sabbath day

[brakelite]

I am bemused by a common argument used against the observance of Sabbath; that is that " Jesus is now my Sabbath rest" because this or that one has ceased from his own works. The insinuation is that those who do observe the Sabbath as a day of rest according to the commandment, have not ceased from their own works.
My question is this, though it seems obvious to me: how can anyone observe the day as a Sabbath, without ceasing from his/her own works?

As a corollary to this, can we observe any commandment without ceasing from our own works? Does not death to self and the infilling of the Holy Spirit create in us the image of Christ? Is this not called sanctification? And because we are transformed into the image of Christ, would it also not be in conformity to the law that Christ wrote on the tables of stone, and which He now writes on the tables of our hearts? We can't accomplish this without surrender ; without ceasing from our own works. Sanctification is simply that. The changing of the life to make it conformable to God's standards of righteousness. And Ezekiel tells us that by observing the Sabbath, the day, we are acknowledging that it is God Who is doing the sanctifying, and not we ourselves. So by keeping the Sabbath, it is actually a sign we have indeed ceased from our own works, and trusting in Christ's working in us His righteousness.

2Co 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:


Further to this, no Christian I know of whatever denomination, would suggest that because Jesus fulfilled the law, it is now legitimate for Christians to commit murder, because they are no longer under the law. That would surely be quite preposterous. Yet we constantly witness claims by many that because we are not under the law, we are no longer obliged to honor it. This is so incredibly inconsistent. The reason I am not under the law is not because the law has been done away with, but because the blood of Jesus has released me from it's condemnation. That however does not release me from it's power to convict me again of sin should I choose to disobey it.
This also applies to the 4th commandment. Just because Jesus fulfilled the law by keeping the Sabbath, , (that is He kept the law, obeyed it and thus magnified the law making it honorable) that does not release me from my obligation to keep the Sabbath, magnifying it and making it honorable. If obligation makes anyone feel uncomfortable, sorry, but I would use that same word for every one of the ten commandments. We are obliged to love our neighbor and thus not commit adultery, not covet, not steal, not get angry and kill, and respect and honor our parents. We are also obliged to love God by confessing Him as the One and Only true God, Maker of heaven and earth, and all things therein. Because He is our Creator, He has sole rights to our worship, our fidelity and service. That is why we shun idols. It is also why we would not dare to use His name disrespectfully. It is also why we choose to honor that day which recognises Him as our Creator, and brings to our remembrance why He deserves our worship, and why the whole law and our keeping it is a recognition of His authority in our lives.

I mentioned previously in another post that the only arguments against the observance of Sabbath are ones of subjective interpretation, an example of which is the aforementioned "Jesus is my Sabbath rest" argument. By so doing we are placing our own authority above God's

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, brakelite said:

Check out your concordance and count the number of times the word Sabbath appears in scripture. In both old and new testaments it echoes across the pages of the Bible from one end to the other. It is a day that is clearly very very important to God. It was a day that was instituted at creation, was intended to be continued throughout history (as the episode with the gathering of manna before Sinai shows) and was reinforced with much grandeur and fanfare from Mt Sinai. What a awesome display of God's glory and power that must have been. Lightning, thunder, earthquakes,fire and smoke, black clouds, trumpets and booming voice, no wonder Israel feared and ran away.

 

The Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament, but is not commanded to the church.

Quote

I would strongly suggest to you that the reason it never came up for any debate in those earlier years was that the early church kept the Sabbath faithfully , both Jew and gentile, and it was not an issue.

But the others commandments were being observed, but were mentioned as commandments to the Church.   So to say that the Sabbath didnt need to be mentioned because it was still being observed by church, doesn't hold water.

We have evidence from the early 2nd century that believers had long been observing the first day of the week.

Quote

And why is it an issue today? Because Jesus is coming soon. And He is calling His bride to be holy, pure, faithful, honest, obedient, and committed. That righteousness that His bride is to be adorned with is the wedding garment. It is supplied by the Groom. Sadly, many today want to wear their own garments, walking and trusting in their own righteousness, much as the Jews did in Jesus time....and we all know what happened to the one who showed up to attend the wedding but wasn't dressed appropriately.

