments which are here represented by the word "glory" is
"done away." The law has no biding on believers today. Not part of it as Adventist's assert, nor
the whole thing, it is simply done away.

However, if you continue reading down the context, there

2 Corinthians 3:12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

Paul states he is using "great plainness of speech" so anyone that wants to destroy the natural
reading and flow of this passage obviously are reading into the passage their pre-understanding..

2 Corinthians 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are
changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

We are being changed into the image of Christ by trying to keep the Ten Commandments? No!
But by the "Spirit of the Lord." This is the whole contrast of 2Cor 3:7-11. We as believers of the
new covenant have nothing to do with the Ten Commandments. They do nothing but condemn
and kill. The spirit guides us and convicts us of our sin, and even makes intercession for us in
prayer. (cf. Rom 8:26)

Gal 3:1-10 is another passage which shows the difference between being under the law, and
being under and led by the spirit under this new covenant.

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth,
before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

Galatians 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by
the hearing of faith?

Galatians 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Galatians 3:4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

Galatians 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you,
doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Some of these texts are so clear that little commentary is need. For Paul, the Galatians were
being tricked into not obeying the truth, which is the gospel. V.2 He asks how did they receive
the spirit. Do we receive the spirit by obeying law? Does righteousness come from law?
Obviously we receive the Holy Spirit by faith or Paul's statement here is meaningless.

Paul is trying to get them to realize if they already have the spirit, and they received it by faith,
what good is going back to the law going to do? Is the spirit worthless? They received the spirit
which is to rule and be the authority of the Christian and now they are trying to be made perfect
by the flesh, which the law clearly activates. They have been regenerated, made into new
creatures, but now go back to the law which does what? Show them their in need of a Saviour?
Haven't they realized this yet?

Even miracles were wrought among them as believers without keeping the law.

In other words, they had evidence of God's approval of them believing the gospel, and walking in
the spirit, by proof of miracles. All of this that is, without the keeping of the law of Moses. V. 5-9
Paul uses the example of Abraham in Gen 15:6 being declared righteous for believing the
promise of God. This is similar to Rom 4:3. Righteousness by faith in Christ, without the law.

We come to Christ with no merits of our own, but cling and accept the credit of His perfect
righteousness given to our account. This in no way means there is no requirement to holiness in
sanctification, as Paul clearly states the opposite in Gal 5-6. Holiness, the Christ life without the
law.

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written,
Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to
do them.

Paul is quoting this verse from Deut 27:26. Similar to this we find this passage two chapters later.

Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not
entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Galatians 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you
nothing.

Galatians 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the
whole law.

Paul in this passage is dealing specially with circumcision and that if one was to decide to be
circumcised Christ was worthless to that individual, while in Galatians 3 Paul is dealing with the
law in a general sense in the life of the Christian. Some mistakenly assert that the book of
Galatians is dealing with just circumcision and the ceremonial law, or what I would call the
ceremonial side to the law which is unreasonable as the passage in question (Gal 3:10) and on
the passage we dealt with earlier (Gal 4:21-31) deals with the law as a whole. So much so that
Paul even mentions Sinai (Gal 4:24,25) where circumcision was not given, but the ten
commandments as well as the rest of the law. Also in the first council of the church at Jerusalem
we see that circumcision as well as keeping the law of Moses was the topic on hand (cf. Acts
15:5, 24).

Paul's point here in Galatians 5 is that if one is circumcised he is required to keep the entire law.
In other words, once you decide to go down that road of law keeping, you cannot just stop at
commandments you dislike, but must keep the entirety of the Mosaic Law. (cf. Jas 2:10)

Gal 3:10, shows us what law is in view not only in this passage, but in the entire book of
Galatians, "the book of the law." The whole sha-bang. Under the old administration, Israel was
not giving a choice if they wanted to just keep say, the ten commandments, dietary restrictions
and tithing, and just leave the rest, no Deuteronomy paints a much different picture (cf. Duet
5:31-33; 26:16-18; 27:1-3, 10, 26; 28:1,9,13-15, 45; 30:8-10, 16; 31:5, 11-12; 32:46).

I have already dealt with marriage and the rest of Genesis 2 earlier. I will deal with the sabbath
was a shadow as per Col 2:16,17, which you allude to in the paragraph before this one below.

