1

I don't have hard statistics at hand right now, but I think that it's common sense knowledge that most Christians do not adhere to a literal, physical Sabbath rest every seventh day of the week like Sabbatarians do. Instead, I've heard many times informal explanations saying that Christians now enjoy a spiritual sabbath-rest in Christ instead, which is daily, not weekly.

Why are Christians exempt from the mandate to keep a literal physical Sabbath rest every seventh day according to non-Sabbatarians? What is the biblical basis for this view?

1 Answers1

2

The need for a literal, physical Sabbath rest began at the Fall in the Garden of Eden when God cursed the ground for the sake of Mankind:

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” - Genesis 3:17-19

Prior to that event Adam enjoyed the provision of the produce of all of the trees in the Garden save one:

The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” - Genesis 2:15-17

Adam was created to be a servant and, as the above verse shows, he had work and responsibilities in the garden of God but this work was not toil and vanity, for those (and the need for physical rest) entered as a result of the curse and expulsion from the Garden.

Since God rested from all of His creative labors on the seventh day, by which we are to understand a lasting rest, not as though He commenced work again on day eight, we can envision Adam working in the Garden during God's Sabbath rest.

Jesus Christ, as the second Adam, also went about doing the works of God, not only on the weekly Sabbath prescribed by the Law (many examples too numerous to list) but also always during that rest of God's perpetual seventh day.

When Adam was expelled from the Garden he was essentially expelled from God's presence and rest. Ruined by sin and toiling in a cursed creation apart from the presence of God, Mankind needs not only a prescription for physical rest but a prescription for remembrance of the Creator and Sustainer of all despite the curse. Herein lies the reason that God's people, when placed under the tutelage of the Law to bring them to Christ and, through Christ, back to Himself were given a weekly rest Day. The weekly Sabbath, like all of the Law, is intended to bring us to Christ:

Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. - Galatians 3:19-26

Christ has declared Himself to be Lord of the Sabbath and this declaration is given in explanation of why His disciples do what is unlawful on the (weekly) Sabbath:

But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.” - Matthew 12:2-8

In saying that He is greater than the temple (by which we can infer the Law and the Levitical system) it is to be understood that the Sabbath that He is Lord of is that Sabbath rest of God which is greater than the weekly Sabbath of the Law (this, incidentally, is strong Trinitarian evidence). If He is Lord of the greater rest then He is assuredly Lord of the lesser.

And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.” - Mark 2:27-28

In saying that the (weekly) Sabbath was made for man, not man for the (weekly) Sabbath he demonstrates that weekly Sabbath keeping was not the original purpose of Mankind but rather to live within the perpetual Sabbath rest of God.

In this way the writer of Hebrews indicates that there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God (under the Law) to enter:

Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest,’” although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” And again in this passage he said, “They shall not enter my rest.” Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.” For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. - Hebrews 4:1-10

Since

  1. It is God's Sabbath rest that remains for God's people to (re)enter
  2. That rest is God's intended purpose for Man
  3. That rest is greater than the weekly Sabbath rest of the Law
  4. Jesus is Lord of both and violates the lesser while honoring the greater
  5. The greater rest represents restored fellowship with God

Those who are "in Christ" may demonstrate the greatest understanding of the Lordship of Jesus Christ by de-emphasizing the lesser and striving for the greater. Jesus has come to bring us into the pre-fall rest of God's perpetual Sabbath.

  • This does not indicate that weekly Sabbath keeping is inherently wrong for Christians but that insistence upon it in order to "be" a Christian is, for then the lesser (Sabbath) is elevated above the greater (Lord of Sabbath):

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.  One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.  Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. - Romans 14:1-6

