Slave to the Law

[brakelite]

In Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 we can read clearly what God’s specific requirements are. They are repeated as summary in Deut. 6:4,5 ( ¶ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.) and Levit. 19:18.( Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.)

It was Jesus Himself Who was upon Sinai at that time speaking with Moses. It was Jesus own commandments that He required Israel to keep. He repeats this in John 14:15 ** If ye love me, keep my commandments** and also the summary in Luke 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

The apostle John agreed, saying 1 John 5:2 **By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
**

Paul adding to this by saying love is the fulfilling of the law. So we have a complete consensus throughout the scriptures, old testament and new, that the commandments are required to be kept, and this is accomplished through love. On this I think we are all agreed.

The same God that spoke the commandments with such awesome power upon Sinai, and confirmed that same law throughout the centuries of Israel’s life through His prophets under the anointing power of the Holy Spirit, came in person and confirmed all that had gone before, fulfilling the prophecies which announced His coming, reiterating Himself the immutability of that same law saying, “Till heaven and earth pass one jot nor one tittle
shall in no-wise pass from the law, till all be accomplished.”
By His obedience to that same law, Christ testified to its immutability. On the mount He declared that not the smallest iota shall pass from the law till all things should be accomplished - all things that concern the human race,all that relates too our redemption. He does not teach that the law would ever be abrogated, changed, or altered. He fixes His eye upon the most distant verge of man’s imagination and upon that horizon He says that even when that point is reached, the end of heaven and earth, even then, the law would continue, it would retain its authority, and none should ever suppose that any of it would be abolished or altered. So long as heaven and earth remain, the holy principles of God’s law would remain.
Yet here we have a church that claims the power and authority to change it? To change that which Jesus Himself declared never would be? Supposedly under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the church has declared that a commandment can be changed thus suggesting that the Holy Spirit contradicts Himself on the orders of the church?
If any are confused as to what commandment I speak of, compare your catechisms with the Bible passages I quoted at the beginning of this post, and the commandment I speak of will be abundantly clear.

 

[fhansen]

In Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 we can read clearly what God’s specific requirements are. They are repeated as summary in Deut. 6:4,5 ( ¶ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.) and Levit. 19:18.( Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.)

It was Jesus Himself Who was upon Sinai at that time speaking with Moses. It was Jesus own commandments that He required Israel to keep. He repeats this in John 14:15 ** If ye love me, keep my commandments** and also the summary in Luke 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

The apostle John agreed, saying 1 John 5:2 **By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
**

Paul adding to this by saying love is the fulfilling of the law. So we have a complete consensus throughout the scriptures, old testament and new, that the commandments are required to be kept, and this is accomplished through love. On this I think we are all agreed.

The same God that spoke the commandments with such awesome power upon Sinai, and confirmed that same law throughout the centuries of Israel’s life through His prophets under the anointing power of the Holy Spirit, came in person and confirmed all that had gone before, fulfilling the prophecies which announced His coming, reiterating Himself the immutability of that same law saying, “Till heaven and earth pass one jot nor one tittle
shall in no-wise pass from the law, till all be accomplished.”
By His obedience to that same law, Christ testified to its immutability. On the mount He declared that not the smallest iota shall pass from the law till all things should be accomplished - all things that concern the human race,all that relates too our redemption. He does not teach that the law would ever be abrogated, changed, or altered. He fixes His eye upon the most distant verge of man’s imagination and upon that horizon He says that even when that point is reached, the end of heaven and earth, even then, the law would continue, it would retain its authority, and none should ever suppose that any of it would be abolished or altered. So long as heaven and earth remain, the holy principles of God’s law would remain.
Yet here we have a church that claims the power and authority to change it? To change that which Jesus Himself declared never would be? Supposedly under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the church has declared that a commandment can be changed thus suggesting that the Holy Spirit contradicts Himself on the orders of the church?
If any are confused as to what commandment I speak of, compare your catechisms with the Bible passages I quoted at the beginning of this post, and the commandment I speak of will be abundantly clear.

The CC has always taught that we’re to fulfill the greatest commandments.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi Reuben,

You don’t mention which book of the Bible you are referring to for there are different points Paul was making depending on which audience he was speaking to,

For example:

Romans 6:16 NRSA
Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Romans 6:17 NRSA
But thanks be to God that you, having once been slaves of sin, have become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted,

Romans 6:18 NRSA
and that you, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

Romans 6:19 NRSA
I am speaking in human terms because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification.

