Should we still observe the sabbath?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The issue in Galatia was NOT "should we obey God" or "should we follow the Bible". Rather, it was "must gentiles be circumcised in order to be part of the church of God". It was the issue of the basis of JUSTIFICATION being either grace or law, faith or works. NOT whether or not Christians should obey the commandments of God.

A closer look at Galatians, part 1.

Let's look more closely at what the issue(s) was/were in Galatia, shall we?

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
(Gal 3:1-5)

The issue is receiving the Spirit (ie becoming a Christian, being "saved") by either the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith. This is the same issue addressed by Paul throughout Romans. The subject is NOT "as a Christian are you supposed to obey the commandments of God, or no?" The subject is "does justification come by the works of the law or by faith?"

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
(Gal 3:10-12)

What does this mean? Does this mean that the man who obeys God is cursed? NO. It means that the man who seeks to be justified by his deeds ("works of the law") is under the curse, BECAUSE "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in ALL THINGS which are written in the book of the law to do them." In other words, if a person is going to be justified LEGALLY (by the works of the law) he can NEVER EVER VIOLATE ANY LAW OF GOD WHATSOEVER. If you go to court, charged with a crime (violating the law), to be "proven innocent", that is, to be justified legally, you have to show that you did not in fact violate the law. Granted, the American legal system demands the prosecution show beyond a reasonable doubt that you DID violate the law, but IF they show you did in fact violate the law, you CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED or acquitted. So it is with God, if you did in fact violate the law of God you cannot be justified. The only way to get justified is to receive a PARDON, which means it is acknowledged that you did in fact violate the law but the powers that be are going to FORGIVE the transgression and set aside the punishment due.

So anybody seeking to be justified by the law (that is, by the deeds of the law, seeking to be declared righteous or innocent due to their performance of the law) will fail, because the very law they seek to be justified by condemns them for their violations of the law. They have in fact violated the law, "all have sinned". So they are under the curse (the punishment, the condemnation, the sentence due to transgressors).

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
(Gal 3:13-14)

Now notice what we have in fact been redeemed from. It is "the curse of the law". We have not been redeemed from any moral obligation to obey God. If you are charged with a crime, and are given a pardon, you have been redeemed from the punishment of law. Does this mean you are now free to go out and break the law from now on? OF COURSE NOT. It doesn't mean you are "Free from the law" in the sense of being free from obligation to be law abiding (obedient). It means you have been freed from the PUNISHMENT DUE TO CONVICTED TRANSGRESSORS.

Keep this in mind: we have been redeemed from the CURSE of the law. We have not been redeemed from the moral obligation to obey God.

Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
(Gal 3:15-18)

A promise was made to Abraham and to his seed. This was a covenant God made with Abraham in Christ. "The law" came 400 hundred years later. Does this mean that prior to the coming of this "law" that there were no commandments of God? NO:

And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
(Gen 26:4-5)

So then what "law" was added 430 years after the promise made to Abraham? It is not the laws of God, that is, His commandments, statutes, His "charge". It was the covenant made at Sinai.

We see now that the discussion is not about moral obligation to obey God's commandments, statutes, or laws, but is about obligation to the Sinaitic covenant. The inheritance (receiving the promise made to Abraham in Christ) is not "through the law". That is to say, it is not through the Sinaitic Covenant. This does not mean that inheritance of the promise rules out obedience to God's commandments. It means that inheritance is not based upon the performance of the Sinaitic law covenant. Which is to say it is not by the deeds or works of the law that one is justified (declared righteous, declared to inherit the promise given to Abraham). This was already covered and made clear just above, and clearly does NOT mean Christians are given license to dispense with the revealed will of God any more than a criminal being pardoned and given a place in society means they may henceforth dispense with obedience to the law of the land.

[Esaias]

A closer look at Galatians, part 2

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
(Gal 3:19)

Notice, the law was "added because of transgressions". This means there were transgressions taking place that required "the law" to be ADDED to the Abrahamic covenant. This "law" is clearly not meaning that God added commandments, statutes, and laws or regulations to govern human behavior, as if prior to this there were none. We know this because first of all Abraham kept God's commandments, His statutes and His laws! And second of all Paul elsewhere stated "where there is no law sin is not imputed", which is simple common sense. If there is no law, crime cannot exist, because crime is "violation of law". So if sin (crime, transgression) exists, there must some kind of law in place, otherwise nobody could be guilty of any transgression.

