looking for help reconciling the Sabbath with common observation?
- Thread starter kv100
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Brother, the difference you’re pointing to is real in function, but the category you’re using is not biblical — you’re importing the Adventist “moral vs. ceremonial” grid and then reading verses through it.
Scripture never says “moral law = eternal, ceremonial law = temporary”;
it says the Sinai covenant (which contains both kinds of commands) is one unit (Deut 4:13–14; James 2:10) and is now obsolete (Heb 8:13).
Yes, sacrifices deal with sin and murder defines sin — but that does not mean God divided the covenant into two independent systems.
Psalm 19:7 calls God’s law perfect, not “the Ten Commandments isolated from the covenant.”
Romans 7:12 calls the law holy and good, but Paul is talking about the law’s moral content, not carving out a separate eternal code. Colossians 2:14–17 explicitly says the “handwriting of ordinances” includes Sabbaths — meaning the Sabbath falls in the shadow‑category, not the murder‑category.
Hebrews 9:10 calls the ceremonial system “carnal ordinances,” but it never says “the Ten Commandments are spiritual and eternal.” Daniel 9:11 mentions “thy law” and “the law of Moses” because the same covenant contains both God’s moral will and Moses’ covenantal administration — not because there are two separate law‑systems.
The functional difference is obvious; the category split is not.
You’re treating the olive tree as if it changes covenants as it grows, but Paul never says that — he says the root is Abrahamic promise (Rom 4:11–13), the tree is the ongoing people of God defined by that promise, and the branches are Jews and Gentiles responding to the Word in their own generations.
Grafting happens whenever someone believes (Rom 11:20), not at one historical moment; Paul’s Gentile audience was grafted in then, but every believer since is grafted in the same way — by faith, not by entering the Sinai covenant.
The branches cut off were unbelieving Jews, not “space for Gentiles,” because Paul says they can be grafted back in if they do not remain in unbelief (Rom 11:23), proving the tree is not Mosaic but Abrahamic.
The tree keeps growing, but its root never changes — and the root is promise, not Sinai.
That’s why being grafted in never imports the Sabbath‑sign, which Exodus 31 restricts to Israel’s generations, and why Paul explicitly classifies Sabbaths as shadows fulfilled in Christ.
The growth of the tree does not convert a covenant‑sign into a universal command.
Seriously have you read the narrative it is pretty plain. You don't have to try and figure was there this law what prexisted. See what there was, was this tree in the middle of the garden. That if you ate of it your eyes would be opened and you know good and evil. The knowledge came with the bite of the fruit. Guess what murder is evil take a bite and well if God be true and ever man a liar. You are going to know the difference. So all this how did they know, well it was built into a bite of a forbidden fruit.
I do not promote salvation by works
But I do believe the sabbath is a moral law because God put it with the other moral laws and I find no evidence that it is a type or shadow.
We find rest in Jesus but that does not mean He has become the 4th commandment.
He has become my high priest and the lamb without spot. How does He become the Sabbath rest.. ?
The sabbath was made for man in the same way food and water was made for us.
I don't stop eating because Jesus is the bread of life.
Saying “I do not promote salvation by works” is fine — but the issue isn’t your intention, it’s the category your argument accidentally creates.
The moment you say the Sabbath is a moral law required for all believers, you’ve moved it out of “fruit of salvation” and into “obligation for salvation,” because moral law is the category Scripture uses for what is universally binding on all image‑bearers (Rom 2:14–15).
So no, you’re not promoting salvation by works intentionally — you’re just trying to put a covenant sign (Exod 31:13–17) into the category of moral law, which Scripture never does.
Christ becomes the Sabbath rest because Scripture itself says the weekly Sabbath was a shadow and the real rest is Christ, not a day. Paul explicitly includes sabbaths in the “shadow” category (Col 2:16–17), and Hebrews 4 says the true rest God intended was never the weekly sign but the final rest in Christ.
The Sabbath was the sign of the Sinai covenant (Exod 31:13–17), and Hebrews 8:13 says when a covenant is replaced, its sign doesn’t carry over. The moral principle of rest and worship continues, but the seventh‑day sign tied to Moses does not.