Here Paul is talking about us being slaves to sin, and when we turn away from sinfulness, we are to become slaves to obedience (in God). We are not to let sin become the master of our lives, but rather we are to serve God, and become “slaves” to righteousness. He uses this analogy because in this society there were masters and slaves, and the slaves were always to serve their master (or else face the consequences if they did not). Therefore, our “master” is either sin, or righteousness.

2 Peter 2:19 NRSA
They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption; for people are slaves to whatever masters them.

Romans 7:
14 For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin. 15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. 17 But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me…24 Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh I am a slave to the law of sin.

The “Law” was never meant to be discarded, but showed us that by breaking any of them, we sinned. But through Christ, we can overcome sin. Recall, Jesus said He did not come to discard the law, but to uphold it.

Also, Paul was talking about the “law” of circumcision and that we as Christians are not meant to follow this anymore.

We are still to uphold the 10 commandments.

Hi CEM5. How’re ya doing?

Gal 3:22-29 was the spring board to this thread. I did not specify it as I wanted general view and (name removed by moderator)uts on this subject so that nobody can be ‘very incorrect’ about it.

Gal 3:22-29 (NJB)
22 As it is, scripture makes no exception when it says that sin is master everywhere; so the promise can be given only by faith in Jesus Christ to those who have this faith.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the Law, locked up to wait for the faith which would eventually be revealed to us.
24 So the Law was serving as a slave to look after us, to lead us to Christ, so that we could be justified by faith.
25 But now that faith has come we are no longer under a slave looking after us;
26 for all of you are the children of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus,
27 since every one of you that has been baptised has been clothed in Christ.
28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither slave nor freeman, there can be neither male nor female – for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And simply by being Christ’s, you are that progeny of Abraham, the heirs named in the promise.

Before faith came we are kept under guard by the Law that served as a slave to look after us but no longer after faith came. The title of the thread perhaps is a bit provocative. If a slave looks after us, are we masters? Or are we slaves to the slaves? And why don’t we need them (slaves) any more to look after us when faith comes? These are some of the things that Paul spoke about to the Galatians.

God bless.

 

[Robbinson]

Yet here we have a church that claims the power and authority to change it? To change that which Jesus Himself declared never would be? Supposedly under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the church has declared that a commandment can be changed thus suggesting that the Holy Spirit contradicts Himself on the orders of the church?
If any are confused as to what commandment I speak of, compare your catechisms with the Bible passages I quoted at the beginning of this post, and the commandment I speak of will be abundantly clear.

If you show us something specific you have in mind, I"m sure any number of us will be happy to react. I’m not aware of any Church doctrine, discipline or law that contravene’s scripture. On the contrary, one might say that those who have rejected the authority of the Church have rejected Jesus’ authority as given to the apostles, much as Korah objected (and Miriam and Aaron) each objected to the authority given by God to moses.

The rejection of that authority has led to a terrible splintering of the body of Christ - has it not?

That being said - sincerely - please let me know what you are indirectly referring to so we can do our best to share the Church’s and our own understanding.

Blessings

Brian

 

[brakelite]

It was at the Council of Laodicea [celebrated sometime between 343 and
381 A. D.], that the Church put itself on the record as enjoining Sunday
worship and forbidding Sabbath worship. Canon 29 of this Council reads as
follows: “Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday [Greek
sabbaton, the Sabbath] but shall work on that day, but the Lord’s day
[Sunday] they shall especially honor, and, as being Christians, shall, if
possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing,
they shall be shut out from Christ.” (Translated in, Charles Joseph Hefele,
A History of the Christian Councils, vol. 2, translated and edited by H. N.
Oxenham [Edinburg: T. and T. Clark, 1896], p. 316).

St.
Thomas Aquinas, a theologian unparalleled in the history of the Roman
Catholic Church: “In the New Law the keeping of the Sunday supplants
that of the Sabbath, not in virtue of the precept of the law, but through
determination by the church and the custom of the Christian people.”
(Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, quoted in The Sabbath in
Scripture and History, pp. 205-206).

