I realize that the sacrificial system with its earthly priesthood was rendered null and void when Christ became the reality of which they were only shadows. This included the feast days and perhaps some other things I cannot think of right now.
Answer 1: There are ceremonial sabbaths included in the annual feasts which did not necessarily occur on the 7th day. When they coincided with the weekly Sabbath it was considered a High Day. From what I understand, Jesus rested in the tomb on just such an High Day. The ceremonial sabbath of the feast days coincided with the weekly 7th day Sabbath. Then there are weekly Sabbath day which always occur on the 7th day. As you have no doubt already deduced, the sabbaths of the feast days were ceremonial but the weekly 7th day Sabbath is contained in the Ten Commandments which we often refer to as the moral law.
Answer 2: Did He move it somewhere? It was He who gave the Hebrews their ceremonial laws, the civil laws, and the Ten Commandments. Jesus left them where He first placed them. Didn't He?
Answer 3: A law is moral when it deals with morality. Morality has to do with right and good. No one is better qualified to define right and good than Jesus. Thus, the Ten Commandments are often called the moral law.
This is what the Lord says: Maintain justice and do what is right, for my salvation is close at hand and my righteousness will soon be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, the man who holds it fast, who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil. Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the Lord say, "The Lord will surely exclude me from his people." And let not any eunuch complain, "I am only a dry tree." For this is what the Lord says: To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant............
Actually I was only asking some questions regarding. where various people place the Sabbath law- ritual, ceremonial or moral? And their take on what makes a law moral. Not trying to determine which covenant is which. Thant kind of takes it off the subject.
-------------------- Tarheel I am a Warrior I am a Child
Hi all- wow- a lot has been said since my last post. I will just quickly try to answer the questions asked of me.
Lahry. No I don't think that God would ask me to break any of the Law, But there are parts of the Law that were physicaly fulfilled by Christ, and yet the deeper spiritual meaning of them continues to have relevance for us. I tried to explain that a bit in my last bullet of my previous post. I don't see myself as breaking the sabbath, but having entered Gods rest (made possible because of Christ)- resting from my works as God did from His. There are times when I still have a works mentality in some area and the Spirit convicts me and leads me to cease from my own works and rest in God, wait for Him, and trust Him completely.
The sacrifices of the old covenant were similar- and this also relates to your other questions about why the sabbath was alluded to prior to Mt. Sinai. Sacrifices were also, starting when God clothed Adam and Eve in animal skins, followed by other references. This was an important concept, as mankind needs to understand that we canot work our way to God but we need a sacrifice for our sins. This of course was fulfilled in Christ, so we no longer make physical sacrifices, though we do need to continue to remember the spiritual significance of sacrifice (again reminding us not to rely on our own works), and we are even asked to offer ourselves as living sacrifices to God.
I realize that you separate out the 10 commandments from the rest of the Law and don't apply them to the verses where it says that Christ fulfilled the law-that we no longer live by them but by the Spirit. I don't see that distinction made anywhere. In fact in 2 Cor. 3:7 it is speaking about the this subject and the "ministry that brought death which was engraved in letters on stone". Clearly it is the 10 commandments being spoken of here and not just the rest of the law.
Jeff- you spoke of me listening to another person on this issue? I am confused about what you mean. I actually have studied the word for myself on this issue. I don't even use commentaries for that very reason- when I seek the Lord on something I want to hear from Him.
Chubbena- I did reread those Isaiah passages- they have actually always been favorites of mine! It doesn't change the way I see things but supports them. Yes, during the time of the old covenant the Israelites (and foreigners) were required to keep the law as they looked forward to Gods salvation which was close at hand, and for His rightousnes to be revealed- which of course came through the messiah- which ushered in the new covenant and all that I have spoken of.
I would not place the Sabbath Law (ritual? does our holy God deal with rituals?) anywhere but in God's character, as is the rest of the decalog.
Let me just say this if I may. I think this thing is such a "big deal" to those who want to serve two masters. In order to do so, they have to pick and choose from God's Word just which commandments they want to obey and still appear to themselves in the mirror and to others "spiritual". If the flesh has not been put to death, taking up your cross daily to follow Him, then some laws of God are indeed problamatic. So in order to save face, you must throw out some of the good with the bad.