Where in scripture do we find the phrase "moral law" applied to the Ten Commandments, or the
phrase "moral law" for that matter? This is a man made tradition. The Law of Moses had moral
commandments within the Decalogue (nine out of 10 are moral by nature with exception of the
fourth commandment as shown above). Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Exodus 22:19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

Exodus 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly
destroyed.

Exodus 22:21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the
land of Egypt.

Exodus 22:22 Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.

Exodus 22:29 Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the
firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.

Exodus 22:30 Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be
with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.

Leviticus 19:3 Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the
LORD your God.

Leviticus 19:4 Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your
God.

Leviticus 19:5 And if ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, ye shall offer it at your
own will.
Leviticus 19:6 It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if ought remain
until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire.

Leviticus 19:9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners
of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest.

Leviticus 19:10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of
thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 19:11 Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.

In both these passages we have what can be called moral and ceremonial commandments. In Ex
22 there is judgments tied into the moral commands along with the covenant of circumcision.
Where do we find the command "thou shall not lie" or "thou shall not lie with a beast" in the Ten
Commandments? Are not these just as moral as say thou shall not steal or thou shall not covet?

Matthew 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with
all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Matthew 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.

Matthew 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

The two greatest commandments according to Jesus are found in the law of Moses (Lev 19:18;
Deut 6:5) so they must be moral, and they are. Funny the two greatest moral commandments
aren't even found in the Ten Commandments.

I have dealt with Hebrews 3-4 a couple of times already, but a couple of quick points should
suffice. We do rest from our works as God did. We don't stop resting to begin to work again and
wait for another seven days to come to enter this rest again. This is not entering the rest as God
did. God never stopped resting from His work at creation. No stop and go here. We enter this
rest by faith in the future heavenly experience when Christ comes in His Kingdom (2Tim 4:1).
This rest-sabbatismos is a heavenly like rest, as was God's in Gen 2:2.

You state that you agree that Hebrews 3-4 is dealing with a spiritual rest of today that is found in
Christ, but then want to slip the sabbath into v.9. Does this not destroy the structure and flow of
the passage? If the rest is "today" in Heb 3:7,13,15; 4:7, why are we to believe all of a sudden
the writer throws the Hebrews for a loop by tossing in the weekly sabbath? You quote Heb 4:4
for justification of this, but doesn't the context of v.4 qualify what v.4 is speaking about?

Hebrews 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my
wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of
the world.

We who believed do enter into this rest. Do you agree that this is the spirtual rest you
mentioned? If not why not? Also the immediate context of v.9 clearly shows what rest v.9 is
speaking of.

Hebrews 4:7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is
said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

Hebrews 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of
another day.

In v.7 we find the "today" which you agreed is a rest in Christ. The writer of Hebrews is quoting
David in Ps 95:7,8. Is David speaking of the sabbath? If not, why not? In v.8 the writer speaks of
Joshua not given them this rest. But as noted earlier, Joshua surely gave them the sabbath when
he read them the law (Joshua 1).

I touched on this point earlier, that the Sabbath is indeed ceremonial in nature. It is something
that has to be taught, therefore, not a natural law.

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained
in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Romans 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also
bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law. Did
the gentiles by nature keep Sabbath? Would this be something that could be done by "nature?"
Would someone say in Africa in the first century, or even now, who has never heard the gospel,
the name Jesus Christ truly "by nature" keep Sabbath? I think not.

These gentiles who do by nature the things contained in the law Paul adds that "work of the law
written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness." Would the pagan, who never
heard the gospel or even the God of the OT, be grieved in their conscience for not resting from
labour every sunset Friday to sunset Saturday? How do those in say the artic, who have no sun
for months out of the year, keep Sabbath? Remember, the scripture is clear that the proper way
to keep Sabbath is from sunset to sunset (Lev 23).

The Sabbath was given to a specific people, at a specific location, for a specific period of time.

There is no commandment in the NT that states that gentiles were to keep Sabbath.

This being so, Paul gives long lists of sins, which gentiles were to flee from, but never once is the
sabbath hinted at.