When Martin Luther debated John Eck, Luther brought forth the weapons
of Scripture whereas Eck brought forth the weapons of tradition. As long as
Luther stood on the solid rock of Sola Scriptura, his arguments were
unanswerable. However, there was one area where Eck took Luther’s own
weapon and turned against him:
“The Scripture teaches ‘Remember that you sanctify the day of the
Sabbath; six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day
is the Sabbath of the Lord your God.’, etc. But the Church has changed
the Sabbath into the Lord’s [day] by its own authority, concerning which
you have no scripture. . . The Sabbath is commanded many times by God;
neither in the Gospels nor in Paul is it declared that the Sabbath has ceased;
nevertheless the Church has instituted the Lord’s day through the
tradition of the apostles without Scripture.” (Johann Eck, Enchiridion
Locorum Communium . . . Adversus Lutheranos [Handbook of Common
Places Against the Lutherans].

 

[Robbinson]

It was at the Council of Laodicea [celebrated sometime between 343 and
381 A. D.], that the Church put itself on the record as enjoining Sunday
worship and forbidding Sabbath worship. Canon 29 of this Council reads as
follows: “Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday [Greek
sabbaton, the Sabbath] but shall work on that day, but the Lord’s day
[Sunday] they shall especially honor, and, as being Christians, shall, if
possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing,
they shall be shut out from Christ.” (Translated in, Charles Joseph Hefele,
A History of the Christian Councils, vol. 2, translated and edited by H. N.
Oxenham [Edinburg: T. and T. Clark, 1896], p. 316).

St.
Thomas Aquinas, a theologian unparalleled in the history of the Roman
Catholic Church: “In the New Law the keeping of the Sunday supplants
that of the Sabbath, not in virtue of the precept of the law, but through
determination by the church and the custom of the Christian people.”
(Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, quoted in The Sabbath in
Scripture and History, pp. 205-206).

When Martin Luther debated John Eck, Luther brought forth the weapons
of Scripture whereas Eck brought forth the weapons of tradition. As long as
Luther stood on the solid rock of Sola Scriptura, his arguments were
unanswerable. However, there was one area where Eck took Luther’s own
weapon and turned against him:
“The Scripture teaches ‘Remember that you sanctify the day of the
Sabbath; six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day
is the Sabbath of the Lord your God.’, etc. But the Church has changed
the Sabbath into the Lord’s [day] by its own authority, concerning which
you have no scripture. . . The Sabbath is commanded many times by God;
neither in the Gospels nor in Paul is it declared that the Sabbath has ceased;
nevertheless the Church has instituted the Lord’s day through the
tradition of the apostles without Scripture.” (Johann Eck, Enchiridion
Locorum Communium . . . Adversus Lutheranos [Handbook of Common
Places Against the Lutherans].

Thanks Brakelite:

These are two distinct (different), albeit related, issues.

The Sabbath will always be Saturday - however, the Sabbath commandment is fulfilled by our rest in Christ “today” and every day (per Hebrews).

The Lord’s Day is not the “Sabbath” - but a commemoration of the new creation (resurrection) and redemption from sin as well as a participation in the Eucharist. Lord’s Day (Sunday) fellowship and worship started in the first century. The ceremonial observance of the Lord’s Day “replaces” in a sense the ceremonial observance of the Sabbath (which celebrated the “original creation” and the redemption from Egypt) - but the key is - not because the Church moved the “Sabbath” from Saturday to Sunday but because the Saturday Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ. The Solemnity of the Sabbath is observed on the Lord’s Day, replicating the pattern established in the Decalogue.

The instruction to prevent Saturday Sabbath observance (which was fulfilled in the Christ) was a reaction to judaizing - we saw this as early as Galatians and Hebrews as a threat to the body of Christ - an attempt to stay in the “old wine skins” of the Mosaic Law. I wasn’t there, but I imagine it was a reaction to a problem within the Church body- of course, anyone can worship God on any day if they do it for the glory of God - that is what counts.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[fhansen]

It was at the Council of Laodicea [celebrated sometime between 343 and
381 A. D.], that the Church put itself on the record as enjoining Sunday
worship and forbidding Sabbath worship. Canon 29 of this Council reads as
follows: “Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday [Greek
sabbaton, the Sabbath] but shall work on that day, but the Lord’s day
[Sunday] they shall especially honor, and, as being Christians, shall, if
possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing,
they shall be shut out from Christ.” (Translated in, Charles Joseph Hefele,
A History of the Christian Councils, vol. 2, translated and edited by H. N.
Oxenham [Edinburg: T. and T. Clark, 1896], p. 316).

St.
Thomas Aquinas, a theologian unparalleled in the history of the Roman
Catholic Church: “In the New Law the keeping of the Sunday supplants
that of the Sabbath, not in virtue of the precept of the law, but through
determination by the church and the custom of the Christian people.”
(Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, quoted in The Sabbath in
Scripture and History, pp. 205-206).