John said faith without works is dead. What are the works? Could we not say "faith without obedience is dead"? Obedience to what? There has got to be some standard in place, for our good. God's law's were never meant to condemn us, but safeguard us from impurity and condemnation.
Rom 12: 1 I APPEAL to you therefore, brethren, and beg of you in view of [all] the mercies of God, to make a decisive dedication of your bodies [presenting all your members and faculties] as a living sacrifice, holy (devoted, consecrated) and well pleasing to God, which is your reasonable (rational, intelligent) service and spiritual worship.
How can you be holy and well pleasing to God, if you say you are born into His family but not willing to keep His commandments? The only reason why there is such a controversy over types of laws and which ones we keep is because the person who has that kind of problem wants justify their carnal lifestyle and try to hide it under grace. My Bible says that we are saved by grace through faith. Faith without obedience is dead faith, no faith at all.
Now, from my own personal expereince. I've lived all this stuff for almost 40 years. Victory and defeat, high and love, mountain and valley, in church and out, in my Bible and out. Why? Because I would not put an end to my flesh, it's desires, and everything in my life that kept my flesh alive. I had so many things that poisoned my relationship with God.
Then one day not many moons ago, I came to a place of decision that was of the utmost importance. I wanted God. God wanted me. But, He would not accept a partial sacrifice, my friend. He wants all are nothing. So I told Him, I would put to death, anything and everything in my life that was a toxic to our relationship. All distractions, all uncleanness, anything God would show me, went. If it was physical. Trashed. If it was spiritual, to the cross.
Guess what, beloved. I woke up one day and the battle within no longer existed. I have peace beyond understanding. Why? Because of the two combatants inside, one was no longer there. Flesh was dead and I was free. The Son had set me free!!! Why? Because I took my flesh and ALL it's desires to the cross and crucified them. Now that I have been crucified with Christ, I am able to rise with Him. I am now, finally, leading a resurrected life. Alleluia!
I'm so blessed to be free. Sabbath keeping is such a joy and a privilege. Why would it be a controversy if I want to obey my God? He put the desire in my heart, why should I run from it? I welcome it. My wife and I look forward to it. I believe God does too. Alleluia! I want all of God I can cram into my being. I can't get enough. I'm not trying to pick and choose and see how close I can get to the world without crossing over. Like Paul, I'm dead to the world and the world is dead to me. No more war! James said that if we are a friend to the world, we are an enemy of God! Amen, and amen. True, true.
Live your life as you please. That was Eve and Adam's choice. It is ours too. God still permits it. But God will not save it. To reign with Christ we must be crucified with Christ. You can willfully decieve yourself if you want too. I tried it for ages. It never brings about peace with God. I choose life. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Servants don't argue, they obey, my friend. It is my joy to obey my Father. Glory be to God, now and forever more.
Sometimes I start out replying directly to the person and end up speaking generally to everyone. But in rereading the part meant for you I don't see that I said anything about listening to others instead of God. Please forgive me. I did not mean to imply that you were hardening your heart by turned your ear away from God. If I mentioned that it was just a general statement. Like "preaching to the choir." But in truth it does apply to all of us, doesn't it?
Jeanne, What boggles my mind is this, beloved. I've stated over and over again that I believe we are saved by grace through faith, period. That comes at the moment we belive. Justified! Now what? Do we take our liberty as an occasion of flesh and sin? Paul said NO!
So, what do we follow? The dictates of our flesh? No, the law of God of course. Which law? How to sacrifice in the temple for sins? No, Christ fulfilled all of that.
So what is the standard? God's commandments of course. Jesus said if we love Him we will keep His commandments...our of love. Amen? What commandments? Just because it is not recorded that He said anything about the Sabbath Commandment in the New Testament, does not mean that He did not say anything about it. Furthermore, He kept the Sabbath, and so did the Apostles till their death. There is not one shred of evidence that Jesus or God in the old Testament or new changed the 7th day rest. Now, you say Christ is your rest. Amen. Rest from what? If Christ is your physical rest, then you can work 7 days a week 12 hours a day, right? You won't ever get tired, because He is your rest, right? You do work every single day, don't you? I know I'm being harsh. But it is not an attack, beloved.