So this is what really boils down to, isn't it?  This what I mentioned early that Rob tried to discredit.   You really do believe that those who don't keep the Sabbath will be like the man who is cast into outer darkness (hell). 

[coheir]

Gal 5: 3;14;18 seems to say different

[coheir]

2 Corin 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:

I wonder how many different ways this verse can be exlained?

 

 

[brakelite]

21 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament, but is not commanded to the church.

 

Yes, a total of over 50 times, and in all instances positively. Not once could it be said that it was no longer part and parcel of the Christian walk.

 

21 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

But the others commandments were being observed, but were mentioned as commandments to the Church.   So to say that the Sabbath didnt need to be mentioned because it was still being observed by church, doesn't hold water.

We have evidence from the early 2nd century that believers had long been observing the first day of the week.

Yes, the other commandments were indeed being observed. But wasn't the law nailed to the cross? If those Christians were obeying the other 9 commandments, did they suddenly all come "under the law"? Did they "fall from grace" because they obeyed those 9 commandments, as is suggested repeatedly by so many when it comes to Sabbath keeping?  And if "keep yourselves from idols" wasn't mentioned by the apostle John, would that then make idolatry okay? Though there may be no specific instruction to observe Sabbath (although many would suggest "there remaineth therefore a Sabbath " in Hebrews as evidence of the continuation of Sabbathkeeping for the church, as well as Jesus admonition for the church to pray that their "flight not be on the Sabbath"), is the absence of such sufficiient reason to cast it aside?

As to early Christians observing the first day, yes, sad that the 'falling away' spoken of by the apostles should have begun so soon after their death.

22 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

So this is what really boils down to, isn't it?  This what I mentioned early that Rob tried to discredit.   You really do believe that those who don't keep the Sabbath will be like the man who is cast into outer darkness (hell)

I don't know shiloh. I am not God, so I cannot nor will I be tempted or cajoled into condemning anyone for not observing the Sabbath. Only God knows your heart. But God is calling for His bride to prepare herself. That does mean obedience, holiness, and repentance from all sin. It is up to us to search our own hearts and the word of God to discern what is truth...what is sin...what is righteousness. Our lives depend on it. I searched for the truth many years ago, and discovered the Sabbath. Since then it has never ceased to be a delight and a pleasure to take time out of a busy week and spend 24 hours with my Savior at the time of His choosing, keeping the appointment He made for me at creation. I do not see in scripture anything intimating that our rest in Christ replaces the observance of the Sabbath. To my mind, such a decision is purely speculative and subjective reasoning, and without any real tangible and clear explicit teaching.

[Guest shiloh357]

2 hours ago, brakelite said:

Yes, a total of over 50 times, and in all instances positively. Not once could it be said that it was no longer part and parcel of the Christian walk.

I didn't say it was criticized.   But it was never given as  a command to the church.
 

Quote

Yes, the other commandments were indeed being observed. But wasn't the law nailed to the cross?

No, the law was not nailed to the cross.

Quote

If those Christians were obeying the other 9 commandments, did they suddenly all come "under the law"? Did they "fall from grace" because they obeyed those 9 commandments, as is suggested repeatedly by so many when it comes to Sabbath keeping? 

The problem with the Colossians had nothing to do with keeping the law.

 

Quote

And if "keep yourselves from idols" wasn't mentioned by the apostle John, would that then make idolatry okay? Though there may be no specific instruction to observe Sabbath (although many would suggest "there remaineth therefore a Sabbath " in Hebrews as evidence of the continuation of Sabbathkeeping for the church, as well as Jesus admonition for the church to pray that their "flight not be on the Sabbath"), is the absence of such sufficiient reason to cast it aside?

Hebrews isn't talking about the Sabbath day or Sabbath keeping.  It is talking about the Sabbath rest we have in Christ.   Jesus statemenet about praying that "your flight not be on the Sabbath"  pertained to Jews living in Israel during the Tribulation.  It was not talking to the church.