Rom 11:11-12
11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. 12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
There fall was there failure to accept Jesus. The present Jews were being cut off and the Gentiles grafted in.
Rom 2:26-29
26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? 28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Circumcision was a law but it counted for nothing if they didn't keep "THE LAW"
Your point actually proves mine: Romans 2:26–29 shows that circumcision (a covenant sign) counts for nothing if someone doesn’t keep the law, which means covenant signs never defined the olive tree — faith did.
That’s why Paul says Jews were “broken off” not for failing Moses but for unbelief in Christ (Rom 11:20), and Gentiles were grafted in not into Moses but into the root — the Abrahamic promise that existed before circumcision and before Sinai (Rom 4:11–13).
Romans 11:11–12 is simply the generational turnover: present Jews rejecting Christ = branches broken off; present Gentiles believing Christ = branches grafted in. The tree never changes covenants because the tree is the promise, not the law.
You are made up. It really late here.
You will find that the 10 commandments are not called Moses laws or the laws of Moses. They are God's laws.
It is hard to prove either way but the argument you give about Col 2 and the sabbath being the 4th commandment is not holding water. I've heard what you say but I've heard strong evidence to show the sabbaths are not referring to the 4th commandment. Sabbath simply means rest. There were many OT rest days called sabbaths.
Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Prove that the 10 commandments are the handwriting of ordinances..
The 7th day sabbath is the handwritting of ordinances.
There were many commandments connected to the old covenant that were not shadows. Being connected to the old covenant does not make the 10 commandments or the 4th commandment a shadow law.
Circumcision was a sign and covenant with Israel but was never one of the 10 commanents. And circumcision is a type of removing the fleshly nature.
Brother, the issue isn’t whether the Ten Commandments are “God’s laws” — of course they are — the issue is that Scripture never calls the fourth commandment a moral law, never separates it from the other sabbaths, and never exempts it from the shadow category Paul explicitly names; your claim that “sabbaths in Col 2 aren’t the weekly Sabbath” collapses because Paul uses the standard Jewish triad festival / new moon / sabbaths, which always means annual / monthly / weekly, and Hebrews 4 says the weekly sign was never the true rest God intended — the true rest is Christ Himself, not a day. The “handwriting of ordinances” in Col 2:14 is not the Ten Commandments — Scripture never uses that phrase for the Decalogue — it’s the written code of the Sinai covenant, the same covenant whose sign was the weekly Sabbath (Exod 31:13–17), and Hebrews 8:13 says when a covenant is replaced, its sign does not carry over. Circumcision proves the point: it was a covenant sign, deeply symbolic, but not part of the Ten — meaning covenant signs can be profound without being moral law. Your argument tries to elevate the Sabbath sign into the category of universal moral law, but Scripture never does; it treats the Sabbath as the sign of Moses, the shadow pointing to Christ, and the rest fulfilled in Him.
Brother, the moment you say “the fourth commandment is ceremonial because there is no intrinsic moral reason to rest every seventh day,” you’ve actually conceded the entire biblical point: moral law is intrinsic (Rom 2:14–15), covenant signs are extrinsic (Exod 31:13–17) — and Scripture places the weekly Sabbath squarely in the sign category, not the moral category.
Your argument that “Sabbath simply means rest and there were many rest days” is exactly why Paul’s triad festival / new moon / sabbaths includes the weekly day: the weekly Sabbath is one of the many covenantal “rests,” and the NT never isolates it as morally universal. Hebrews 4 seals it: the weekly Sabbath was never the intrinsic rest God intended — the true rest is Christ Himself, and the weekly day was the shadow pointing to Him.
And your circumcision analogy actually proves the point: circumcision was a covenant sign with deep spiritual meaning (“cutting away the flesh”), but it was not moral law; likewise the Sabbath sign has deep meaning (“God rested”), but Scripture never treats it as intrinsic moral law binding all humanity.