The rest in Christ is rest from works of law keeping to be saved. The Commandment is still God's law, that never will change. We do not have to do anything but repent and believe to be born into His family. Then what? Live according to our flesh during the week and on Sunday according to the Spirit? I'm going to tell you what I believe the Bible teaches.
I believe the Bible teaches us to walk Holy before God 24/7. In Romans 12:1, Paul says it is our reasonable service. My Bible tells me I have to put to death all occasion for the flesh. I have found that my salvation and my love for God supercedes any desire I have in the flesh! With His power I have am an overcomer. Absolutely perfect? No, but better than I've ever been before. Do I still need the blessing and salvation of the Cross? Every day. But that does not give me liberty to live as I please. When my God says I gave you the 7th day to rest and be with me, I think He means it.
I just can't understand it. Maybe that is why I keep at this thread. Why, oh why, do people who claim to love the Lord still want to uphold a grevious error afforded mankind by the catholic church in defying God by changing His rest day from the 7th day to the first? Why is that so important to you? Would you rather obey man than God? Somebody help me here.
I struggled with this question for years. When no one could satisfactorily prove and give me a good answer, I started keeping the Sabbath. To God be the glory. It is my joy, not an incarciration. This is Holy Yahveh we are talking about. You know, who hung all the stars in place and knows them all by name. That One. He wants to have fellowship with me, especially on the 7th day and I reject that? What's wrong with this picture folks?
It seems to me and I could be wrong that if someone believes and practices what you do then they are in obedience. I think you are also saying or implying that if someone says they believe as you do but does not do it then they are carnal.
Now where does that leave the rest of us? Those who do not agree on this subject yet are not carnal, that do seek God daily, that live the life in Christ and yet do not believe as you do on this particular subject.
That leaves us in the family of God the same as you, saved by grace through Jesus Christ. That leaves us as saints and priests just like you. My friend, please don't assume that those who disagree with you on some subject are carnal, flesh seeking, sinning Christians.
I can see that you seek God and by your own admission have grown up in Christ through many toils and troubles over the years. I am glad you did not settle for less. There are many of us who have done the same. We also seek God and His righteousness, we forgive because we are forgiven, we express our admiration, awe and love for God almost constantly, we hear His Spirit and know His touch also.
Brother, the church and Christians have labored long enough over these issues while the fruit it and we produce is no different than the worlds fruit. We pick a few ideals to fight over and over between ourselves and a few ideals to fight with the outside world. This takes us nowhere and does no good.
It is time we moved to higher ground. That place where we can make changes in others lives because we have the God given power, knowledge and wisdom to do so. So long as we dwell over these issues one generation after another we cannot make a difference.
There is a way, but who will listen?
-------------------- Tarheel I am a Warrior I am a Child
Tarheel, I thought you wanted to know which law Sabbath belongs to. I was trying to help you think with a question. If you are too focus on which law (or covenant) belongs to who, you have already missed the whole picture. The so called OT is a revelation of God's relation with israel and from those scriptures we learn the loving character of God. The scriptures teach us that Sabbath is to be remembered, with a delightful heart, both physically and spiritually. The Israelites violated Sabbath, by considering it a burden, provoked His anger and received just punishments. The scriptures also teaches that foreigners who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it will be brought to His holy mountain. Are the scriptures so difficult to understand? One would argue that it belonged to one of the old covenants but did God ever make a covenant with foreigners in OT?
Your Quote: Answer 2: Did He move it somewhere? It was He who gave the Hebrews their ceremonial laws, the civil laws, and the Ten Commandments. Jesus left them where He first placed them. Didn't He?
I probably did not word that question very well. I was looking to see if anyone would see it as I do, that Jesus, born under the old covenant as a Jew obeyed the law. Yet, he tore down the rituals associated with any law.
Your quote: Answer 3: A law is moral when it deals with morality. Morality has to do with right and good. No one is better qualified to define right and good than Jesus. Thus, the Ten Commandments are often called the moral law.
So true. I am going to stop here and add these two links I found of interest.
I read the articles at the two links. Did you want me to comment?
