Some thoughts on the Sabbath...

[Beckworth]

Yes, Jesus said “if you love me, keep my commandments.” John 14:15. But keeping the seventh day holy was never a commandment of Jesus under the New covenant ( Hebrews 9:15). It was a commandment under the Old covenant and Paul said Jesus “wiped out the handwriting of requirements” and nailed them to His cross. Colossians 2:14 and in verse 16 he specified which ones were specifically “wiped out” . He says “sabbaths” were “wiped out”! I didn’t say it —the Holy Spirit said it. You can argue with Him.

And yes, Jesus fulfilled the law but when? Matthew 5:18. When he had fulfilled every prophecy made about Him under the law. His death, was prophecied under the old law so all was not fulfilled until that took place. Jesus said on the cross, “it is finished.”” Every prophecy concerning Him was fulfilled. He fulfilled them all when He died. Now read Matthew 5:18. Not one thing “will by no means PASS FROM THE LAW UNTIL ALL IS FULFILLED.” Jesus did not say the things under the old law woujd NEVER PASS AWAY; He said they would last until He had “fulfilled” the law. And He finished that when He died.

That’s why Colossians 2:14-16 says that Jesus took the old law with its “food restrictions, religious festivals and SABBATHS, AWAY NAILING THEM TO HIS CROSS. They ceased when He died on the cross. Sabbath days are specified as one of the things he “TOOK AWAY!”

Matthew 6:17 which you quoted has a TIME FRAME; which you did not acknowledge.

That last scripture should’ be 5:17, not 6:17.

 

[JustThinking]

Yes, Jesus said “if you love me, keep my commandments.” John 14:15. But keeping the seventh day holy was never a commandment of Jesus under the New covenant ( Hebrews 9:15). It was a commandment under the Old covenant and Paul said Jesus “wiped out the handwriting of requirements” and nailed them to His cross. Colossians 2:14 and in verse 16 he specified which ones were specifically “wiped out” . He says “sabbaths” were “wiped out”! I didn’t say it —the Holy Spirit said it. You can argue with Him.

And yes, Jesus fulfilled the law but when? Matthew 5:18. When he had fulfilled every prophecy made about Him under the law. His death, was prophecied under the old law so all was not fulfilled until that took place. Jesus said on the cross, “it is finished.”” Every prophecy concerning Him was fulfilled. He fulfilled them all when He died. Now read Matthew 5:18. Not one thing “will by no means PASS FROM THE LAW UNTIL ALL IS FULFILLED.” Jesus did not say the things under the old law woujd NEVER PASS AWAY; He said they would last until He had “fulfilled” the law. And He finished that when He died.

That’s why Colossians 2:14-16 says that Jesus took the old law with its “food restrictions, religious festivals and SABBATHS, AWAY NAILING THEM TO HIS CROSS. They ceased when He died on the cross. Sabbath days are specified as one of the things he “TOOK AWAY!”

Matthew 6:17 which you quoted has a TIME FRAME; which you did not acknowledge.

Thank you for your response, but I am not in agreement with your interpretations of the verses you mentioned.

I will respond to your comments later when I have the opportunity to spend the time they deserve.

I do understand that your interpretations are indeed accepted by many, many Christians.

Best wishes..

 

[JustThinking]

That last scripture should’ be 5:17, not 6:17.

Fat fingers…

 

[Beckworth]

The Old Testament contains the Torah in which is defined the Mosaic law which was for Israel and Israel only.

It's overarching purpose was to impose a set of rules and laws regarding both moral and ethic as well as ceremonial laws upon the nation of Israel to set them apart as a distinct people.

