The Holy Sabbath Day

[sail2awe]

er..uh...yea...um...right.

My point, even if stated poorly, is this:

Most folks can't see the forest for the trees. One can only see the whole forest when taking the necessary steps so as to see the larger view.

Simply taking one verse here and one verse there can be a dangerous system, if done in such a way as to prove a point of human understanding. When we stand so close to the picture that we only see the peices, then we only have the pieces in view which are in front of us, and it is these pieces we try to fit into our understanding.

Our understanding is just the opposite of what we have the written Word given us for. We have the written Word so that we might have the Lord from heaven's understanding. And that shall not come into view until we have enough of the larger view so as we can allow ourselves to patiently see where every piece jointly fits together.

Its like the 20,000 piece puzzle with no picture on the box. We know it is best to find the edges first, then see where the pieces fit afterwards. And when we do not begin the fitting together of all the pieces, there is alot of time envolved in trying to fit them into whatever it is we are currently looking at.

Rightly dividing the Word of Truth. Well, those are the words from the LXX found in proverbs instructing that we acknowledge where the Lord from heaven has directed the paths. Dividing - directed.

NOW, Acts 28. 25-28, that by the vessel and chosen apostle of the Lord is sent to for the hope of all nations to see what is the fellowship of the mystery, there is cause to rightly divide the word of truth. There was no reason to rightly divide it before, because before the Salvation of God was sent to the nations, there was only one instruction to one nation, BUT NOW the word of truth was given to Paul to complete the word of God, which was kept secret from the foundation of the world.

The secret?

That there is a heavenly kingdom in which the Lord would call out a chosen company which He chose in Himself BEFORE the foundation of the world. That this chosen company would not only be blessed in the heavenly places, but they would be so blessed without comeing to the Lord through the chosen channel for the nations - Israel. It is this portion of the kingdom having not been revealed to His chosen nation, Israel, who He had chosen SINCE, or FROM the foundation of the world.

2 distinct callings, one chosen since the foundation of the world, one chosen before that occurrence. One is earthly, one is heavenly.

These are two different and seperate callings, two companies of called out ones, each having the promise of inheritance and enjoyment in seperate spheres of blessings. One is earthy, and in the earth. One is heavenly and far above all heavens.

Then there is the further simple statements which place the overcomers of Israel in that heavenly city, which comes down to the earth from heaven and is strictly Hebrew in character.

That makes 3 spheres of blessings, in the earth, in the heavenly city which comes down to the earth in that very land, and in the heavenly places far above all heavens.

1 + 1 + 1 = 3.

[Guest SuziQ]

Hi, I'm new here but just had to throw my two cents in. Please forgive me if someone has already mentioned this. It is a really long thread!

I always thought Acts 15 was pretty thought provoking re: whether Gentiles need to attend services on the Sabbath and concerning the eating of meat.

The text states that Gentiles ought to be instructed to abstain from certain activities, one being the eating of strangled meats. What I've been taught is that Rav Shaul (Paul) would have been referring only to true "meats," which by definition would not include pork or anything other than what is clean to eat. Of course, since I've only been told this and am not a Greek scholar, I haven't swallowed it wholeheartedly. (No pun intended.) However, the reference to Moses being taught in the synagogues in verse 21 makes a stronger case.

If Gentiles would eat unclean foods of any kind, they would not be permitted in the temples or synagogues back in the day. We know that even the Jewish people would be unclean "until evening" if they would partake of certain activities, the least of which would be consuming unclean animals. (In fact, they would never have eaten anything unkosher-but they also wouldn't have even been permitted in 'shul' if they ate an 'approved' animal that wasn't slaughtered correctly.) This is why I do not believe Yeshua or Paul, or any other follower of Yeshua would have eaten anything that wasn't kosher, lest they be barred from Temple services. In addition, if Gentiles were to observe a different sabbath, how would they have even been in the synagogue to learn what Moses taught? Even if you disagree that this verse has anything to do with Gentiles being in synagogue, I believe it is fairly certain that the early Gentile believers went to temple.

Obviously, it is all up for interpretation and I realize this is a bit convoluted. As a Gentile, I observe Shabbat, and I try to keep biblically kosher, but I don't make that my focus. I figure everyone is on their own journey with the L-rd and He is on the throne. I don't make an issue if someone I'm eating with eats pork, I just don't choose to eat it myself, and I won't even bring it up. My spouse is Jewish, and keeps kosher, so since we are "one flesh," I would not want to eat what he wouldn't eat out of respect for him and his walk with G-d.

And I love to go to shul on Saturday and often visit churches on Sunday. Hey-if we could all do both, perhaps there would be more unity in the Body and we'd get more accomplished for His kingdom!

[Guest yod]

ah Suzy...you are a breath of fresh air

In addition, if Gentiles were to observe a different sabbath, how would they have even been in the synagogue to learn what Moses taught? Even if you disagree that this verse has anything to do with Gentiles being in synagogue, I believe it is fairly certain that the early Gentile believers went to temple.

this is an excellent point!

But my reading of the scriptures is that once the gentiles in a synagogue started believing what Paul was saying about this new "Messiah" person, they were asked to leave and that is how the "church" got started.

I can't find where gentiles in the early church were ever welcomed into a synagogue once they came to faith in Yeshua.

What I've been taught is that Rav Shaul (Paul) would have been referring only to true "meats," which by definition would not include pork or anything other than what is clean to eat.

[Guest SuziQ]

But my reading of the scriptures is that once the gentiles in a synagogue started believing what Paul was saying about this new "Messiah" person, they were asked to leave and that is how the "church" got started.

