The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Act 20:7 and the Sabbath

Hi
I am helping a fellow Christian who has a room mate who attends a Messianic Jewish fellowship.
Among the things he has asked me about is whether or not the Sabbath should rightly have been changed from Saturday to Sunday.
Groups like the Messianic Jews and SDAs believe the Sabbath should still be on Saturday.

Among the passages in Scripture that I believe are relavent to this matter are Acts 20:7.
However, those who believe that the Sabbath is still Saturday counter that arguement by saying things like the following:

I want to check my facts before I get back to my friend on this matter. If anyone can help me with the arguement above it would be helpful.

I have sent a few articles from the Highway to my friend to read about this matter, such as: http://www.the-highway.com/Edwards_sabbath1.html

Thank you
Tom

Tom,

There are several more articles on The Highway that deal with the perpetuity and CHANGE of the Sabbath, e.g.:

- The Perpetuity and Change of the Sabbath by James Dennison

- The Covenantal Sabbath by Francis Nigel Lee (see particularly the articles in the Appendices)

- Conclusions About the Covenantal Sabbath (chapt 7) by Francis Nigel Lee

- The Foundations of the Sabbath in the Word of God by B.B. Warfield

Pilgrim

Thank you for those articles, I have read a few of those articles before, but will do so again.

In the mean time, do you have anything specific to offer concerning the argument that I quoted in my opening post?

Tom

The argument is assuming that Paul would have held to the Pharisaical addendum's to God's holy law, the examples of such we find in Scripture (Matt 5:21ff; 12:1ff; Lk 13:10ff). However, there can be no doubt, due to Paul's antagonism toward the error of syncretism and synergism, i.e., bringing those things which belonged to the Old Covenant which were types and shadows and fulfilled in Christ into the Church and making them requirements for salvation, that he would not have adhered to them. That alone I think is sufficient to dispel the argument.

Pilgrim

I think I must be missing something, because I don't understand your argument. Can you please expand on what you said to help out this poor thick head of mine?


Tom

And why wouldn't he have set out on foot...? He wouldn't have only IF he submitted to the Pharisaical 'embellishments' which were appended to the Torah, the majority of which God rejected as the evil traditions of men which made the law of God void (Matt 15:6,9; 23:1ff). But Paul learned well from the Lord Christ that all those unbiblical traditions were as a millstone around men's necks and prevented redeemed sinners from experiencing the joy of Christian liberty as it is found in Christ. Thus, the prohibitions of walking a certain distance on the Sabbath were to Paul... dung and not worthy of recognition.

Thank you Pilgrim, that makes a lot of sense.
This just goes to show how much we need each other as Christians.
In this particular case, I needed a fresh perspective in order to help my friend.

If you are intertested, I can let you know if this and the other things I am sharing with him have helped.

Tom

You're welcome, Tom. If my musings are helpful, then God be praised.

Sure, keep me and other interested parties here abreast of how this discussion goes in regard to the establishment and perpetuity of the holy Sabbath; the Lord's Day.

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:Colossians 2:16

IMHO I have always considered that Paul, being a former Pharisee set this matter right in this verse.

This was discussed previously here

And what exactly is it you think Paul "set straight" in that verse?

re: "And what exactly is it you think Paul 'set straight' in that verse?"

I'm curious also.