When Martin Luther debated John Eck, Luther brought forth the weapons
of Scripture whereas Eck brought forth the weapons of tradition. As long as
Luther stood on the solid rock of Sola Scriptura, his arguments were
unanswerable. However, there was one area where Eck took Luther’s own
weapon and turned against him:
“The Scripture teaches ‘Remember that you sanctify the day of the
Sabbath; six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day
is the Sabbath of the Lord your God.’, etc. But the Church has changed
the Sabbath into the Lord’s [day] by its own authority, concerning which
you have no scripture. . . The Sabbath is commanded many times by God;
neither in the Gospels nor in Paul is it declared that the Sabbath has ceased;
nevertheless the Church has instituted the Lord’s day through the
tradition of the apostles without Scripture.” (Johann Eck, Enchiridion
Locorum Communium . . . Adversus Lutheranos [Handbook of Common
Places Against the Lutherans].

Yes, this is exactly what the nascent, still struggling, persecuted Church did, according to her tradition, a* lived* tradition directed and inspired by God, the God for whom only she’s been given the authority to speak.

 

[CEM5]

It was at the Council of Laodicea [celebrated sometime between 343 and
381 A. D.], that the Church put itself on the record as enjoining Sunday
worship and forbidding Sabbath worship. Canon 29 of this Council reads as
follows: “Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday [Greek
sabbaton, the Sabbath] but shall work on that day, but the Lord’s day
[Sunday] they shall especially honor, and, as being Christians, shall, if
possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing,
they shall be shut out from Christ.” (Translated in, Charles Joseph Hefele,
A History of the Christian Councils, vol. 2, translated and edited by H. N.
Oxenham [Edinburg: T. and T. Clark, 1896], p. 316).

St.
Thomas Aquinas, a theologian unparalleled in the history of the Roman
Catholic Church: “In the New Law the keeping of the Sunday supplants
that of the Sabbath, not in virtue of the precept of the law, but through
determination by the church and the custom of the Christian people.”
(Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, quoted in The Sabbath in
Scripture and History, pp. 205-206).

When Martin Luther debated John Eck, Luther brought forth the weapons
of Scripture whereas Eck brought forth the weapons of tradition. As long as
Luther stood on the solid rock of Sola Scriptura, his arguments were
unanswerable. However, there was one area where Eck took Luther’s own
weapon and turned against him:
“The Scripture teaches ‘Remember that you sanctify the day of the
Sabbath; six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day
is the Sabbath of the Lord your God.’, etc. But the Church has changed
the Sabbath into the Lord’s [day] by its own authority, concerning which
you have no scripture. . . The Sabbath is commanded many times by God;
neither in the Gospels nor in Paul is it declared that the Sabbath has ceased;
nevertheless the Church has instituted the Lord’s day through the
tradition of the apostles without Scripture.” (Johann Eck, Enchiridion
Locorum Communium . . . Adversus Lutheranos [Handbook of Common
Places Against the Lutherans].

hi brakelite,

I had posted this reply in the Sabbath thread and have copied it here with a couple of additions:

The Sabbath is not really a day per se. Sabbath simply means “seven”, (Heb. verb shabbath, meaning “to rest from labour”), a day of rest. It does not mean Saturday. The Jews observe the Sabbath (their holy day of obligation) starting at dusk on Friday, and they observe Sabbath until dusk Saturday. (It is traditionally observed when the first star appears in the night sky).

Ancient Hebrews and ancient lands did not have the seven day week we know today. The seven day week where we got Sunday to Saturday (Saturday named after the planet Saturn) replaced the eight day week around the 1st to the 3rd century AD – therefore long after Christ died. Some lands had 5 day weeks, others more than 8 days. The Hebrews/Jewish people had to observe the Sabbath on the seventh day, no matter what that day was called in the land they resided in.

We Christians observe our “sabbath” (day of rest, honoring God), on Sunday, and like the Jewish tradition (our roots are Jewish after all), we begin our sabbath on Saturday evening, ending Sunday evening. A day with the Jewish tradition always began in the evening and one day was counted not as a 24 hr period, but inclusive with that particular day. That is why when Jesus was crucified, on a Friday, the hour of the Sabbath was approaching and He had to be quickly buried (placed in the tomb). This day was counted as 1 day. Saturday, the continuation of the Sabbath, was the 2nd day. Sunday, when our Lord rose from the dead (the resurrection), was the third day, and this is what we call, and what Paul called, The Lord’s day. So, the day after the Jews celebrated their seventh day of rest, is when all first Christians celebrated Mass, on the Lord’s Day, which just happens to be on a Sunday now that we have had the seven day week established in that early era AD. Before that, there was no “Saturday” and no “Sunday”. It was an 8 day week.

