looking for help reconciling the Sabbath with common observation?

[TMS]

Romans 11:16–18 does not say Gentile believers inherit the Sinai covenant or its signs; it says they are grafted into the Abrahamic root, not the Mosaic tree.
The “root” in Romans 11 is Abrahamic promise (Rom 4:11–13), not the covenant made at Sinai (Gal 3:17 says Sinai came 430 years after the promise and cannot redefine it).
Being grafted in means you share the life of the root — justification by faith — not the signs of the old covenant
Abraham never kept a weekly Sabbath, never received a Sabbath command, and never lived under the covenant whose sign it was. Gentiles grafted into the olive tree partake of the root and fatness — the promise, the righteousness by faith, the blessing of Abraham (Gal 3:8–9) — not the covenant‑signs of Moses.

When are we grafted in? The root is Abraham but the tree has not stopped growing..

The Gentiles were grafted in after the cross at the time of Paul

The wild was to become part of the natural plant. The branches that were cut off made room for the Gentiles.

 

[OMC]

But there is a difference.

The laws given to deal with sin ....
The shedding of the blood and the earthly temple all pointed to Jesus and the plan of salvation. These laws do no define sin. They deal with sin

But thou shalt not murder defines sin.

One law is perfect and eternal, while the other was a "yoke" of ceremonies that met its fulfillment at the cross of Calvary.

There is a difference.

The moral law is described as "perfect, converting the soul" Psalm 19:7. Roms 7:12 and holy and good.
However, the first covenant arrangement, which included the Levitical services, was "not faultless" Hebrews 8:7.


We are to be judged by the "law of liberty," which includes the commands against adultery and murder James 2:11-12. But the ceremonial system, called the "handwriting of ordinances," was "blotted out" and "nailed to his cross" Colossians 2:14.

Paul distinguishes the moral law as "spiritual" Romans 7:14, while referring to the ceremonial requirements as "carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation" Hebrews 9:10.

Dan 9:11 Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him.

Thy = God's law
And Moses law is also mentioned in the same verse. Is there a difference?

Surely you can see the difference.

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.

 

[OMC]

When are we grafted in? The root is Abraham but the tree has not stopped growing..

The Gentiles were grafted in after the cross at the time of Paul

The wild was to become part of the natural plant. The branches that were cut off made room for the Gentiles.

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.

 

[stilllearning]

And if murder was not a known law, then it could not have been a sin.
Why would God punish Cain for breaking a law that did not exist?
Yet there is no biblical texts that shows Cain was told murder was wrong.
What of the Great Flood? If no laws existed the antediluvian peoples could NOT have been evil. God would have been unjust killing them all.
What of Sodom and Gomorrah? Where is the command against their promiscuous lifestyles?

Does God actually kill people for breaking laws that do not exist?

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.

 

[TMS]

The NT’s own classification is decisive: Sabbaths are shadows fulfilled in Christ, and heirs of Abraham inherit Christ, not the covenant‑signs of Moses.

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.

 

[OMC]

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.

 

[TMS]

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.

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"

 

[OMC]

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.

 

[TMS]

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.

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.

 

[Roger316]

Your entire argument rests on a distinction Scripture never makes: the Bible nowhere separates the Ten Commandments into “moral” versus “ceremonial,” and nowhere treats the fourth commandment as morally eternal while the others are typological shadows; that framework is a human grid laid over the text, not a biblical category.

As I understand it, the Fourth Commandment is a Ceremonial Commandment. There is no intrinsic reason that someone ought to rest very Seventh day. But there is an extrinsic reason, i.e. God required it of Israel, to rest every seventh day.

 

[OMC]

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.

 

[OMC]

As I understand it, the Fourth Commandment is a Ceremonial Commandment. There is no intrinsic reason that someone ought to rest very Seventh day. But there is an extrinsic reason, i.e. God required it of Israel, to rest every seventh day.

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.

 

[Grace911]

When John says, "if we keep his commandments" he is talking about what Jesus taught.

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.

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

I don’t see two competing sets of commandments

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 who
religiously 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.