Quote

As to early Christians observing the first day, yes, sad that the 'falling away' spoken of by the apostles should have begun so soon after their death.

Actually goes back the first apostles.  We know that from the Didache which asserts that first century Christians met congregationally on Sunday.

 

Quote

I don't know shiloh. I am not God, so I cannot nor will I be tempted or cajoled into condemning anyone for not observing the Sabbath. Only God knows your heart. But God is calling for His bride to prepare herself. That does mean obedience, holiness, and repentance from all sin. It is up to us to search our own hearts and the word of God to discern what is truth...what is sin...what is righteousness. Our lives depend on it. I searched for the truth many years ago, and discovered the Sabbath. Since then it has never ceased to be a delight and a pleasure to take time out of a busy week and spend 24 hours with my Savior at the time of His choosing, keeping the appointment He made for me at creation. I do not see in scripture anything intimating that our rest in Christ replaces the observance of the Sabbath. To my mind, such a decision is purely speculative and subjective reasoning, and without any real tangible and clear explicit teaching.

You have already shown that you believe that non-Sabbath keepers are going to hell.  And even here, you state that not observing the Sabbath is a sin.  Seems like you have a little case of passive/aggressive stuff going on here.

[Remnantrob]

On 11/2/2016 at 1:55 PM, shiloh357 said:

I am not talking about what you think, as much as I am what the SDA teaches and I know what they teach about works-based salvation and the need for Baptism for salvation and all of that.  And that doesn't come from 7 people.

It's a cult based on the teachings of false prophetess, Ellen White but got its start from a another false prophet who predicted the Lord would return 1844.

The SDA claims salvation by grace through faith but then redefines what that means by adding the law into the mix.   So it is grace plus works.  What's more in the SDA cult, you don't really have assurance of salvation.  They teach that you must endure to the end to be saved and so it really depends on you being good enough.  And in the SDA cult they must follow all of the requirements of the SDA in order to be saved.  They deny the free gift of eternal life and instead tack on works as a requirement for salvation.

The interesting thing about cults is that most of our major christian denominations were cults in the eyes of the people.  In the 1300s John Wycliffe started a group called the Lollards.  Wycliffe took the bible and translated it into the language of the common people.  If I was living in the 1300s I would have been a Lollard.  Except if I would have went to a Lollard meeting and came home and told my parents, hey guess what I just came from a Lollard meeting they would have said what??? Don't you know that's a cult?  In the 1400s-1500s Martin Luther started the Lutheran movement. He restored the truth that it was Christ sacrifice alone that wins us to him and not penance.  If I was born during that time I would have been a Lutheran except the general public would have considered me a part of a cult as well.  In the 1500s John Calvin founded the Presbyterian movement and he restored the truth that you don't need priest and popes to pray for you and that you could have direct access to the throne of God by faith through prayer.  Can you guess what the public thought of that movement?  Cult...and I would have been proud to be a part of that movement.  In the 1600s John Smythe and Roger Williams became the founders of the Baptist movement restoring the truth that baptism required that you become fully submersed in water and that you must repent before becoming baptized and that a baby couldn't be baptized.  Praise God for that movement. In the 1700s John Wesley formed the Methodist movement and they were big into evangelism and letting their light shine so that others could see the Lord in their lives, but they were also considered a cult during their time.  And surprisingly by all of the previously mentioned movements who were likewise persecuted when they began.  Then of course you know about my church and their movement during the 1800s.  I believe that God had a purpose for each one of these movements during the times when they brought about a lost truth that was perverted by the RCC.    
 

Quote

 

The SDA claims salvation by grace through faith but then redefines what that means by adding the law into the mix.   So it is grace plus works.

 

 

Salvation by grace through faith has always been unto good works.  Ephesians 2:10

Quote

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them

You have a famous quote in your debates with other people on this forum that you don't pit the bible against itself.  So the grace that Paul speaks of and the works that James speaks of should be something that works harmoniously together.  I don't see why the fruit of obedience to God's will for your life should be considered works that would ultimately deny the gift of salvation.

Quote

What's more in the SDA cult, you don't really have assurance of salvation.