As Christians, we celebrate Mass on the Lord’s day just as the Apostles did and have since then. Our Priests have their “sabbath” (day of rest) typically on Mondays, since they are “working” by celebrating Mass for the celebrants every day, except Mondays.

So, as we see, sabbath is the seventh day on which we rest. It does not mean a named day, such as Saturday.

God bless you all,

 

[CEM5]

Hi CEM5. How’re ya doing?

Gal 3:22-29 was the spring board to this thread. I did not specify it as I wanted general view and (name removed by moderator)uts on this subject so that nobody can be ‘very incorrect’ about it.

Gal 3:22-29 (NJB)
22 As it is, scripture makes no exception when it says that sin is master everywhere; so the promise can be given only by faith in Jesus Christ to those who have this faith.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the Law, locked up to wait for the faith which would eventually be revealed to us.
24 So the Law was serving as a slave to look after us, to lead us to Christ, so that we could be justified by faith.
25 But now that faith has come we are no longer under a slave looking after us;
26 for all of you are the children of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus,
27 since every one of you that has been baptised has been clothed in Christ.
28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither slave nor freeman, there can be neither male nor female – for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And simply by being Christ’s, you are that progeny of Abraham, the heirs named in the promise.

Before faith came we are kept under guard by the Law that served as a slave to look after us but no longer after faith came. The title of the thread perhaps is a bit provocative. If a slave looks after us, are we masters? Or are we slaves to the slaves? And why don’t we need them (slaves) any more to look after us when faith comes? These are some of the things that Paul spoke about to the Galatians.

God bless.

Hi Reuben,

I’m doing well, thanks! How about you?

In Galatians, Paul has written his letter to the pagan converts to Christianity who have been enticed by other missionaries to adopt the observance of certain Jewish laws, including the law of circumcision. They were told by theses false missionaries, who tried to undermine Paul’s teachings, that to truly become Christians they still had to remain faithful to God’s laws, they had to observe those precepts of Mosaic Law including being circumcised first. These missionaries preached that Paul had no authority for he was not trained by Jesus, and that Paul’s gospel of Christ was not full and authentic. That is why Paul talks about being a true Apostle to the Gentiles, that he saw the risen Lord and was taught by Christ. Additionally it is also why Paul reminds them that they learned well, and why would they turn to another gospel (not that there is any other gospel) and he warns them that if anyone should come and preach another gospel, even if it is an angel that contradicts the gospel they first heard from Paul, let that one be accursed!! So he continues by explaining that we are not justified by works, but by faith.

We have to read Galatians in context to get the whole picture of what Paul was explaning.

Gal 3 NRSA
1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly exhibited as crucified! 2 The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?..

22 But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. 27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.

I prefer the above translation and that of the NAB because although the NJB is good, it is an English translation from the French language it was originally written in.

Paul is essentially teaching us that it is not necessary to observe Mosaic laws that often were stumbling blocks. Even Jesus gave heck to the Pharisees for there over zealously strict observance of those hundreds and hundreds of “laws”.

blessings,

 

[brakelite]

Mmmmmmmm. Interesting answers.

But the bottom line is this: that no matter what reason is offered as to how one keeps Sunday or why, and no matter what ‘rest’ we are now to partake of, history, as confirmed in RCC records, reveals the fact that it was the church, not Jesus, not the apostles, but the church , using its own presumed authority, that changed the day of restful observance and solemnity from the 7th day of the week to the 1st day. (Notwithstanding the very dubious claims to an 8 day week in times past).
IOW, the RCC changed the 4th commandment of the Bible, (or the 3rd commandment according to catechisms.). The question will ever remain:

does the RCC have the authority to change a commandment set in stone by the finger of God Himself, and attested to be eternally binding by Jesus during His life?

 

[fhansen]

Mmmmmmmm. Interesting answers.