Mike Borden
  • 16,820
  • 2
  • 18
  • 50
  • Excellent and concise Up-voted +1. – Nigel J Mar 28 '21 at 18:57
  • @Adam - about Rev 14:12: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/40100/38524 –  Mar 28 '21 at 21:24
  • @Adam Please no mini answers in the comments. You are most welcome to post your own answer. – Ken Graham Mar 28 '21 at 21:30
  • Hi Mike, While this is a very solid and extensive answer, why no reference to the passing away of the old covenant in Christ? To me, this fundamental to it no longer being a requirement for those in Christ Jesus. – Austin Mar 29 '21 at 03:14
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator that hermeneutics thread on what the commandments mean... Scholars around the world well know that Rev 14.12 is only referring to the moral law!. There is no question about this irrespective of what some writers on this forum attempt to claim. As Ray Butterworth stated, there is no Biblical evidence for changing of the Sabbath...it was simply a Catholic Church decision period. I have a book on this if you would like to read it by Samuel Bacchiocci (from sabbath to sunday) – Adam Mar 29 '21 at 07:23
  • @Austin Since Christ is greater than the temple (and the Law) that fundamental point you make is covered. – Mike Borden Mar 29 '21 at 11:43
  • @Adam - why don't you post an answer on that thread summarizing the arguments of that book? –  Mar 29 '21 at 12:14
  • @MikeBorden , well I don't think so. It seems the point Jesus was making wasn't, I am the Lord of the Sabbath and so none of my followers need follow the law, but that there was always notable exceptions to the law as there was with David & with the Priesthood in the temple and who Jesus himself was and what he was doing was exceeding even those in exceptionalism. And so, I find no indication that a Jewish disciple of Jesus not actively participating in a notable exception would be able to just ignore the Sabbath without incurring guilt until the legal requirement was removed at the cross. – Austin Mar 30 '21 at 01:21
  • @Austin Jesus and the disciples were gathering food on the Sabbath; that's what kicked off the conversation. I doubt they were starving (as David) so it's hard to consider this a notable exception. If the Son of Man did not incur guilt in doing so because he is Lord of the Sabbath then his disciples would not incur guilt in following Him. – Mike Borden Mar 30 '21 at 11:29
  • Well, I don't think that it was an accident that Jesus selected two other messiahs as his examples. It wasn't just David's condition of hunger that occasioned the departure from the law (not necessarily on the Sabbath), but who he was and his task at hand. Similarly, the anointed priests are able to work on the Sabbath because of who they are and the task at hand in support of the temple. And so Jesus himself greater than even the temple and sent directly on mission by God would similarly be excepted for who he was and his task at hand. – Austin Mar 31 '21 at 07:18
  • Again I see no indication that Jesus was waiving Sabbath requirements for all his disciples not directly involved in his immediate mission or that Jesus himself would not have been submitted to the Sabbath laws prior to his inaugural baptism into his ministry. – Austin Mar 31 '21 at 07:19
  • Indeed, He was born under the Law and is the end of the Law for righteousness. He has lifted us up beyond the letter of the Law to where love is the fulfillment of it. It's not about disdain for the weekly Sabbath, it's about rejoicing in the perpetual Sabbath in Christ. – Mike Borden Mar 31 '21 at 10:59
  • That makes sense and, to be clear, I also believe Christians have no requirement to obey the Sabbath as you do. I just think your explanation that the legal Sabbath requirement ended before the cross diminishes what Christ did on the cross for it through the cross that Jesus ended obligation to the old law including keeping the Sabbath. – Austin Apr 01 '21 at 07:36
  • As Ephesians 2:14-16 says: "14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility" Since the law and commandments were abolished at the cross, any legal requirement still remained, including the Sabbath, until Jesus's death on the cross. – Austin Apr 01 '21 at 07:37
  • Some would say the culmination was the cross and others would say it was the resurrection and others would say it is the second coming. They are all correct.. The legal end of the written ordinance was the cross but, in Jesus life, the undoing was underway because He was greater than the Law the whole time. Without the ascension of our Lord we have no indwelling Spirit and without the Spirit lusting against the flesh inwardly we cannot please God. If everything culminated at the cross and nothing else followed, we'd be screwed. – Mike Borden Apr 01 '21 at 12:42
  • "The legal end of the written ordinance was the cross but, in Jesus life, the undoing was underway because He was greater than the Law the whole time." What particular verse tells us Jesus was above the law before his crucifixion? Jesus was born under the law. When exactly was he no longer under the law. Being greater than the Temple doesn't mean not under the law. The law existed before the Temple. – Austin Apr 02 '21 at 15:07