When you discuss the doctrine of eternal security I notice that you make a distinction between a true Christian and those who are just Christian by name.  What assurance do they have if the have the form of Godliness but deny the power thereof?  If they believe that have experienced salvation but that has not resulted in the works that Christ has ordained for their lives then is their assurance presumption? 

Quote

They teach that you must endure to the end to be saved and so it really depends on you being good enough.

The bible teaches endurance to the end.  If you don't continue to abide in Christ moment by moment why would Christ force you into salvation if you decide it's not what you want anymore.  I'm not her judge, but Whitney Houston was a self described Christian.  Her life towards the end seemed contrary to that.  Was her walk genuine?  Is she in heaven because Christ didn't let her go?  And you can replace her with any celebrity that claims Christ and walks contrary to their proclamation.  It's never about us because all of our righteousness are as filthy rags but to teach that to endure in Christ until the end is wrong is baffling to me.

Quote

And in the SDA cult they must follow all of the requirements of the SDA in order to be saved

I would say we teach to stick to the doctrine of the church in order to keep your membership...Salvation is of Christ alone.

Quote

They deny the free gift of eternal life and instead tack on works as a requirement for salvation.

We accept the gift of eternal but recognize that God has a mission for us and it involves us working for souls and living a life that he has asked us to live.  Coincidentally Sabbath keeping falls under one of those obligations that we believe he has for us.  

[Remnantrob]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Actually goes back the first apostles.  We know that from the Didache which asserts that first century Christians met congregationally on Sunday.

Does the Didache say the first day/Sunday/the Lord's Day or is it implied?  I haven't read it completely so that's why I am asking.  Thanks.

[Remnantrob]

From the book from Sabbath to Sunday p. 29 by Samuele Bacchiocchi

Quote

 

A closer look at the various arguments put forward by Christ to meet the criticism of His opponents, will provide additional insight into Christ’s concept of the Sabbath. First of all, Christ reminded the Pharisees of David and his men, who once assuaged their hunger by eating the showbread which was forbidden except to the priests (1 Sam. 21:1-7). The implication is clear. If it was right for David to allay his hunger by eating of the bread consecrated to holy use, then it was legitimate also for the disciples to provide for their needs by plucking ears of grain during the holy time of the Sabbath.108 In both instances, holy bread and holy time were used exceptionally to meet human needs. Their use was justified by the fact that the intention behind all divine laws is not to deprive but to ensure life. The exception therefore does not nullify but corroborates the validity of the commandment.109 The contrast between the case of David and that of Christ adds force to the argument. David’s followers were soldiers (1 Sam. 22:2) while those of Christ were peaceful men. David to allay his hunger ate of the forbidden showbread which is far less lawful to be touched than ears of corn. David’s hunger, in fact, set aside a specific divine regulation (Lev. 24:5; Josephus, Antiquities, 3, 10, 7) while the disciples’ hunger set aside mere rabbinical notions. By appealing to an exception approved by countless generations 110 (“Have you never read….Mark 2:25) Christ reasons a majori ad minus to demonstrate that His disciples were guiltless (Matt. 12:7), since like David, they had obeyed the higher law of necessity.111 The point to observe, however, is that Christ does not minimize the infraction of the precept by introducing a more liberal casuistry. (He sees that all forms of casuistry enslave man.)112 On the contrary, Christ states explicitly and strikingly that David’s action was “not lawful” (Mark 2:26). The disciples too, He implies, by their action had broken the Sabbath law of complete rest. Nevertheless in both instances they were blameless because the larger obligation overruled the lesser, that is to say, mercy was more important than sacrifice.

108 Heinrich A. W. Meyer (p. 27, note 102), p. 34, acutely observes: “The demonstrative force of this citation depends upon a conclusion a majori ad minus. David in a case of necessity dealt apparently unlawfully even with shewbread of the Temple, which is yet far less lawful to be touched than the ears of grain in general.”

109 Joseph Schmid, The Gospel according to Mark, The Regensburg New Testament, 1968, p. 71, supports this view: “By pointing out some similar action in the Scriptures, one could show that even a form of work in itself forbidden could be permitted in certain circumstances.’