You’re trying to elevate a covenant sign into the category of moral universals, but the Bible never does — it treats the Sabbath as the sign of Moses, the shadow fulfilled in Christ, and the rest realized in Him.
I agree that John is speaking about keeping Yeshua’s commandments, but I don’t believe we can separate Yeshua’s commandments from the Father’s commandments.
Yeshua said, “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me” (John 7:16), and “I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say” (John 12:49).
He also said, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30), and “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9).
Most importantly, Yeshua Himself said, “I have kept my Father’s commandments” (John 15:10).
So when John tells believers to keep His commandments, I don’t see two competing sets of commandments—one from the Father and another from Yeshua. Yeshua taught what He received from the Father and perfectly obeyed the Father.
How about seeming contradictions or wrong division Of Scripture?
UN-Scriptural or UN-Dispensational?:
"A pastor friend of this writer has written the following: “There are professing Christians whoreligiously practice the washing of feet. Are they Scriptural or unscriptural? There are some
who anoint the sick with oil, while others use blessed handkerchiefs. Are they Scriptural or
unscriptural? Still others tarry for the Holy Spirit after they have received Christ for salvation.
Some professing Christians claim to have visions and angelic visitations while hearing super-
natural voices. Are they Scriptural or unscriptural? Thousands of others break forth in some
kind of speech which they call the gift of tongues. Is it Scriptural or unscriptural to speak in
tongues?”
To which we add: Scriptures can be found to substantiate all of these actions. However, it seems
to us that it is less than intellectual honesty, much less a spiritual practice, to arbitrarily select
certain Bible commands for obedience while completely disregarding others.
Why not obey the mandates in Numbers 15:32-36 and Deuteronomy 21:18-21 where infractions
were to be punished by publicly stoning the offender to death? Why not build a tabernacle and
offer sacrifices as God commanded in Exodus 25-31? Why not “sell that ye have and give alms”
as Christ instructed in Luke 12:33? In short, why obey certain Bible commands and ignore others?
Why not obey them all? The answer to these questions is clearly stated in II Timothy 2:15:
“Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth.”
Though ALL Scripture is most certainly for our admonition and instruction, all Scripture is NOT
for our obedience. In fact, obeying commands given to others in past economies could be direct
disobedience in this age. (Compare Genesis 17:10-14 with Galatians 5:2 and Romans 2:25-29.
Also, Matthew 19:16-21 with Romans 4:5 and Ephesians 2:8-9). II Timothy 3:16-17 does not
contradict or nullify II Timothy 2:15. To the Apostle Paul, the Glorified Lord revealed God’s
message and program for this age of grace. To him was committed the dispensation of the
Grace of God (See Ephesians 3:1-9). In his epistles, we find the commands given directly to
the Body of Christ.
The question then, is not only, is it Scriptural, but is it dispensational?" (W Johnson)
-------------
And, precious friend(s), Please Be Very Richly Encouraged and Edified
In The Lord Jesus Christ and In His Precious Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided:
The Bible: The BIG Picture
Amen.
YHWH does not judge merely by outward appearance or outward religious performance; He sees the inner person—motives, intentions, faithfulness, and what a person truly knows and desires.
One of the clearest passages is 1 Samuel 16:7:
“Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.”
David says similarly:
1 Chronicles 28:9 — “The LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts.”
Psalm 7:9 — “The righteous God trieth the hearts and reins.”
Jeremiah 17:10 — “I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways.”
And this becomes especially important when discussing Torah, obedience, and salvation. The prophets repeatedly show that YHWH did not want merely external commandment-keeping while the heart remained rebellious. He wanted obedience flowing from a transformed heart.
Deuteronomy 10:16 says, “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart.”
Then Deuteronomy anticipates something even greater:
Deuteronomy 30:6 — “The LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart… to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.”
Jeremiah’s New Covenant prophecy continues that thought:
Jeremiah 31:33 — “I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.”
That’s significant. The New Covenant promise isn’t simply, I will eliminate My instruction. The imagery is that God’s Torah/instruction moves inward—written upon the heart.