But the bottom line is this: that no matter what reason is offered as to how one keeps Sunday or why, and no matter what ‘rest’ we are now to partake of, history, as confirmed in RCC records, reveals the fact that it was the church, not Jesus, not the apostles, but the church , using its own presumed authority, that changed the day of restful observance and solemnity from the 7th day of the week to the 1st day. (Notwithstanding the very dubious claims to an 8 day week in times past).
IOW, the RCC changed the 4th commandment of the Bible, (or the 3rd commandment according to catechisms.). The question will ever remain:

does the RCC have the authority to change a commandment set in stone by the finger of God Himself, and attested to be eternally binding by Jesus during His life?

Only God has the authority to authorize the church to do so.

 

[Robbinson]

]
does the RCC have the authority to change a commandment set in stone by the finger of God Himself, and attested to be eternally binding by Jesus during His life?

That is a fair, and important, question. I think scripture answers that for us in the affirmative in the example in Acts where the Jerusalem counsel (the apostles) exercised authority to determine that Gentiles need not follow the mosaic laws. This was based upon their definitive, and accepted, interpretation of scripture. So it was with the Sabbath -a definitive, and accepted (at that time) interpretation of scripture that the Sabbath rest was fulfilled in Christ and celebration of the Lord’s Day (which appears even in the book of Acts) to have been a day for gathering and fellowship among the early Christians.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[brakelite]

Only God has the authority to authorize the church to do so.

I agree, that God does have such authority. The question is, did He give it away? And if so, why did He wait until the 3rd or 4th centuries to do it? And did He also authorise the church to persecute those who continued to keep the Sabbath, such as the Waldenses?

 

[brakelite]

That is a fair, and important, question. I think scripture answers that for us in the affirmative in the example in Acts where the Jerusalem counsel (the apostles) exercised authority to determine that Gentiles need not follow the mosaic laws. This was based upon their definitive, and accepted, interpretation of scripture. So it was with the Sabbath -a definitive, and accepted (at that time) interpretation of scripture that the Sabbath rest was fulfilled in Christ and celebration of the Lord’s Day (which appears even in the book of Acts) to have been a day for gathering and fellowship among the early Christians.

Blessings,

Brian

The Jerusalem council was convened because Jewish converts were demandinmg that new Gentile converts ought to be keeping the Mosaic laws, in particular circumcision. Sabbath was not an issue because both Jew and Gentile continued to observe the Sabbath well into the 2nd century. Nowhere in scripture does the weekly Sabbath become a point of controversy. There was no issue with regards to keeping the 7th day holy. It didn’t become an issue until Jews themselves began to be persecuted, and Christians sought to distance themselves from Judaism in order to escape being tarred with the same brush so to speak. So they began to observe Sunday, and over the centuries, the Sabbath fell out of favour. This took a long time, despite several councils being convened in later centuries to deal with the issue. Eventually, the church came down hard on Sabbath keepers and outlawed the practice altogether.
I understand that today various texts can be found in scripture to purportedly support keeping Sunday and neglecting the 7th day Sabbath, but the fact remains that a specific commandment of God has been changed, and that without any scriptural authority. Not one word of any change even hinted at by Jesus, nor any of the writers of the NT. The change was made solely upon tradition. And at the council of Trent, that fact was used against Luther to prove that tradition can supersede even the commandments of God if the church deem it appropriate.

The 4th commandment is just that. A commandment. And the church takes upon itself an awesome responsibility if she thinks to change God’s spoken and written law. A law His Son said would never be changed. Ever. As proved by the prophecy in Isaiah which tells us that the Sabbath would be kept in the new earth.

**Isa 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
**

 

[Robbinson]

The Jerusalem council was convened because Jewish converts were demandinmg that new Gentile converts ought to be keeping the Mosaic laws, in particular circumcision. Sabbath was not an issue because both Jew and Gentile continued to observe the Sabbath well into the 2nd century. Nowhere in scripture does the weekly Sabbath become a point of controversy.

Brakelite

I wasn’t suggesting that the Jerusalem counsel addressed the Sabbath - merely that it was an example of the apostles (the church) interpreting scripture and oral teachings of Christ (the cannon wasn’t compiled yet) in a definitive way which was accepted by all on the basis of their “authority”. You were questioning Church “authority”

The Sabbath “debate” is all about interpretation of scripture - though many mischaracterize it as “moving a day”. Its an “interpretation of scripture” question because it goes to the issue of whether, in Hebrews (and elsewhere, but most significantly Hebrews) the teaching that we “rest” “today” means “every day” and thus our Sabbath “rest” (thus Sabbath commandment) is “fulfilled” in Christ (Mat 5:17 - speaks of “until all is fulfilled”). Thus, the Church interprets scripture as teaching we are in “eternal rest” in Christ - thus we satisfy the Sabbath commandment of Rest. The Lord’s Day is not, once again, the Sabbath (its not a movement of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday), but recognizing the parallet between the saturdy Sabbath (which celebrated creation and redemption from bondage in Egypt) and the Lords Day (which celebrates the “new creation” and “redemtpion from sin”), the church imported the type of “solemnity” previously applicable to the Sabbath under the mosaic covenant to the Lord’s Day.