110 The formula is frequently used by Christ, cf. Mark 12 :10, 26; Matt. 12:5; 19:4; 21:16.

111 For Joseph Schmid (p. 29, note 109), p. 72, Jesus shows that “it cannot be God’s will that his children should suffer hunger because of a mere cultic precept.”

112 Charles R. Erdman, The Gospel of Mark, 1945, p. 55, recognizes that “Jesus does not try to answer the Pharisees by saying that picking a few grains of wheat is not work; he admits that the Law has been broken but insists that under certain circumstances it is right to break the Sabbath law of complete rest. Works of necessity break that law, but involve no fault or guilt”; G. A. Chadwick, The Gospel according to St. Mark, 1900, p. 68, similarly states: “They [the disciples] were blameless, not because the Fourth Commandment remained inviolate, but because circumstances made it right for them to profane the Sabbath.” Avram: Yeshua doesn’t ‘admit’ or ‘imply’ that His disciples had broken the Sabbath law, but He reasons that if David had done what he did in transgressing a written precept of the Law and wasn’t charged with sin, how could the disciples be charged with sin when there was no written prohibition against picking grain for one’s hunger on the Sabbath? Messiah’s speaking of mercy was directed to the merciless way the Pharisaic precepts were enforced, without any consideration for the person. Bacchiocchi speaks of the disciples breaking the Sabbath law ‘of complete rest’ by picking the grain, but here he seems to be siding with the Pharisees in their accusation of the disciples. Picking grain, as they did, is tantamount to plucking an apple from a tree and eating it on the Sabbath–both fall within God’s parameters for what is lawful, and so, the disciples didn’t break the ‘rest’ of the God’s Sabbath, only the Sabbath of the Pharisees.

 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

On 11/4/2016 at 8:39 AM, Remnantrob said:

The interesting thing about cults is that most of our major christian denominations were cults in the eyes of the people.  In the 1300s John Wycliffe started a group called the Lollards.  Wycliffe took the bible and translated it into the language of the common people.  If I was living in the 1300s I would have been a Lollard.  Except if I would have went to a Lollard meeting and came home and told my parents, hey guess what I just came from a Lollard meeting they would have said what??? Don't you know that's a cult?  In the 1400s-1500s Martin Luther started the Lutheran movement. He restored the truth that it was Christ sacrifice alone that wins us to him and not penance.  If I was born during that time I would have been a Lutheran except the general public would have considered me a part of a cult as well.  In the 1500s John Calvin founded the Presbyterian movement and he restored the truth that you don't need priest and popes to pray for you and that you could have direct access to the throne of God by faith through prayer.  Can you guess what the public thought of that movement?  Cult...and I would have been proud to be a part of that movement.  In the 1600s John Smythe and Roger Williams became the founders of the Baptist movement restoring the truth that baptism required that you become fully submersed in water and that you must repent before becoming baptized and that a baby couldn't be baptized.  Praise God for that movement. In the 1700s John Wesley formed the Methodist movement and they were big into evangelism and letting their light shine so that others could see the Lord in their lives, but they were also considered a cult during their time.  And surprisingly by all of the previously mentioned movements who were likewise persecuted when they began.  Then of course you know about my church and their movement during the 1800s.  I believe that God had a purpose for each one of these movements during the times when they brought about a lost truth that was perverted by the RCC.    

In the past, a lot of people have used  the term "cult" as a pejorative term to discredit those whom they disagree with.   I am not.   Among the cults that use the Bible today are Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, World Wide Church of God (Armstrongism) Seventh Day Adventism, and the Roman Catholic Church.

The SDA is based on the teachings of Ellen White which include "investigative judgment" which denies justification by faith and the heresy of the sinful nature of Christ.   I have known former SDA members and they talk about how hard it is to leave the SDA.  Very similar to stories that former Mormons and JW's  tell about trying to leave those cults.

The most successful cults are the ones who use the Bible.

Quote

Salvation by grace through faith has always been unto good works.  Ephesians 2:10

But works are not included in how salvation is either attained or maintained.