  • If Jesus is not under the law, the cross doesn't work. He can't abolish the law in his body through the cross if he isn't under the law in his body leading up to the cross (EPH 2:14-16). We cannot die to the law in the body of Christ (Rom 7:4), if his body isn't under the law while he was in his body. The  righteous requirement of the law can't be fulfilled in us (Rom 8:3-4) if the law never actually applied to Jesus. – Austin Apr 02 '21 at 15:08
  • @Austin "So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath" He was Lord of the Sabbath law that He was born under. I don't think Jesus kept the Law in order to be righteous. I think He kept it because he was righteous. He could do no other. – Mike Borden Apr 03 '21 at 12:18
  • @MikeBorden, "I don't think Jesus kept the Law in order to be righteous." I think Jesus says otherwise. His relationship w/ the Father is conditioned on his lawfulness - Jn 15:10 "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love." (also Jn 8:29, Hb 5:7). He had to learn obedience in order to save us (Heb 5:9-10). Jesus' Sabbath concern was about what is lawful (Mt 12:5, Mt 12:12, Mk 3:4 etc.). The conflict: over legal interpretation, not whether to follow the law (Jn 7:24). Saying otherwise is to agree w/ the Pharisees. – Austin Apr 04 '21 at 06:46
  • @MikeBorden , Regarding "Lord of the Sabbath," notice the title is rooted in his humanity. Mk 2:27-28 ...“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.” His Point: humans (Son of man = human) have always been empowered to modify (have mastery over) Sabbath observance to meet human wellbeing and to balance observance of other laws. Exalted examples of David and the priesthood, but also of farmers and fathers, form solid legal precedent of what has always been in line with God's word, which Jesus is very concerned about keeping (Jn 8:55). – Austin Apr 04 '21 at 07:44
  • @Austin He learned obedience (submission) through what He suffered. Even though he did no wrong he was despised and rejected. He accepted this as part of the Father's plan and humbled Himself. This has more to do with Philippians 2 than the letter of the Law. – Mike Borden Apr 05 '21 at 11:50
  • @Austin I often wonder about John 15. Which commandments of God is Jesus referring to here? 10? Earlier He had said that all the commandments hang on 2: Love God and love neighbor. He gives His disciples 1 command (verse 12): to love one another. Later Paul summarizes "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”. Perhaps Jesus kept the commandments of God by Love not letter. – Mike Borden Apr 05 '21 at 11:59
  • @MikeBorden , This has more to do with Philippians 2 than the letter of the Law. It seems you keep trying to make a false dichotomy but there is none. He was obedient to the point of Death by keeping his Father's commandments which for him included all that was in the law of Moses since he was born under the law. To fulfill the law and the prophets means both the law and that which was prophesied. If he was not perfectly obedient in these, he would have been disobedient and there would be no salvation. – Austin Apr 06 '21 at 06:54
  • When he discussed the two commands the law hangs on, he was breathing the spirit into the law not replacing it with two commands. Jesus instructed to do the whole law, not just the weightier matters. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone." So again, which commands, you ask? All of his Father's commands. Even those commanded by his Father thru Moses. Laws he was under from birth to death. – Austin Apr 06 '21 at 06:54
  • @Austin I think the Spirit was already in the Law. He wasn't breathing it in, He was trying to highlight or reveal it. You heard don't murder but I say don't hate. You heard no adultery but I say don't lust. He was always pointing to the Spirit which gives life rather than the letter which kills, therefore He wasn't replacing the commandments with 2 He was re-focusing from letter to Spirit. Love is the fulfillment of the Law and always has been. – Mike Borden Apr 06 '21 at 12:18
  • @MikeBorden, @Austin I think the Spirit was already in the Law. He wasn't breathing it in, He was trying to highlight or reveal it. Ok, clearly, my figure of speech went over your head since we're saying the same thing here but differently. So I'm interpreting your silence in leaving the more substantive points previously made unchallenged as your agreement with them - namely that Jesus taught to follow the whole law, not just the weighty bits, and that he himself remained under the commandments of his Father, including the law given through Moses, from his birth to his death. – Austin Apr 07 '21 at 05:55