So there were transgressions, prior to Sinai, people were violating God's laws, commandments, statutes. And so a "law" was added. We already know and have shown that what was added was the Sinaitic COVENANT. So the "law that was added because of transgressions" was the COVENANT at Sinai, which certainly INCLUDED and INCORPORATED the laws, commandments, and statutes of God (previously kept by Abraham as Moses recorded). But what was added was NOT some new law spun out of whole cloth that had never existed before - with the exception of the laws relating to sacrifice and offering. We'll get back to that in a moment.

Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
(Gal 3:21-22)

Again, what "law" is being discussed? The various commands of God regulating human behaviour? No, it is the law that was added, the Sinaitic COVENANT. And the covenant was NOT against or contrary to the promises of God! Contrary to what many seem to think! Paul affirms that if a law could be given that would produce life it would have been THIS law (the Sinaitic Covenant). But notice what he says: Scripture has concluded ALL under sin - both the Judean and the gentile - so that the promise by faith might be given to "them that believe" - whether they be Judean (Sinaitic Covenant) or Gentile (outside the Sinaitic Covenant). This is the same thing Paul said in Romans:

What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
(Rom 3:9-20)


What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
(Rom 4:1-16)

Nobody can have a legal justification. The gentiles are heathen outside the covenant with God, the Judeans were in covenant with God (via Sinai), and yet BOTH were determined by God to be all under sin, all guilty. What then is the result? The gentiles may become righteous apart from the Sinaitic Covenant because the Sinaitic Covenant ("Judaism") is rendered irrelevant. Both Jew and Gentile are under sentence of death as guilty, so there the Jew has no leg to stand on. Righteousness does not come by the Sinaitic Covenant, it does not come by the deeds of the law, it does not come by performance of the contract, it comes by FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST. So that the people outside the Sinaitic Covenant can come in just as easily as the people inside the Sinaitic Covenant, through faith.

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
(Gal 3:23-29)

Before faith came, we (namely the Judeans, of which Paul was one) were under the law. What law? The Sinaitic Covenant. He is not saying before faith came we were under the schoolmaster of moral obligation to obey God, but now that faith has come we may dispense with moral obligation to obey God and His commands. He is saying that before faith came we were under the schoolmaster of the Sinaitic Covenant, which was designed to teach us some things to bring us to Christ, to manage us until we came to Christ. Now that we we have come to Christ, we are no longer under that Covenant, we are under the new covenant, there is no longer "Judean and Greek". The distinction made between peoples based on whether they were members of the Sinaitic Covenant or not has been abolished as far as justification and righteousness is concerned. To take Paul's teaching and use it to conclude that as a Christian you may do away with the commands of God is to utterly wrest what Paul is saying.

Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
(Gal 4:1-3)

Some try to twist this to mean that Paul is saying that the Sinaitic Covenant is the "elements of the world" and that it is in fact bondage, and conclude from that nonsense that trying to obey God is nothing less than to try to go back into worldly bondage. Utter insanity! Only SATAN would suggest that obeying God is "bondage".

So what is Paul saying? To what are people in BONDAGE? Are they in bondage to God's commandments? And Jesus came to set us free, so that Jesus came to set us free from God's commandments? What? This makes God to be satan! What blasphemy! Paul told us what people are in bondage to:

I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
(Rom 7:21-25)

People are in bondage to SIN. They are in bondage to transgression. Not bondage to God's commands, as if that could possibly be something bad. Even those who were in the Sinaitic Covenant were nevertheless in bondage to sin, as Paul here proves in Romans 7 and as Paul proved elsewhere which we quoted. Now notice:

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
(Rom 8:1-4)

Faith, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ, SETS PEOPLE FREE FROM THE BONDAGE OF SIN AND DEATH. In Galatians Paul talked about being redeemed from the curse of the law by faith in Christ, and about being previously in bondage to "the element of the world" but being freed in Christ by faith. In Romans the SAME DISCUSSION, the SAME SUBJECT, is being talked about: being in bondage to the rule or dominion of SIN AND DEATH, ruling the individual through "the members" of their body, their flesh, and being made FREE from that rule by faith in Christ, by the power of the Spirit of life in Christ.

Paul is in NO WAY talking about being freed by Christ from moral obligation to obey God. He is talking about Christ freeing people from COMMITTING VIOLATIONS OF THEIR MORAL OBLIGATION TO OBEY GOD, being freed from the PENALTY FOR TRANSGRESSION, being freed from the BONDAGE OF SIN.