Surely these new believers had questions on how the Sabbath was to be kept etc.
What about the slaves that are mentioned in the epistles. Paul writes a letter to a runaway slave
(Philemon) and mentions in a couple other spots that the slave was to obey his owner. Did the
slaves get the Sabbath off? Probably not, as a lot of owners were not even Christian. So much for
calling the Sabbath "a delight" (Isa 58:13).

Instead of a commandment being found in the NT to keep the Jewish Sabbath what has to be
done is texts from the OT that apply to national Israel are carried over and applied to believers in
this dispensation. This is not a proper hermeneutic, this simply, will not do. I said enough about
the nature of the Sabbath earlier in this response. Rom 2:14,15 should be compared to (Mtt
12:1-5; Col 2:16).

As for the commandments in Jn 14:15; 1Jn 5:3, and the Sabbath being one of them, I'd like to
make a general observation. Following will be a point I made in response to another SDA writer.

We must not automatically assume when we find the word "commandments" when mentioned
in the NT are that of that Decalogue. Here are some examples;

Matthew 8:18 Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about him, he gave commandment to
depart unto the other side.

Matthew 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Mark 12:30 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.

Luke 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither
transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might
make merry with my friends:

John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down,
and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

John 11:57 Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any
man knew where he were, he should shew it, that they might take him.

John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a
commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you,
that ye also love one another.

Acts 1:2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given
commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

Acts 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you
with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom
we gave no such commandment:

Acts 17:15 And they that conducted Paul brought him unto Athens: and receiving a
commandment unto Silas and Timotheus for to come to him with all speed, they departed.

Acts 23:30 And when it was told me how that the Jews laid wait for the man, I sent straightway
to thee, and gave commandment to his accusers also to say before thee what they had against
him. Farewell.

1 Corinthians 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

1 Corinthians 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my
judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge
that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

2 Corinthians 8:8 I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others,
and to prove the sincerity of your love.

Colossians 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines
of men?

Colossians 4:10 Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to
Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;)

1 Thessalonians 4:2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.

1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord
Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

1 Timothy 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good
conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

1 Timothy 6:14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the
appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Titus 1:3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto
me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

Titus 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the
truth.

Hebrews 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the
priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of
their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
Hebrews 11:22 By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of
Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones.

Hebrews 11:23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because
they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment.

2 Peter 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than,
after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy
prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus
Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

1 John 4:21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother
also.

2 John 1:4 I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a
commandment from the Father.

2 John 1:5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee,
but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.

2 John 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment,
That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

At least 34 times the words "commandment" and "commandments" do not mean the 10 in the
NT. The Ten Commandments are referred to as "commandments" maybe half a dozen times at
most in the NT. That is 34 times commandment(s) refers to either; doctrines and teachings of
false teachers, the apostles, and of Christ. That is, 34-6 is the count, so when going to revelation
(12:17; 14:12; 22:14) where the texts don't say one way or the other if it is the Ten
Commandments or just the commandments of God given through the ministry of the apostles
we cannot automatically assume it is the Ten Commandments being spoken of. Again, don't just
claim it, prove it.

Not only that but in John's gospel he refers the "law" 14 times, and commandment or
commandments 10 times. So for John there is a difference between the two.

That is the end of the post from a previous response. I know you used Jn 14:15; 1Jn 5:3 as proof
texts Edward and not Rev 12:17; 14:12; 22:14, but I didn't want to break up the point that was
being made.

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Where is the proof that Christ is speaking of the Decalogue? It is fallacious to claim something
without proving it. The context as well as the word for commandments-entole suggest the
teachings of Christ are His commandments, as well as the overall context of the NT usage of the
word: commandment(s) which I have shown above.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my
Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not
mine, but the Father's which sent me.

From the following verses of v 15 we see the "commandments" of Christ are the same as His
"words" and "sayings." To exegete a text within its surrounding context is probably the most
basic and important hermeneutic we can use.

1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments
are not grievous.

John doesn't say one way or the other if he's speaking of the Ten Commandments or not. But
John's custom when referring to the law, he uses the word. As stated above, law and
commandments in John's gospel are two different things. But to keep with our hermeneutic, we
will interpret this text within the broader context of 1Jn.

1 John 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments,
and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus
Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

This should be enough for this first article Edwin; I'll next deal with your article on Col 2:14-17.