For what its worth - I don’t think the Lords’ Day became known as the “Sabbath” per se in earnest until the reformation days (I think that started with the Anglicans) - its ultimately a red herring because it is not “the” Sabbath.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[brakelite]

If it was but an interpretation of scripture, how come the apostles and early church didn’t recognise it? For the early church kept the Sabbath including the gentiles, and continued to do so for many centuries. Particularly in those countries which were not under papal jurisdiction such as Ethiopia, and the Celtic churches of Britain and the church of the East, where the Sabbath day was observed until after the reformation. Ironically, it was when those churches eg the Waldenses, made contact with the reformation movement that they began Sunday observance.

 

[Robbinson]

If it was but an interpretation of scripture, how come the apostles and early church didn’t recognize it? For the early church kept the Sabbath including the gentiles, and continued to do so for many centuries. Particularly in those countries which were not under papal jurisdiction such as Ethiopia, and the Celtic churches of Britain and the church of the East, where the Sabbath day was observed until after the reformation. Ironically, it was when those churches eg the Waldenses, made contact with the reformation movement that they began Sunday observance.

I think history suggests that saturday Sabbath observance ended (except for small fringe groups as you noted and some known as the “nazarenes” roughly coincident with the destruction of the second temple) and then finally following the Bar Choba revolt.

It would be understandable that the apostles (all Jewish believers) and early Jewish Christians would have continued to go to the Temple (and thus celebrate the Sabbath) as Christianity started, essentially, as a sect of Judaism. It took some time for the apostles and disciples to understand the full dimensions of the new covenant - thus the Jerusalem counsel was necessary, for example, to determine that Gentiles believers need not be subject to the mosaic law. We also see the letter to Galatians and Hebrews (written well after Christ’s death and resurrection) where there is still “teaching” (so obviously still a need for teaching and convincing Jewish believers) that we are not “under the law” under the new covenant.

The destruction of the second temple was a natural breaking point as there was no longer a central place of worship for Jews, generally, and since Christians had already begun to worship on Sunday as well, one could see the natural tendency to begin Lord’s Day worship “in lieu” of Saturday worship. As a matter of historical record, the “nail in the coffin” for the split between Jewish believers in Christ and non-belieers came shortly thereafter with the Bar Choba revolt (where Jewish non-believers claimed him as messiah so Jewish Christian believers had no choice to to leave). The Jewish revolt was crushed and the final rift created between Jewish non-believers and believers.

In terms of scriptural support for those who may have followed the mosaic law (not for salvation, but sanctification) until the destruction of the second temple - I suspect some would have looked at Matt 5:17 suggesting the entire law be continued “until all be fulfilled” and “heaven and earth pass away”. I believe a reasonable reading of Revelation is that it related in a primary (not exclusive) way to the destruction of the “world” (Judaism taught the temple was the “world”) with the destruction of the temple - “fulfilling” Jesus prophecy about no stone being left standing - thus obviating finally the Mosaic law leaving us the new covenant (which imports the moral law written in our hearts).

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Robbinson]

Brakelite

I found this interesting quote from Augustine and another from Ignatius which is consistent with the view I"ve been expressing about the Sabbath being fulfilled in Christ.

"o, when you ask why a Christian does not keep the Sabbath, if Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, my reply is, that a Christian does not keep the Sabbath precisely because what was prefigured in the Sabbath is fulfilled in Christ. For we have our Sabbath in Him who said, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls.”

AUGUSTINE—ANTI-MANICHAEAN WRITINGS Of the Morals of the Catholic Church.
[de Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae]. A.D. 388.
Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. IV. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. IV (243). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

"If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death—whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master—how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead." (Ignatius AD 30-107)

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians. Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.I : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 (62). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

 

[CEM5]

The Didache (The teachings of the Twelve Apostles) says this:

Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord’s Day
But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.

Chapter 15. Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof
Therefore, appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, 1 Timothy 3:4 and truthful and proven; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Despise them not therefore, for they are your honoured ones, together with the prophets and teachers. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel; Matthew 18:15-17 but to every one that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord.