[Esaias]

A closer look at Galatians, part 3

Notice: "Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world." Is he saying that we were in bondage to the laws of God? No. Remember, the BONDAGE that Paul always speaks about has to do with SIN AND TRANSGRESSION. Not to God's commandments. He says that a child is under tutors and governors (rulers) until he is of age. The child is under bondage like a slave, not allowed to manage the inheritance but must do as he is told like a mere servant, until he enters into the inheritance upon coming of age. LIKEWISE, "even so", IN THE SAME MANNER, we (though destined for glory and heirship in Christ) spent our preChristian time in bondage. What bondage? Obviously sin. This is called being in bondage under "the elements of the world". Remember, Paul had previously taught we were redeemed from the CURSE of the law (the penalty for sin, which in Romans he refers to as the "law of sin and death"), here he says we who were under the law were redeemed through Christ:

Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
(Gal 4:3-5)

Now let's notice something rather peculiar, that most discussions of this chapter fail to address. Paul says Christ came to "redeem them that were under the law". We all generally and usually understand to mean the Judean, specifically, the person who was a member of the Sinaitic Covenant. But notice something: Paul says they were redeemed so that we might receive the adoption of sons. But then he says this:

And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
(Gal 4:6-7)

Now this was spoken to the Galatians, who certainly were not Judeans, but Gentiles. Yet they are included in the number of those who were redeemed to become adopted as sons. Which means both Judean and Gentile were "under the law" as referred to in verse 5. Galatians 3:5 has a universal application, it is not limited strictly to the Judean, but applies to the Gentile/Greek as well. How is this possible? How is it that both Jew and Gentile are "under the law" and subject to redemption and adoption?

Well, remember what Paul said earlier:

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
(Gal 3:22)

And again:

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
(Gal 3:10)

Gentiles have been declared by the Scripture to be under sin, and the law itself declares that EVERYONE who does not continue in all the law is cursed, hence the Gentile is CERTAINLY under sin and cursed. Paul even references this here in Galatians in a more direct way:

We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
(Gal 2:15)

The Gentiles were automatically classed as "sinners", because obviously they did not follow the laws of God and certainly were not members of the Sinaitic Covenant. They were sinners, transgressors. Of course, so were the Judeans! BOTH were sinners, BOTH were transgressors. And as Paul elsewhere taught, sinners are in bondage to the law of sin and death, and are "under the law" meaning they are subject to the PENALTY OF THE LAW which is death (the wages of sin is death). So BOTH Judean and Gentile were "under the law", both subjects of redemption, and adoption.

What this shows is that "the elements of the world" is NOT the holy days of God, the various commandments of God, or any such thing. But rather are intimately and inseparably connected to the LAW OF SIN AND DEATH, they are the controlling factors in the life of sin (bondage). Whether one was a Jew, or a Gentile, one was under the control of the "elements of the world", the fundamental driving principles of the "world system" (kosmos). "The whole world lieth in iniquity" (lawlessness, disobedience) according to John. The world, the kosmos, or system, was a system of sin and iniquity, and thus of bondage. Everyone prior to coming to Christ was subject to that ystem of iniquity and sin, that system of bondage, everyone prior to being set free by Christ was a slave to sin and unrighteousness, they were in bondage to the fundamental driving controlling principles of this world system of sin and transgression, regardless of whether they were Jews or Gentiles.

In other words, the passage is NOT calling God's commandments, or God's holy days, "elements of the world" obedience to which is "bondage".

[Esaias]

A closer look at Galatians, part 4

Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
(Gal 4:8-10)

Here is a specific problem Paul was addressing in regards to the Galatians. They had previously been in bondage to the weak and beggarly "elements" while they were pagans worshipping idols (which are not in fact real gods). They had become Christians, and now were returning to their paganism. It is undeniable that they were returning to paganism. He specifically lays it out that they were once pagans and are now returning to paganism. "How turn ye AGAIN" he asks? He lists as proof of their backsliding the fact they observe pagan holidays. "Days, and months, and times, and years" is a phrase used specifically to refer to pagan calendrical and astrological systems mostly relating to the Emperor worship cult of the Roman Empire. It is never used to refer God's feasts, new moons, or Sabbaths.

In fact, I will PROVE it right here.

Paul CONDEMNS as "falling from grace" the mere observance of "days, and months, and times, and years". Yet Paul APPROVES the observance of days in Romans 14! In fact, in Romans 14, Paul CONDEMNS anyone CONDEMNING anyone else for observing ("esteeming") the days of Romans 14. Yet, here any observance of these "days, and months, and times, and years" is condemned as backsliding apostasy and falling from grace!

Some would like to claim that the passage in Galatians refers to God's holy day calendar. Which is incorrect. But let's assume for the moment they are correct. Then (pay attention!) they have Paul condemning in Galatians what he not only allows but approves of and PROTECTS in Romans!!!!