Yeshua likewise emphasizes the heart. Murder begins with hatred and anger; adultery can begin with lust (Matthew 5:21–28). The external act matters, but Yeshua goes beneath the act to its source.
Paul even connects this principle to God’s judgment of Jew and Gentile in Romans 2:14–16, speaking of Gentiles who demonstrate “the work of the law written in their hearts,” and concludes that God will judge “the secrets of men by Jesus Christ.”
God’s judgment of the heart does not make obedience irrelevant. It explains what genuine obedience is supposed to come from.
Someone can outwardly perform commandments while having a rebellious heart. Conversely, God knows the difference between deliberate rebellion and someone sincerely seeking Him who lacks knowledge or understanding. The Torah itself distinguishes intentional/rebellious sin from unintentional sin (Numbers 15:22–31).
That fits beautifully with Yeshua’s words:
“If ye love me, keep my commandments.” — John 14:15
The order is meaningful: love → obedience.
Not obedience as a way of purchasing God’s love, but obedience arising from a heart that loves Him
One of the clearest passages is 1 Samuel 16:7:
“Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.”
David says similarly:
1 Chronicles 28:9 — “The LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts.”
Psalm 7:9 — “The righteous God trieth the hearts and reins.”
Jeremiah 17:10 — “I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways.”
And this becomes especially important when discussing Torah, obedience, and salvation. The prophets repeatedly show that YHWH did not want merely external commandment-keeping while the heart remained rebellious. He wanted obedience flowing from a transformed heart.
Deuteronomy 10:16 says, “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart.”
Then Deuteronomy anticipates something even greater:
Deuteronomy 30:6 — “The LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart… to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.”
Jeremiah’s New Covenant prophecy continues that thought:
Jeremiah 31:33 — “I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.”
That’s significant. The New Covenant promise isn’t simply, I will eliminate My instruction. The imagery is that God’s Torah/instruction moves inward—written upon the heart.
Yeshua likewise emphasizes the heart. Murder begins with hatred and anger; adultery can begin with lust (Matthew 5:21–28). The external act matters, but Yeshua goes beneath the act to its source.
Paul even connects this principle to God’s judgment of Jew and Gentile in Romans 2:14–16, speaking of Gentiles who demonstrate “the work of the law written in their hearts,” and concludes that God will judge “the secrets of men by Jesus Christ.”
God’s judgment of the heart does not make obedience irrelevant. It explains what genuine obedience is supposed to come from.
Someone can outwardly perform commandments while having a rebellious heart. Conversely, God knows the difference between deliberate rebellion and someone sincerely seeking Him who lacks knowledge or understanding. The Torah itself distinguishes intentional/rebellious sin from unintentional sin (Numbers 15:22–31).
That fits beautifully with Yeshua’s words:
“If ye love me, keep my commandments.” — John 14:15
The order is meaningful: love → obedience.
Not obedience as a way of purchasing God’s love, but obedience arising from a heart that loves Him
I think we can and should limit John's statement to Yeshua's teachings because of the context and the background. In other words, if our question is "what did John mean? the answer is "Jesus' teachings" because that is the general topic of John's letter.
From what I can tell, John is writing to the children of those who first believed the Gospel and who personally heard Jesus speak. His letter opens with a defense of his own witness, telling them that he was an eyewitness of everything Jesus taught and did. Other voices are teaching these young people, but they are changing the gospel message. For instance, they are teaching that Jesus Christ couldn't be the messiah because he came in the flesh. Others are teaching that Jesus was just another rabbi. John wrote a letter to assure these young people that Jesus is, indeed, the Messiah, and his teaching can be trusted and is true.
keep the commandments separated based on the context.
I agree with you here. We shouldn't see The Father's commandments as competing with the Son's commandments.
All good, brother — if you weren’t elevating the Sabbath sign into a moral universal, then we’re aligned, because the entire argument I dismantled was aimed at the category mistake itself, not at you personally.I agree with everything you said except the last statement. It seems you confused me with someone else.I was definitely not elevating a covenant sign into the category of a moral universal. Your analysis of what I said was spot on.