The Sabbath in particular that special relevance to them as they were told not to forget it or forsake the Sabbath

However in the New Testament Jesus fulfilled all the requirements for the Mosaic law and ultimately was what the Mosaic law was pointing at that being a need for a savior since nobody could have hold the Mosaic law consisting of 613 laws

New Testament Christians, the gentiles, were never under the Mosaic law. And in Jesus we have our Sabbath rest everyday it is not a singular day as the nation of Israel had it instead at any point in time on any day we can take our Sabbath rest

the Mosaic law never has and never will apply to Christians. Well it is perfectly acceptable to keep Sabbath on Saturday as well as many of the other Mosaic law requirements we are not commanded to do so anywhere in the New Testament

Be aware there are radical teachings such as Hebrew roots and Cults such as SDA who will tell you that keeping the Sabbath is mandated by God on everybody and it's a sin not to do so

I agree. However , Paul does give some warnings about keeping it in Galations. If you are keeping it religiously—because you believe keeping it will save you,and you think you must still keep that old law, Paul says “You are estranged from Christ.” And you “have fallen from grace.” 5:4. I believe the idea here is we cannot be totally loyal to Christ and his covenant and observe the old law at the same time.

 

[JustThinking]

I agree. However , Paul does give some warnings about keeping it in Galations. If you are keeping it religiously—because you believe keeping it will save you,and you think you must still keep that old law, Paul says “You are estranged from Christ.” And you “have fallen from grace.” 5:4. I believe the idea here is we cannot be totally loyal to Christ and his covenant and observe the old law at the same time.

I am not sure that is correct. God gave His laws, both the ceremonial and the Moral laws to His people. He also gave them the Tanakh and, of course that includes the prophets.

However, they were instructed to be the priest to the pagan / Gentle world.. They had been given the Word to teach all of Gods people.

God’s Words are meant for every one of His creation- Jew or Gentile.

 

[cv5]

I am not sure that is correct. God gave His laws, both the ceremonial and the Moral laws to His people. He also gave them the Tanakh and, of course that includes the prophets.

However, they were instructed to be the priest to the pagan / Gentle world.. They had been given the Word to teach all of Gods people.

God’s Words are meant for every one of His creation- Jew or Gentile.

Understand this:
The Sabbath is ***THE*** SIGN of the Mosaic Covenant.
This covenant is obsolete. This covenant is not binding upon the mystery Bride Church.
We are NOT in any way obliged to keep the 7th day Sabbath or any other Sabbath day.
Opinions to the contrary are simply wrong IMO.

[Exo 31:13]
13 "Tell the people of Israel: 'Be careful to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you (the people of Israel) from generation to generation. It is given so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy.

[Eze 20:12, 20]
12 And I gave them my Sabbath days of rest as a sign between them (the people of Israel) and me. It was to remind them (the people of Israel) that I am the LORD, who had set them apart to be holy. ...

20 and keep my Sabbath days holy, for they are a sign to remind you (the people of Israel) that I am the LORD your God.'

 

[Beckworth]

I am not sure that is correct. God gave His laws, both the ceremonial and the Moral laws to His people. He also gave them the Tanakh and, of course that includes the prophets.

However, they were instructed to be the priest to the pagan / Gentle world.. They had been given the Word to teach all of Gods people.

God’s Words are meant for every one of His creation- Jew or Gentile.

I quoted the verse exactly as the Holy Spirit said it. Paul DID say…
“Do not become entangled again with a yoke of BONDAGE..” 5:1
Hagar is Mt. Sinai which gives birth to BONDAGE” 4:24. That’s the Old Testament law that was given by Moses on Mt. Sinai.
“We (Christian’s) are Not children of the BONDWOMAN (old law), but of the free ( Christ).”4:.31. Don’t go back to that law.

“ If you become circumcised ( old law) Christ will profit you nothing.” 5:2.
If you try to keep just one part of the old law, “he is a debtor to keep the WHOLE LAW.” Animal sacrifices and all if it. 5:3

Then the Holy Spirit says, “YOU HAVE BECOME ESTRANGED FROM CHRIST, you who attempt to be justified by the law ( old), YOU HAVE FALLEN FROM GRACE.”

Now what part of those scriptures IS NOT CORRECT?

Galations 2:16, “knowing that a man is NOT justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.”

Galations 3:11, “ But that NO ONE is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident.”

Galations 3:24, “The law was our TUTOR to bring us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER A TUTOR.” That is the same thing as saying “we are no longer under the old law.