  • @Austin We agree that Jesus kept the 6th commandment (for example) and would have taught others the same.. I'm not sure if we agree on how He kept it. Was it by never literally murdering someone or was it by having no hatred in His heart (Matthew 5:17-48)? Romans 8:1-4 Jesus came to do what the Law could not do, fulfill the righteous requirements of the Law in us through the Spirit. – Mike Borden Apr 07 '21 at 11:56
  • If we are to keep the Sabbath commandment in the flesh we must keep it perfectly or be guilty of the whole Law (James 2:10). Or we can enter into the Sabbath rest of God, ceasing from our own labors as God rested from His. This is how Jesus kept the Law and it is what He was beginning to teach His disciples. – Mike Borden Apr 07 '21 at 12:06
  • @MikeBorden , Ok with regard to murder, there is only one way to keep the command to not murder and that's by not murdering people. Nothing new here. Instead, Jesus instructed his disciples to not just be satisfied with keeping that commandment but to keep also the commandment to love and not hate or defame your brother (Lv 19:16-18). He wasn't teaching a new way to keep the commandment but to keep more commandments. This is a consistent message with Mt 23:23. Jesus taught to keep the whole law (especially the weightier matters, but also everything else), & not just the bits that are vogue. – Austin Apr 08 '21 at 06:59
  • Regarding the Sabbath, there is much freedom on how to keep it as the Old Testament teaches & Jesus illuminates. So the son of man (the human) is Lord (master) of the Sabbath. Under the law, always was there a degree of freedom on how to keep the day holy. It was only tradition that Jesus violated. The conflict was over legal interpretation: John 7:23-24 If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man's whole body well? 24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” – Austin Apr 08 '21 at 07:15
  • @Austin I disagree. I think Jesus' clear point in that passage is that if you hate your brother in your heart you have committed murder whether you act upon it or not. If you lust in your heart you have committed adultery even if you remain outwardly faithful. – Mike Borden Apr 08 '21 at 11:48
  • @Austin Regarding Matthew 23...The same blind guides that Jesus is chastising are the same ones about whom Jesus told His disciples "Do what they say but do not do what they do." Do what they say because you are under their authority (think Romans 13), not because they are proper guides. Jesus was not commending the Pharisees for their meticulous tithing, He was diagnosing their heart condition. – Mike Borden Apr 08 '21 at 11:53
  • @MikeBorden , I disagree. Ok. Do you disagree that there was already a separate law in Leviticus to not hate your brother in your heart? Already a separate law to not defame your brother? That lusting after your neighbor's wife was already prohibited in the Ten Commandments (covet/lust in Greek NT same word for lust in Mt 5:28)? Transgressions of the heart were already illegal. Jesus was a Jew steeped in the Old Testament Law from childhood. You don't think he knew what he was commanding had already been commanded? – Austin Apr 09 '21 at 06:44
  • @MikeBorden , Regarding Mt 23:3, this seems like a non-sequitur unless you somehow think Jesus is telling disciples to not do what he later instructs the Pharisees to do. He's condemning the Pharisees for hypocrisy and lawlessness (Mt 23:28) and not for law-keeping. Do you deny that Jesus is instructing them to keep the less weighty matters of the law along with the weighty? – Austin Apr 09 '21 at 06:46
  • @Austin Are they separate Laws? Love your neighbor is a separate Law in that sense and yet all the Law and Prophets hang on it and one other. When the letter of the Law is exalted the Pharisaical position is inevitable because of the weakness of the flesh. Moses face shone from talking to God and he veiled his face to hide that the glory began to fade instantly (2 Cor 3). The glory of the Law began to end as soon as it was given. – Mike Borden Apr 09 '21 at 12:16
  • It doesn't seem you answered my questions in a straightforward manner, but perhaps I asked too many. So I'll just narrow them down to two: Do you believe that Jesus knew that his very instructions regarding sins of the heart to not lust, hate, or defame along with not murdering and committing adultery were already commanded against in the Old Testament? And did Jesus actually instruct the Pharisees to keep the less weighty matters of the law along with the weighty? – Austin Apr 10 '21 at 08:09
  • When the letter of the Law is exalted the Pharisaical position is inevitable because of the weakness of the flesh. You know it's very interesting that part of Jesus's prescription for the Pharisees' hypocrisy and lawlessness was to follow more laws (Matt 23:23). Jesus didn't condemn the Pharisees for exalting the law, but for nullifying the law (Mt 15:6) They didn't exalt the law but instead exalted the commandments of men (Mt 15:9) – Austin Apr 10 '21 at 08:11
  • @Austin Of course He knew. Do you think that He knew "For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.? - Romans 13:9-10 – Mike Borden Apr 10 '21 at 12:25