As you may be aware, the WCG was once a Seventh-day church. Shortly after the founders death the new leader started changing their beliefs to align more with other churches. They split apart over the changes which involved substituting Sunday for the Sabbath. The WCG wrote a thesis explaining their new position regarding the Sabbath to Sunday change. These articles appear to be a product of the later church.
Anyway, I would like to briefly comment on what I found. I did found a pretty fair treatment of the facts in the first article. But what they have done is proven themselves as holding the wrong position by demonstrating that Sunday observance is merely a tradition of the church that took root in the 2nd and 3rd century.
The second article was simply not well thought-out. The reasoning was faulty and only served to prove that they were adopting a legalistic observance of a day of worship and not a loving obedience to God's commandment. For example, commenting on Mark 2:27-28 they said something which exposed their true intent.
"The context shows that Jesus actually meant the opposite: Human needs are more important than Sabbath restrictions. The Sabbath should serve human needs, rather than human needs being delayed to serve Sabbath rules. Jesus is definitely not saying that all human needs have to fit into the Sabbath rules!" -- Written by Michael Morrison; copyright 1997 by author.
Now look at what the author has actually said. First he says that Jesus meant to show that human needs are more important than Sabbath restrictions, presumably, not working. But then he clarifies that Jesus definitely did not include all human needs in this category. So where do you suppose we should turn to understand which we can do and which we cannot do in order to be consistent with Jesus' intent? You guessed it! The WCG. Perhaps they have a list they can provide to you if you ask. But isn't this the very thing that the Pharisees did concerning the Sabbath law forbidding work? Didn't they presume to know what God intended and set about to clarify what could and could not be legally done on the Sabbath day? And just to substantiate my claims as to where this type of reasoning will lead we need look no further than Sunday Blue Laws in America. Christians used the legal system to establish laws concerning what could and could not be done or bought and sold on Sunday, then considered the Sabbath day.
So we see that when men try to impose their beliefs on us they wish to regulate us. What we should do is look to Scripture for our understanding and point people to scripture as their guide and rule of faith.
In his next point he makes another fatal error in reasoning. He writes, "Temple rituals were more important than avoiding work on the Sabbath day." No, the temple work was the work of God and the Sabbath commandment, as Jesus taught, did not forbid us in doing the work of God. The Sabbath commandment states that there are six days for us to do our work but the 7th day is for God's work. We have six and he has one. We have six days to labor to provide for our family but the 7th day God has asked that we put aside our work. Many today, just like the Jews, interpret that command to mean that absolutely no work of any nature can be done on the Sabbath. And, in their mistaken logic reason that sense this is impossible to keep God surely didn't mean it. But Jesus taught otherwise and by so doing give proper instruction regarding God's purpose of the Sabbath command. ""Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" So should we trust men to interpret the Sabbath commandment or Jesus?
To cease from our common labor on Sabbath, that which we are involved in six days of the week, is to express a living faith. Faith without works is dead. Many profess belief in Jesus but their works deny their profession. However, the one who most needs to work on the Sabbath to provide for his family proves he has the greatest faith. Not only belief but trust, that Jesus can and will provide for his needs. He understand the words of Jesus and fully trusts in His promise. "Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." "Your heavenly Father knows that you need them." What does this mean but that our first duty is to obey God and if in so doing we suffer loss we are to trust that God will provide for our needs?
Then he cites another example regarding David eating the Shew Bread. But does Jesus say that David did not break the law? No! Jesus could have simply been convicting his accusers of hypocrisy. They did not hold David accountable for his actions which were in direct violation of the temple laws but here they stood accusing the disciples of providing for their hunger. Jesus was not teaching men to disregard the Sabbath commandment nor was He lessening its force. Jesus had made the statement early in his ministry that he did not come to destroy the law and the prophets. He was fully aware that the leaders would accuse him of that very thing. And, Jesus also said that whoever broke the least commandment and taught others to do so would be considered least in heaven. Now, was Jesus teaching men to disregard a least commandment? Was he to be thought of as least in heaven? No, not in the least! Therefore, we cannot rightly come to the conclusion this author has. Jesus WAS NOT teaching that even the least of God's laws could be broken. Don't accept the first thing you hear from men. Let the Bible speak for itself. Try to harmonize the whole of the gospel with whatever you are being taught.