I don’t know what you think is not correct. It is not hard to understand what the Spirit is saying here. I have not only quoted the passages word for word, I have also given you the book, chapter, and verse where you can read them for yourself.

 

[JustThinking]

I quoted the verse exactly as the Holy Spirit said it. Paul DID say…
“Do not become entangled again with a yoke of BONDAGE..” 5:1
Hagar is Mt. Sinai which gives birth to BONDAGE” 4:24. That’s the Old Testament law that was given by Moses on Mt. Sinai.
“We (Christian’s) are Not children of the BONDWOMAN (old law), but of the free ( Christ).”4:.31. Don’t go back to that law.

“ If you become circumcised ( old law) Christ will profit you nothing.” 5:2.
If you try to keep just one part of the old law, “he is a debtor to keep the WHOLE LAW.” Animal sacrifices and all if it. 5:3

Then the Holy Spirit says, “YOU HAVE BECOME ESTRANGED FROM CHRIST, you who attempt to be justified by the law ( old), YOU HAVE FALLEN FROM GRACE.”

Now what part of those scriptures IS NOT CORRECT?

Galations 2:16, “knowing that a man is NOT justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.”

Galations 3:11, “ But that NO ONE is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident.”

Galations 3:24, “The law was our TUTOR to bring us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER A TUTOR.” That is the same thing as saying “we are no longer under the old law.

I don’t know what you think is not correct. It is not hard to understand what the Spirit is saying here. I have not only quoted the passages word for word, I have also given you the book, chapter, and verse where you can read them for yourself.

I understand the point you are making from Galatians, and I agree with the central issue Paul is addressing: no one is justified by the works of the law. Circumcision, Sinai covenant identity, and law-keeping cannot save anyone. Christ alone justifies, and if someone goes back to the law as the basis of righteousness, Paul says they have fallen from grace.

Where I would make a distinction is this: Paul is not condemning God’s moral truth as evil, nor is he saying believers are now free to live without obedience to God. He is condemning the use of the law as a covenant system of justification. That is why he can also say, “Is the law sin? Certainly not!” and “the law is holy, and the commandment holy, righteous, and good” (Romans 7:7, 12).

So yes, we are not under the law as the old covenant tutor, and we are not justified by the law. But that does not mean God’s commandments become meaningless. Under Christ, obedience flows from faith, the Spirit, and love—not from trying to earn righteousness through Sinai.

In other words, I am not arguing that Christians should go back under the old covenant system. I am saying there is a difference between being under the law for justification and honoring the moral will of God as fulfilled and written on the heart through Christ.

 

[OMC]

I understand the point you are making from Galatians, and I agree with the central issue Paul is addressing: no one is justified by the works of the law. Circumcision, Sinai covenant identity, and law-keeping cannot save anyone. Christ alone justifies, and if someone goes back to the law as the basis of righteousness, Paul says they have fallen from grace.

Where I would make a distinction is this: Paul is not condemning God’s moral truth as evil, nor is he saying believers are now free to live without obedience to God. He is condemning the use of the law as a covenant system of justification. That is why he can also say, “Is the law sin? Certainly not!” and “the law is holy, and the commandment holy, righteous, and good” (Romans 7:7, 12).

So yes, we are not under the law as the old covenant tutor, and we are not justified by the law. But that does not mean God’s commandments become meaningless. Under Christ, obedience flows from faith, the Spirit, and love—not from trying to earn righteousness through Sinai.

In other words, I am not arguing that Christians should go back under the old covenant system. I am saying there is a difference between being under the law for justification and honoring the moral will of God as fulfilled and written on the heart through Christ.