  • @Austin I think Jesus' point is that the Pharisees were nullifying the weightier matters of the Law by their focus on the minutiae. One can tithe without loving God. One can keep the Law (theoretically) without loving God and neighbor and fail therein. The justice, mercy, and faithfulness, which are the weightier matters, were exhibited by righteous men prior to the Law (Abraham, Job, etc.) – Mike Borden Apr 10 '21 at 12:43
  • @Austin The Pharisees were fastidious law keepers in order to appear better than others, to put others down. This is not love. This is where they fail. They used the Law in order to go about establishing their own righteousness. Jesus was introducing a righteousness which is apart from the Law and which fulfills the righteous requirements of the Law. – Mike Borden Apr 10 '21 at 12:54
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Mike Borden Apr 10 '21 at 13:07
  • The Pharisees were fastidious law keepers Again, Jesus would disagree with you here, as was discussed above. They were fastidious partial law-keepers, but only the nit noid stuff (Mt 23:24). Things easy to police the people over. The problem wasn't that the Pharisees were just so zealous for the law they got full of themselves and became unloving. This is a bit mythological. I think a better description of the Pharisees was that they were politicians. Pure and simple. They are attracted to power and used the law (or the veneer of the law) to extract wealth (Mt 15:5, Mt 12:40)... – Austin Apr 11 '21 at 07:23
  • and power (Mt 23:5-7) from the people and distract them from their own lawlessness (v28). They were corrupt(v25), oppressive (v4) & hypocritical (v3) politicians we've come to know, but Jewish style. They had no real passion for the law, but just what they could get away with by wrapping themselves up in it. Thanks for answering one of my questions in a straightforward manner. I'm not so good at reading in between your lines. Mind you answering the other similarly: Do you believe that Jesus instructed Pharisees to keep the less weighty matters of the law along with the weightier in Mt 23:23? – Austin Apr 11 '21 at 07:24
  • @Austin He clearly said that they should keep the small matters without neglecting the weightier but He said it more as a diagnosis of their hypocrisy than an instructive prescription for them or the disciples. Since their whole focus (supposedly) was righteousness by the Law they should have been focused especially on the weighty matters. The outside of the cup (letter of the Law) was super clean and the inside (spirit of the Law) was gross. – Mike Borden Apr 11 '21 at 13:20
  • He clearly said that they should keep the small matters without neglecting the weightier but He said it more as a diagnosis of their hypocrisy than an instructive prescription for them or the disciples. Thanks for this response. When someone says "you should have" or "you ought to have", it is almost always an instructive prescription for what you needed to have done in a given situation (being under the law) and what you need to do if the same circumstance arises (guaranteed for the Pharisees who continued to be under the law). Why for you is this different? – Austin Apr 12 '21 at 05:16
  • Also why do you continue to use the phrases letter of the law and spirit of the law with respect to the Pharisees when no such phraseology is ever applied to them in the Gospels. In fact, the phrase, spirit of the law, isn't in the Bible at all. It seems like you are mixing various post-crucifixion/resurrection New Testament concepts with extra-biblical ideations. Clearly cleaning the inside of the cup (the heart) was precisely what the words (if this is what you mean by letter) in the Old Testament told the Pharisees to do (as we have already discussed). – Austin Apr 12 '21 at 05:18
  • @Austin Jesus is speaking to those whose boast is in the Law and He is pointing out that they deliberately fail by neglecting the weightier elements; mercy, justice, etc. Just like the rich young ruler who "kept all these from his youth" and Jesus said, "you are lacking". – Mike Borden Apr 12 '21 at 11:54
  • @Austin 2 Corinthians 3:5-13 is why. The Sinai Covenant was a ministry of death, a ministry of condemnation. The letter killeth. The Pharisees were trying to squeeze life out of the ministry of death. Moses veiled his face so the people wouldn't see that the glory began to fade quickly. Even then the Law was coming to an end. The Gospel accounts are of "What Jesus began to do and to teach". There is no sudden change in His teaching from before to after the cross, there is only greater revelation once the Spirit is given. – Mike Borden Apr 12 '21 at 11:59
  • ...they deliberately fail by neglecting the weightier elements; mercy, justice, etc. Just like the rich young ruler who "kept all these..." Do you know the difference between "kept all these" and "neglecting" these? Jesus did. Jesus had special affection for the young man, while the pharisees, literally mortal enemies, he called children of hell. One merely failed to achieve to the full perfection Jesus called him to and the others declared murderous Satan spawn. The law was never meant to make one perfect, but it was a Guardian to keep Israel till true salvation appeared. – Austin Apr 13 '21 at 07:36