Quote

You have a famous quote in your debates with other people on this forum that you don't pit the bible against itself.  So the grace that Paul speaks of and the works that James speaks of should be something that works harmoniously together.  I don't see why the fruit of obedience to God's will for your life should be considered works that would ultimately deny the gift of salvation.

Paul speaks to the fact that we justified by God on the basis  of faith alone.    James is saying that our works justify or affirm the authenticity of our profession of faith. 

Quote

When you discuss the doctrine of eternal security I notice that you make a distinction between a true Christian and those who are just Christian by name.  What assurance do they have if the have the form of Godliness but deny the power thereof?  If they believe that have experienced salvation but that has not resulted in the works that Christ has ordained for their lives then is their assurance presumption? 

Yes, if a person is a true Christian their life will bear that out.   If they have "religion"  but live in and practice sin, they have a problem with claiming to be a Christian.   If their life doesn't agree with their testimony, they are probably not the believers they claim to be.   There is no provision for those who come to church once a week just to get their slate cleaned, while fully intending to go back out and live in sin.  They were never saved to start with.
 

Quote

 

The bible teaches endurance to the end.  If you don't continue to abide in Christ moment by moment why would Christ force you into salvation if you decide it's not what you want anymore.  I'm not her judge, but Whitney Houston was a self described Christian.  Her life towards the end seemed contrary to that.  Was her walk genuine?  Is she in heaven because Christ didn't let her go?  And you can replace her with any celebrity that claims Christ and walks contrary to their proclamation.  It's never about us because all of our righteousness are as filthy rags but to teach that to endure in Christ until the end is wrong is baffling to me.

 

"Enduring the end"  is used by Jesus in the Gospels.  And when He uses that phrase, it is talking about enduring persecution and in one place in Matthew 24, it is talking about enduring to the end of the Tribulation.    It is not talking about working and enduring to the end of your life in order to be saved.   You are still teaching a works-based salvation.   If I have to endure for the salvation of my soul, then I am saving myself.   I ultimately become the Savior.

If you are really saved you will not get to a place where you don't want salvation.  The Bible teaches that salvation is a heart transforming encounter with Jesus.  You have a new heart and a new passion and new set of desires to serve the Lord.   If you can walk away from the Christian faith, then you were never saved to start with.  If you can live in sin and enjoy it, you were never saved.    If you are depending on the fact that you are enduring end, you are placing your faith in the wrong things.  

Salvation is Jesus + 0.   It is not Jesus + enduring to the end.   Salvation is in Christ alone and you cannot add one work, one commandment to that in order to be saved.   Once you add anything like baptism, or the Sabbath or anything to Jesus' work on the cross, you are promoting a false gospel and false teaching.    You are declaring that Jesus is insufficient as a Savior.  For you, He isn't enough.  For you, salvation ultimately depends on your goodness and your merit and your effort to endure to the end.

And if you have to endure to the end, you have no real assurance of faith or salvation.  'Cause you don't know if you will endure to the end.  It really depends on you and what you do.   You can't honestly say that you will make it to the end, that you will be in heaven.  Your theology teaches that you have earn salvation, ultimately.  You must be good enough to deserve it, by enduring to the end.

But I have these Scriptures: 

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
(Joh 5:24)

And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
(1Jn 5:11-13)

Now, these two passages tell me that I can KNOW right now, present tense, that I have eternal life and in those passages it is solely by faith in Jesus.   Nothing there about having to work to maintain salvation, or enduring to the end to earn it.    My assurance is based on me being good enough.   He saves me, not because I am good, but because HE is good.

Quote

I would say we teach to stick to the doctrine of the church in order to keep your membership...Salvation is of Christ alone.

In the SDA, locus of salvation is ultimately in the SDA doctrine and keeping the commandments.  It's not just a matter of remaining a member. 

Quote

We accept the gift of eternal but recognize that God has a mission for us and it involves us working for souls and living a life that he has asked us to live.  Coincidentally Sabbath keeping falls under one of those obligations that we believe he has for us.  

You have provided no evidence that the Sabbath is an obligation for NT followers of Jesus.