(DOCTRINE OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES)

A short treatise which was accounted by some of the Fathers as next to Holy Scripture. It was rediscovered in 1873 by Bryennios, Greek Orthodox metropolitan of Nicomedia, in the codex from which, in 1875, he had published the full text of the Epistles of St. Clement. The title in the manuscript is Didache kyriou dia ton dodeka apostolon ethesin, but before this it gives the heading Didache ton dodeka apostolon. The old Latin translation of cc. i-v, found by Dr. J. Schlecht in 1900, has the longer title, omitting “twelve”, and has a rubric De doctrinâ Apostolorum. For convenience the contents may be divided into three parts: the first is the “Two Ways”, the Way of Life and the Way of Death; the second part is a rituale dealing with baptism, fasting, and Holy Communion; the third speaks of the ministry. Doctrinal teaching is presupposed, and none is imparted.

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cachezM5lyBIRxkJ:www.newadvent.org/cathen/04779a.htm+clement+quotes+didache&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

The Didache is mentioned by Eusebius after the books of Scripture (Church History III.25.4): “Let there be placed among the spuria the writing of the Acts of Paul, the so-called Shepherd and the Apocalypse of Peter, and besides these the Epistle known as that of Barnabas, and what are called the Teachings of the Apostles, and also . . . the Apocalypse of John, if this be thought fit . . .” St. Athanasius and Rufinus add the “Teaching” to the sapiential and other deutero-canonical books. (Rufinus gives the curious alternative title “Judicium Petri”.) It has a similar place in the lists of Nicephorus, Pseudo-Anastasius, and Pseudo-Athanasius (Synopsis). The Pseudo-Cyprianic “Adversus Aleatores” quotes it by name. Unacknowledged citations are very common, if less certain. The “Two Ways” appears in Barnabas, cc. xviii-xx, sometimes word for word, sometimes added to, dislocated, or abridged, and Barn., iv, 9 is from Didache, xvi, 2-3, or vice versa. Hermas, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen seem to use the work, and so in the West do Optatus and the “Gesta apud Zenophilum”. The Didascalia Apostolorum are founded upon the Didache. The Apostolic church ordinance has used a part, the Apostolic Constitutions have embodied the Didascalia. There are echoes in Justin, Tatian, Theophilus, Cyprian, and Lactantius.

=====================================================

So, even from the teachings of the Apostles one sees that the Lord’s Day was celebrated as opposed to the Jewish “Sabbath”.

blessings.

 

[CEM5]

Mmmmmmmm. Interesting answers.

But the bottom line is this: that no matter what reason is offered as to how one keeps Sunday or why, and no matter what ‘rest’ we are now to partake of, history, as confirmed in RCC records, reveals the fact that it was the church, not Jesus, not the apostles, but the church , using its own presumed authority, that changed the day of restful observance and solemnity from the 7th day of the week to the 1st day. (Notwithstanding the very dubious claims to an 8 day week in times past).
IOW, the RCC changed the 4th commandment of the Bible, (or the 3rd commandment according to catechisms.). The question will ever remain:

does the RCC have the authority to change a commandment set in stone by the finger of God Himself, and attested to be eternally binding by Jesus during His life?

Hi brakelite,

No, it was the Lord’s Day from the beginning by the Apostles that was celebrated as the day of rest for Christians. “day of rest” is what Sabbath means. We are to keep this day holy, and to “do this in remembrance of me” as Jesus said.

The Church did not change any commandment, but rather, she upholds and protects God’s commandments. Don’t forget, it is the Church who gave the world the canon of the Bible. There would be no Bible if not for her - no New Testament. See the two versions of the 10 commandments from Bible, and see that the Sabbath is not a Saturday. You work for 6 days, rest on the seventh. There was no Saturday back then!

Exodus 20:2-17
2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
3 Do not have any other gods before me.

4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,

6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

**8 Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.

9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.

10 But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it**.

12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

13 You shall not murder.

14 You shall not commit adultery.

15 You shall not steal.

16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor

Deuteronomy 5:6-21

6 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
7 you shall have no other gods before me.

8 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me,

10 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

11 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

**12 Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you.

13 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.

14 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you.**
15 Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.

16 Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

17 You shall not murder.

18 Neither shall you commit adultery.

19 Neither shall you steal.

20 Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor.

21 Neither shall you covet your neighbor’s wife. Neither shall you desire your neighbor’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

blessings