  • Even then the Law was coming to an end. Yes, but not before the new covenant arrived, which decisively occurred after the Jesus's death (Heb 9:15[16-22]). Jesus first redeemed people from the sins committed under the old to free them to enter the new. Also, 2 Cor 3 made the distinction between the Old and New covenant (vs 6) and not (when under the law) the distinction between following the letter of the law of Moses vs the Spirit of the law of Moses, as you try to do. Nowhere in the Bible is the spirit of the law of Moses ever discussed. So far, this ideation is extra-biblical. – Austin Apr 13 '21 at 07:45
  • @Austin The sermon on the mount. – Mike Borden Apr 13 '21 at 12:26
  • What about the sermon on the mount says it was no longer necessary to for jews under the law to follow the law, or that the new covenant began before Jesus died? – Austin Apr 13 '21 at 15:19
  • @Austin The sermon on the mount is in response to your "spirit of the law" question. – Mike Borden Apr 14 '21 at 11:56
  • Well, I didn't ask a "spirit of the law" question, and a discussion about the spirit of the law of Moses doesn't occur there either. – Austin Apr 15 '21 at 04:32
  • "Also why do you continue to use the phrases letter of the law and spirit of the law with respect to the Pharisees when no such phraseology is ever applied to them in the Gospels." The sermon on the mount is not a discussion of the spirit of the law, it is an exposition of same. – Mike Borden Apr 15 '21 at 11:44
  • @Austin Exodus 16 is interesting in that no one was allowed to gather their daily provision (manna) on the seventh day. They were to gather extra on day six and day six only. Verses 26-29 are particularly interesting. Some went out on the Sabbath to glean but found none because God had not provided any. Even though there was no manna to gather, God accused them of refusing to keep His laws. Yet we see Jesus and His disciples, still under that same Law, gathering their daily provision on the seventh day. – Mike Borden Apr 15 '21 at 12:17
  • Ok, that question was about phraseology related to letter of the law vs spirit of the law of Moses. More generally, where Biblically, is attention paid to the antagonistic relationship between trying to follow the letter of the law Moses vs. trying to follow the spirit of the law of Moses. Nowhere in the Bible is anything said like: You know your problem is you tried too hard to follow the letter of the law of Moses. Stop that and follow the spirit of the law of Moses. Instead, the issues are poor interpretation, following the wrong covenant at the wrong time, or just straight-up lawlessness. – Austin Apr 16 '21 at 08:03
  • Yes, Exodus 16 is interesting, but it really bears little similarity to Christ and his disciples. First, the instructions in Ex 16 take place before the covenant was made at Mt. Sanai. It was specific to the condition where God was providing them Manna and so only applied during the 40 years of wandering. Also, there's a big difference between working to gather food when you already miraculously have plenty at home from the day before provided to you by God and eating the food you pick as you walk through the fields because you are hungry and have no other food for your journey. – Austin Apr 16 '21 at 08:08
  • @Austin Anyone who ever broke any of the commandments given through Moses would have, if they had loved God and neighbor, never broken the law. One could refrain from murder and still be liable to that judgement through anger. The idea is that anger is the precursor to murder. Lust is the precursor to adultery. As a man thinks in his heart, so is he. I knew a man who said he would rape if he knew he wouldn't get caught...he was a rapist. That is the spirit as opposed to the letter. The spirit was always there and has always been the only way to keep the law. Isaiah 29:13, Matthew 15:8 – Mike Borden Apr 16 '21 at 12:09
  • The Spirit is not opposed to the letter. In fact the letter tells us about the spirit. It tells us to love, it tells us not to hate or defame. It tells us not to covet or lust. Of course your spirit must be right to keep the commandments & by actually trying to keep the commandments you can strengthen your spirit. Consider Gal 6:8-10. Actually trying to do what the Bible tells you to do is sowing to the spirit. Or Rom 12:1-2, what we do with our bodies affects the transformation of our minds. By actually testing out what God wants us to do we gain an internal understanding of his perfection. – Austin Apr 17 '21 at 07:43
  • Regarding Is & Matthew clearly just saying the right things isn't enough indeed you must do them as Matthew 7:21 makes clear: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." --but again, the commandments never say just use your lips and you'll be good. – Austin Apr 17 '21 at 07:44