Everything Beckworth quoted is exactly correct as long as you keep Paul’s argument in Galatians confined to its actual target: justification by the Sinai covenant; Paul is not attacking God’s moral law, nor obedience, nor holiness, nor the commandments as expressions of God’s will — he is attacking the idea that circumcision, Torah‑identity, or Mosaic covenant membership can justify a sinner, which is why he calls Sinai “bondage,” why he warns that returning to the law for righteousness severs a man from Christ, and why he says the tutor’s role ends when faith comes; but your reply is also correct in this: Paul never says the law is evil, never says God’s moral will disappears, never says Christians are now free to live lawlessly — he says the law is “holy, righteous, and good,” and that under Christ the Spirit writes God’s will on the heart so that obedience flows from faith rather than from covenant‑earning; therefore the resolution is simple: we are not under the law for justification, but we are not free from the moral will of God, and confusing those two categories is what creates the debate — Paul destroys law‑based righteousness, not Spirit‑empowered obedience, and both of you are right once you keep that distinction clear.

 

[Beckworth]

Everything Beckworth quoted is exactly correct as long as you keep Paul’s argument in Galatians confined to its actual target: justification by the Sinai covenant; Paul is not attacking God’s moral law, nor obedience, nor holiness, nor the commandments as expressions of God’s will — he is attacking the idea that circumcision, Torah‑identity, or Mosaic covenant membership can justify a sinner, which is why he calls Sinai “bondage,” why he warns that returning to the law for righteousness severs a man from Christ, and why he says the tutor’s role ends when faith comes; but your reply is also correct in this: Paul never says the law is evil, never says God’s moral will disappears, never says Christians are now free to live lawlessly — he says the law is “holy, righteous, and good,” and that under Christ the Spirit writes God’s will on the heart so that obedience flows from faith rather than from covenant‑earning; therefore the resolution is simple: we are not under the law for justification, but we are not free from the moral will of God, and confusing those two categories is what creates the debate — Paul destroys law‑based righteousness, not Spirit‑empowered obedience, and both of you are right once you keep that distinction clear.

I’m not finding fault with what you are saying, but I would like to add this. God’s moral laws have always existed, from the beginning of time. Cain, the flood, sexual sins—have always been wrong beginning with the book of Genesis. They were not exclusive to the old Jewish law. They were in existence long before Moses got the law on Mt Sinai. They were just not “written” down until then. As I have said before, all of the 10 commandments ( except one- remember the seventh day) are in the law of Christ. All are in the gospel of Christ. All are in the New Testament. So Paul is not advocating that we keep “part” of the law. He doesn’t need to. We have moral laws in the law of Christ. I don’t steal, not because it is a moral law in the Old Testament, and not because it is one of the 10 commandments; I don’t steal because the Holy Spirit says not to in Ephesians 4:28; I don’t murder because Paul says it is a work of the flesh and will keep me out of heaven. Gal. 5:19. Same for adultery, and idolatry. All of God’s moral laws are in the law of Christ. But actually, God’s moral principles are eternal, covering every dispensation in the Bible.

 

[OMC]

I’m not finding fault with what you are saying, but I would like to add this. God’s moral laws have always existed, from the beginning of time. Cain, the flood, sexual sins—have always been wrong beginning with the book of Genesis. They were not exclusive to the old Jewish law. They were in existence long before Moses got the law on Mt Sinai. They were just not “written” down until then. As I have said before, all of the 10 commandments ( except one- remember the seventh day) are in the law of Christ. All are in the gospel of Christ. All are in the New Testament. So Paul is not advocating that we keep “part” of the law. He doesn’t need to. We have moral laws in the law of Christ. I don’t steal, not because it is a moral law in the Old Testament, and not because it is one of the 10 commandments; I don’t steal because the Holy Spirit says not to in Ephesians 4:28; I don’t murder because Paul says it is a work of the flesh and will keep me out of heaven. Gal. 5:19. Same for adultery, and idolatry. All of God’s moral laws are in the law of Christ. But actually, God’s moral principles are eternal, covering every dispensation in the Bible.

God’s moral principles are eternal; the Mosaic covenant is not. The moral will of God continues in Christ, but the covenantal system of Sinai does not. And confusing those two categories is exactly what creates the debate.