If you want more, there is plenty, as I have time. Let's not grab onto the first thing that pleases us. Let's look for correction in the Holy Word and not justification of self. In the first work you can see the author's honest, yet misguided, struggle to find justification for keep Sunday. His treatment is fairly honest and his struggle to find proof for his position is evident. Yet, at every turn he rejects the plain testimony of scripture in favor of traditions which records shows didn't take root until the 2nd or 3rd century. Well, friends, if you believe we are under the New Covenant then let me remind you that Jesus died on Friday, three days before Sunday. So what? Well, don't you realize that when Jesus died his last will and testament was sealed? Who can change a man's will after his death? He told his disciples that the cup they drank at the last supper was the cup of his testament. Jesus came to confirm the new covenant with the house of Israel. And when He died that covenant was sealed. Nothing that came later could be added and nothing before could be removed. It was ratified by his blood on Calvary. And, since no one believed he would be resurrected on Sunday that tradition didn't start until after the last will and testament of Jesus was closed. There was no way to add it then.
Read these verses which show that at the time of Jesus' death the concept of sealed last wills and testaments was known and honored.
"Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case." Gal 3:15
"And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." Heb 9:16-17
What I am saying is this. Unless you find proof that Sunday was established before Jesus' death then you have no grounds to include it in the New Covenant. That was sealed when Jesus died. What the author has found is traditions established upon the resurrection which came three days after the covenant was sealed. Even if the apostles seemed to meet on Sunday it was not for the purpose of changing the last will and testament of Jesus. Thus it comes down to either following God's commandment or man's tradition.
Like I said. If you would like for me to comment further on his remarks I would be happy to try. But that must come later.
God bless our time together and may he richly reward us!
I think you misunderstand those articles- The second doesn't speak of a need to follow any sabbath day- 7th or 1st day. It gave an argument from the gospels that Christ treated the sabbath commandment more like the ceremonial laws (sacrifice, cleansing, food restrictions, etc.) than the universal moral laws. I think it gives a strong argument- after all Christ didn't teach about the sabbath during the sermon on the mount when he taught on other moral commandments.
At the very beginning of the 1st article a thesis statement is given that the writer doesn't feel that as christians we are required to observe any sabbath day, but then gives historical background on when christians began meeting on the 1st rather than the 7th day. Again the writer doesn't feel that we are required to keep any sabbath day- something I also believe.
I am seeing the main issue here is where does the sabbath command fit- is it a moral and universal law that is required of all people at all times, or was it a law given specificaly to Israel for a specific reason and for a specific time like sacrifices and other cerimonial laws from the Mosaic covenant? If it is the first than I am in the wrong and am in disobedience to God. If it is the second than it is an area of freedom. All my study has supported the second of these options and there has not been one argument or scripture that has been shared that has given any proof to the first.
Perhapse we should just leave this topic as a difference of opinion.
Hi Jeanne, Obedience to God has never been a choice of personal feelings. God commanded, that's it. Anyone who lives a so called "christian life" on feelings has a house built on sand and a counterfiet ticket to heaven.
There has been a ton of Biblical evidence presented here that seems to be totally ignored. Why bother with facts, huh?
The Sabbath Commmandment goes back to Genesis 2:1-3, not an option. Futhermore it is mentioned again in Ex 12 and 16, before the momentous Mt Sinai Decalog. Since the Sabbath Commandment is part of the 10, it is inseprable from the others. It is the only one starting with "Remember". If it was new, then the word "remember" is grammatically way out of place.
There is not one scripture in all of the Bible that proves that Elohim, Yah'shua, or any Apostle gave man the authorization to change this Commandment or any of the 10. The Epistles are full of accounts where the Apostles ministered Yah'shua to the Jews and Gentiles on the Sabbath Day.
Paul preached one message that is recorded as being on the first day of the week, and the reason was that he was about to depart and would not see these people again. He preached on Saturday Evening and left the next morning. That is the only recorded preaching meeting on Sunday in the whole Bible. It is not stated that this was some "new" commandment. The mention of this event was more importantly written by Luke to exhibit the miracle that Paul performed when the poor fellow fell out the window to his death and Paul raised him up.