I can't find where gentiles in the early church were ever welcomed into a synagogue once they came to faith in Yeshua.

We agree. That is my understanding as well.

I agree. Yet he spent absolutely no time telling gentiles that they could only eat "true" meats. It was apparently unimportant.

But if you read the text of Acts 15, you will see that this statement about Moses was something they agreed on in Jerusalem...but they didn't read that part of the statement to the churches.

So If I'm reading you correctly here, you are saying that the early Gentile believers didn't get the "Moses memo." from Rav Shaul.

Couldn't that be sort of like when your parents have a parent-teacher conference and together they map out a plan for your personal development without letting you in on it? Or more like when the CEO of the company sends a memorandum to his direct reports but not to all the underlings? Perhaps Paul knew from behind the scenes that the Gentiles would eventually learn everything they would need to know, but didn't want to force too much on them at once. You know, like feeding milk rather than solid food to a newborn calf. Of course this is all conjecture on my part. I'm not married to the concept as much as fascinated with the discussion.

ah Suzy...you are a breath of fresh air

Thanks, yod, you're pretty groovy, yourself!

[Guest yod]

Couldn't that be sort of like when your parents have a parent-teacher conference and together they map out a plan for your personal development without letting you in on it?

yes, it could be.

But I don't think it was because ;

But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses

In response, Kefa says this before they rendered the decision;

"God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

8 "And God, (U)who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us;

9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.

10"Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

Peter is talking about the Mosaic Law. This was an enormous debate that we can't fully appreciate this far removed. They had to decide at this council whether the Torah and Circumcision were requirements for the gentiles.

For whatever reasons, even though we might disagree with their findings, they decided that putting the "yoke" or "burden" of the Torah on gentiles was equal to "putting God to the test"

Ouch!

I believe that these gentiles heard the Torah when they gathered weekly....and I do believe that observance of biblical writ is verrrrry important.

I just can't find any evidence that it was ever required

Which means I have to be very careful about saying it is required now.

The modern church was cut off from it's roots many many centuries ago and we're missing so much depth by ignorance of what the ORIGINAL church was really like...but that still doesn't make gentiles obligated to observe the torah.

Besides... torah-observance these days is mostly a rabbinical concept.

[Guest SuziQ]

But I don't think it was because ;

But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses

I don't disagree, just wondering.

Edited September 1, 2005 by SuziQ

[Guest Zayit]

Watch out! Here comes some stale old wind!

Couldn't that be sort of like when your parents have a parent-teacher conference and together they map out a plan for your personal development without letting you in on it?

yes, it could be.

But I don't think it was because ;

But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses

In response, Kefa says this before they rendered the decision;

"God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

8 "And God, (U)who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us;

9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.

10"Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

Peter is talking about the Mosaic Law. This was an enormous debate that we can't fully appreciate this far removed. They had to decide at this council whether the Torah and Circumcision were requirements for the gentiles.

For whatever reasons, even though we might disagree with their findings, they decided that putting the "yoke" or "burden" of the Torah on gentiles was equal to "putting God to the test"

Ouch!

I believe that these gentiles heard the Torah when they gathered weekly....and I do believe that observance of biblical writ is verrrrry important.

I just can't find any evidence that it was ever required

Which means I have to be very careful about saying it is required now.

The modern church was cut off from it's roots many many centuries ago and we're missing so much depth by ignorance of what the ORIGINAL church was really like...but that still doesn't make gentiles obligated to observe the torah.

Besides... torah-observance these days is mostly a rabbinical concept.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't beleive you are saying that yod, you talk about others not understanding ethe Hebraic meaning, but rather viewing things in a Hellenized way yet, you are looking at this in just such a way.

Do you honesty think the torah of the L-RD, who is Yeshua, is a burden?

You stated that Peter is speaking about Mosaic law, how do you know that for certain? You have to remember that this whole argument was because there were a few believing of the Pharasical sect that wanted them to convert, as they thought this was the only way they could come in. Be circumsized and follow the laws they taught, which was the Oral laws and traditions that Yeshua was always getting on them about.

I just can't find any evidence that it was ever required

Do we have every communication that the apostles wrote? Or do we have what the RCC deemed acceptable to cannonize?

In Johns last days when Yeshua gave him the last revelation he tells him to write to seven churches in asia minor. Are these churches gentile or jewish or mixed?

Because he is not happy to see some of them eating meat sacrificed to idols so I would say that some weren't even heeded the Acts 15 Jerusalem council directive.

There were actually two churches that he repremands for this:

Pergamos and Thyatira

2:12And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;

2:13

I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein * * Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

2:14

But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught * Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

:18

And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;

2:19

I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.

2:20

Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

[Remnant]

Do you really think that God in the last days of earth history would not leave a witness for the truth? do you think He wouldnt have restored the original faith of the early church? the church of philadelphia was restoration of God's true church.....his visable group on earth.

if you take a good look at the revival that took place during the 1800's in america and across the world; you would have witness the power of god moving. The whole revival was begun by humble men who were bible students. They were men of great faith, prayer and they loved God supremely. These men were preaching the soon coming of christ with power..not satanic but by the power of the Holy Spirit. Why does no one know the great revival of the 1800's? Satan......

William Miller in America..Joseph wolfe in germany....There tons of the revivalists.

i know what you are going to say about william miller....he was wrong about the event, but his timeline was correct. he failed to understand what meant by the sanctuary...which the Lord allowed to happen. He was testing the people to see if they really wanted him to come.