 

[JustThinking]

I’m not finding fault with what you are saying, but I would like to add this. God’s moral laws have always existed, from the beginning of time. Cain, the flood, sexual sins—have always been wrong beginning with the book of Genesis. They were not exclusive to the old Jewish law. They were in existence long before Moses got the law on Mt Sinai. They were just not “written” down until then. As I have said before, all of the 10 commandments ( except one- remember the seventh day) are in the law of Christ. All are in the gospel of Christ. All are in the New Testament. So Paul is not advocating that we keep “part” of the law. He doesn’t need to. We have moral laws in the law of Christ. I don’t steal, not because it is a moral law in the Old Testament, and not because it is one of the 10 commandments; I don’t steal because the Holy Spirit says not to in Ephesians 4:28; I don’t murder because Paul says it is a work of the flesh and will keep me out of heaven. Gal. 5:19. Same for adultery, and idolatry. All of God’s moral laws are in the law of Christ. But actually, God’s moral principles are eternal, covering every dispensation in the Bible.

I do not understand your thinking here... you claim the moral laws go back to the beginning but you decline to consider the 4th commandment to carry forward .. it was specifically given to man not the Jews in the beginning... God even created a separate day for it.... it is the only holy day He created...

 

[Beckworth]

God’s moral principles are eternal; the Mosaic covenant is not. The moral will of God continues in Christ, but the covenantal system of Sinai does not. And confusing those two categories is exactly what creates the debate.

Finally, we agree!

 

[Beckworth]

I do not understand your thinking here... you claim the moral laws go back to the beginning but you decline to consider the 4th commandment to carry forward .. it was specifically given to man not the Jews in the beginning... God even created a separate day for it.... it is the only holy day He created...

I was not the one who decided not to include “remember the seventh day” in the law of Christ. I Have explained in detail why I believe that and given many scriptures in 3 different posts on this thread.

I’d like to ask you to go back and read posts #1657, 1658, and # 1661. Especially post 1658 where I show that the New Testament has a new day that is mentioned over and over again. Hebrews 7:12 plainly says that the law has been CHANGED. He prooves this by showing that Christ is now our high priest. And in another place it says that all Christian’s are now “priests”. This could never have happened UNLESS THE LAW WAS CHANGED…BECAUSE … all priest under the Old Testament Levitical system HAD TO COME FROM THE TRIBE OF LEVI. Jesus was from the tribe of JUDAH There is no way Jesus can be a high priest UNLESS the law is CHANGED. That is his argument in Hebrews 7:12. That scripture along with many others in both Hebrews, Galations and Colossians 2:12-16 ALL are teaching the same thing: THE OLD MOSAICAL LAW is no longer in effect or in force. No one is governed by that law anymore. Hebrews 8:13 says, “ A New Covenant; ( the New Testament) He has made the first OBSOLETE.” The first covenant was the OldTestament, with all of its laws and commandments like “remember the seventh day and keep it holy.”— they are now OBSOLETE! Then he says, “Now what is becoming OBSOLETE and Growing OLD is ready to VANISH AWAY!!” That is word for word what the Holy Spirit wrote. This one scripture alone is enough for us to know that the oldvtestament law is no longer binding on us— that includes the 4th commandment. Nowhere in the New Testament did Jesus or any of His apostles command Christians to ever keep the sabbath. It is not taught under the new law of Christ. This explains why I said what I did.

Also, the reason we can say that the moral laws are eternal is because they are TAUGHT under every dispensation in the Bible. They are taught from Genesis to Revelation. The Sabbath was not written down as a law to keep and remember until Moses received it at Mt. Sinai. It has not been carried over into the new Law of Christ therefore, it is different from God’s moral laws. Colossians 2:12-16 specifically says that Christ took the sabbath ( along with the rest of the old law) “out of the way, nailing it to His cross.”

To understand how Christ nailed that old Mosaical law to His cross, you must understand Hebrews 9:16-17. It says that when Christ died on the cross His new covenant, new laws, new day, new EVERYTHING , came into effect; it came into force. That tells us WHEN the law was changed—when Christ died on the cross. It ushered in His new covenant. The old law with its 10 commandments was already growing old and obsolete so, the Hebrews writer says. Now it has VANISHED AWAY.

We are now living under the new law of Christ. We are to follow Him —not Moses. Galations 5:4 says if you try to be justified by keeping the old law of Moses, you are “estranged from Christ,” you have “fallen from grace.” It’s serious.