Any serious student of early church history knows that the catholic church changed the "rest day" from the 7th to the 1st day of the week. Their church dogma is that the church has precident and authority over the Bible, over God. What a herecy. Yet it is this one blasphemous act that so many "sola scriptura" evangelical protestants squeel about. Why is that?
If one says that the Sabbath is not a commandment of God for today, then all the other 9 must go out with it. To me, common sense and academic necessity demand this reality.
The warnings for defiling the 7th day of the week Sabbath are extreme and fatal to the violator. I've spent most of my life doing just that. But I cry out to my Holy Yahweh and plead the blood of Yah'shua in my repentance. My wife and I now take keeping the Sabbath (the Spirit and not the letter)the highest priority of obedience in our weekly walk with God. Not to be saved, beloved, but because we are saved by our God who loves us. We demonstrate our love and unending gratitude by making obedience our way of life and nothing, absolutely nothing is more important to us.
Yah'shua Messiah is my only hope for salvation, righteousness, holiness, purity, spotlessness, and anything else that would make me unfit to stand untainted before Holy Yahweh. If the shed blood of Yah'shua can't save me, I am going to bust hell wide open. Period! Jesus is my rest from works of my flesh to achieve any and all claims on heaven. Alleluia.
But my body still needs rest, and so does yours. I still need "super time" with God for keeping my vessel completely full of His life and walking in His blessings. We have died to the world and the world is dead to us. I've come too far to look back, beloved. I can tell you that we are loving every minute of it. Hearing "depart from Me you doer's of iniquity, I never knew you" is not an option for us.
Faith is not a static word. It is an action word. The first action and most important is obedience to our Holy Elohim Who has mercifully taken our injustice upon Himself and canceled our judicial debt. For that I am eternally greatful. My greatfulness and my eternity have already begun.
As for me and my house, we will serve the Living Yahweh! Isaiah 58:13,14
I think perhaps this needs to be thought out a bit more thoroughly. Consider that the WCG (now GCI) is an organized church. They once met on the 7th day for church. But they changed their position some time back and now worship on the 1st day. If they believed that the day didn't matter, as you say the article points out, then why did they change the day and cut their membership in half? Makes no sense. The day must have been deemed important enough to be willing to suffer such a huge loss. The loss must have been anticipated and therefore the costs weighed. Apparently observing Sunday instead of the 7th day was counted more important than retaining their members. So we cannot rightly reason that the day does not matter to them. Their actions speak louder than their words.
Next point. Can you imagine a organized church of 40,000 members and 9,000 congregations trying to worship together without an established time and place? Guess which day they choose to meet on? Yes, Sunday.
So it would seem that your assessment of their writing is incorrect on at least two points. 1) The day was important enough to suffer loss of half their membership, and 2) The day they now meet together on a weekly basis is Sunday.
So I don't know who they think they're fooling unless you still believe the day doesn't matter to them.
Hi Jeff, I think a good case can be made for Saturday sabbath... but no good case can be made for a perfect calendar since Genesis. We don't really know what day of the week it is! In some time zones it's even a different day, of course.
For this reason, I cut others some slack and let them take it up with their heavenly Father.
Interesting question that has been thoroughly discussed. Please, all, use the search and make certain your arguments have not already been published.
First, I need to apologize to JeanneH. What I said wasn't what I meant to say. I wasn't disagreeing with her, but with them. I wasn't disagreeing with her assessment, but their own. Only after I read it just now did I realize what I had said. I said, "So it would seem that your assessment of their writing is incorrect..." But in reality it wasn't Jeanne's assessment that I felt was incorrect, it was their own assessment. Jeanne wasn't incorrect. She only pointed out what they plainly claimed as their motive. I am very sorry Jeanne for not being more careful. I hope you will forgive me. We get "beat up" enough on these forums without suffering at the hands of our supposed friends. I am truly sorry for not editing my post sooner.
D_Anderson, I think Chicago had the same problem. They were always asking "does anybody know what time it is..." Personally, I think if we know when Good Friday is and Easter Sunday then we're kinda without excuse for claiming we don't know when the Sabbath day is.