As I said before. Please go back and read my other posts on this subject to see why I am contending that Christian’s do not have to keep the sabbath day anymore. The expiations are so long I could most put it all in one post. Thank you.

 

[WiselyWoven]

.

...you decline to consider the 4th commandment to carry forward ..

The word of God calls the 10 commandments:

"the ministration of death"
"the ministration of condemnation"
"the letter [that] killeth"
"that which is done away"

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. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 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: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. (2 Cor. 3:5-11).
.

 

[Rob7]

Some thoughts on the Sabbath... ?​

Okay !! ... Sure !
There are only two spirits in the world .. Those who have the Holy Spirit, who will manifest the Righteousness of Christ, unto obedience to God. And the other spirit... of Lucifer, the "god of this world" being those who are in rebellion against God, whether they know it or not.
... All people alive NOW and who have ever lived fall into one or the other of these two groups.

It's rather easy to discern of which spirit people are of .. very quickly ... by what they say and do ... "

• Matthew 7:16: "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"
• Matthew 7:20: "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
• 
  Fruits of Love and Obedience, OR of Lust / Selfishness ( Anti-Love ) / & Worldliness
  Keeping God's Sabbath or Keeping Man's Sabbath ( The Roman Church's (Anti-Christ's) Sabbath - Sunday

"For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but is from the world." John 2:16, = Rebellion to God and His Character, = His Law ( The foundation of His Kingdom )
His Commandments, the Law of LOVE

Law of Love in Romans 13:8-10, which states, "Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law" (Romans 13:8

• Leviticus 19:18: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," cited by Jesus and Paul as the summary of the law.
• Matthew 22:37-40: Jesus identifies loving God with all one's heart and loving one's neighbor as the greatest commandments on which "all the Law and the Prophets hang."
• Galatians 5:14: "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"
• John 13:34-35: Jesus gives a "new commandment" to love one another as He has loved us.

~~ God's Final Warning ~~
Rev. 14: 6-12 .. to this dying world ..." Fear God ! And give HIM Glory ! For the Hour of His Judgment is Come !!! Maranatha !!
We "Fear God ! And give HIM Glory ! ... Love God by Keeping HIS Holy Day .. the Seventh Day Sabbath

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~++++++++++~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Blessed Evening, Y'all ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~++++++++++~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

 

[GWH]

The only Sabbath folks should think about is what Heb. 4:1-11 indicates.
The OT Sabbath Law was effectively superseded by the amendment of Jesus (Matt. 12:8&12).
Therefore, what Paul said in Col. 2:16-17 effectively updates/amends Exo. 20:8-11 per John 13:34.

 

[OMC]

The only Sabbath folks should think about is what Heb. 4:1-11 indicates.
The OT Sabbath Law was effectively superseded by the amendment of Jesus (Matt. 12:8&12).
Therefore, what Paul said in Col. 2:16-17 effectively updates/amends Exo. 20:8-11 per John 13:34.

Your conclusion—that the Mosaic Sabbath is not binding on the church—is correct, but your reasoning misuses the texts:
Hebrews shows fulfillment,
Matthew shows authority, and
Colossians shows shadow‑substance contrast.
None of them function as “amendments” to Exodus; they function as revelation of Christ’s fulfillment of the law, which is the actual ground for the shift.

 

[GWH]

Your conclusion—that the Mosaic Sabbath is not binding on the church—is correct, but your reasoning misuses the texts:
Hebrews shows fulfillment,
Matthew shows authority, and
Colossians shows shadow‑substance contrast.
None of them function as “amendments” to Exodus; they function as revelation of Christ’s fulfillment of the law, which is the actual ground for the shift.

I view showing as amending or shifting.
Otherwise Jesus and Paul would have said “Obey the Sabbath law of the Decalogue.”

 

[OMC]

I view showing as amending or shifting.
Otherwise Jesus and Paul would have said “Obey the Sabbath law of the Decalogue.”

Calling “showing” an “amending” of the law is exactly where your framework slips, because fulfillment is not amendment