A good sign, a definite red flag if you will, that a doctrine is false, is when it results in blatant contradictions. Here we are supposed to believe Paul condemns the Galatians as apostasizing for doing what in Romans he approves of and protects. In fact, he prohibits people in Romans from condemning people for keeping certain days and yet he does exactly that in Galatians!

He makes no mention of any "keep the days just do it unto the Lord" in Galatians. He makes no mention of "let everyone do what they themselves feel is best". He flatly accuses them of apostasy for observing these days, months, times, and years.

Thus we see that the Galatians were falling back into PAGAN ASTROLOGICAL OBSERVANCES. They were observing PAGAN HOLIDAYS. Paul condemns as unChristian and forbidden the observance of any pagan holidays whatsoever. It is remarkable that often, people who twist Galatians to mean we are not to observe God's divinely appointed feast days (especially the Sabbath which came into existence long before the Covenant was ever made at Sinai, and long before the Covenant was ever made with Abraham), nevertheless often themselves do the very thing Paul condemns as apostate: the keeping of pagan holidays.

Now let's look at some more of Galatians dealing with the subject of Covenants, and how people wrest things to mean they are free from moral obligation to obey God's commandments.

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
(Gal 4:21-31)

Is Paul saying that anyone who tries to obey God's commandments is going into bondage, and that all the real Christians who are "free" don't have to bother with obeying God's commandments? Not at all. One has to be pretty desperate to twist the scriptures to such an extent.

There are two covenants, the "old" and the "new". The old is the one from Sinai. It "gendereth to bondage". What does this mean? What bondage is being spoken of? The same bondage EVERYWHERE spoken of throughout the entire New Testament scriptures! The bondage to sin and death! The bondage or slavery of SIN and TRANSGRESSION of God's holy laws.

How so? How does the old covenant "gendereth to bondage"? Is it because obeying God is bondage? What satanic poppycock! No, rather, the old covenant DOES NOT PRODUCE RIGHTEOUSNESS, it cannot produce life. We already saw this:

Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
(Gal 3:21)

Paul explains this in Romans as well:

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
(Rom 8:3)

The old covenant (which is what Paul means by "law" here in Romans) is weak through the flesh. What flesh? OUR FLESH:

For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
(Rom 7:22-23)

The old covenant cannot free a person from the law of sin and death in their members. The old covenant cannot cause a person to actually be righteous. Only faith in Christ, only the new covenant, accomplishes that.

The earthly Jerusalem plodding along under the Sinaitic Covenant is in BONDAGE, the Jews were in BONDAGE. Not bondage to GOD through His commandments, but bondage to SIN through their disobedience, their transgression, their breaking of the commandments of God.

But the new covenant brings redemption and freedom, the heavenly Jerusalem is FREE. Free from what? Free from God? Free from God's commands? No no no, God forbid! The heavenly Jerusalem, the CHURCH, is free from sin and death, free from the law of sin and death, free from transgression, free from the curse of the law, pardoned and empowered.

Once again:

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
(Rom 8:3-4)

And again:

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
(Rom 3:31)

So Galatians is not at all teaching us to do away with and pay no heed to the commandments of God, nor is it teaching us that we can dispense with God's holy Sabbath day. It is instead teaching us that nobody - whether Jew or Gentile - can be justified by works, that only in Christ is life found, and that outside of Christ everyone is in bondage to continued transgressions and the curse that comes with disobedience.

[Esaias]

"But what was added was NOT some new law spun out of whole cloth that had never existed before - with the exception of the laws relating to sacrifice and offering. We'll get back to that in a moment."

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
(Heb 7:11-19)

Paul teaches us that there was a priesthood established under the Sinaitic Covenant, and that it was prophesied (in the old testament scriptures) that the priesthood would be changed. And thus, there would be a "change of the law". The subject matter of discussion is NT the Ten Commandments, nor of the individual's moral obligations to God, nor of the Divine regulations of human behaviour by which we are meant to live. Rather, the subject matter is the PRIESTHOOD.

And thus, the priesthood being discussed, th esubject is clearly that of SCRIFICE AND OFFERING, because that is in effect the primary purpose of priesthood.

The Sinaitic Covenant and its Levitical priesthood could make nothing PERFECT. We have already seen how Paul explains this in Romans and in Galatians. Humans, being carnal and enslaved to sin and disobedience, cannot be made perfect by the mere existence of a codified set of laws, nor by the social enforcement of said laws. What is required is a change in the heart. This change is effected by the grace of God through Christ by the Spirit working in a person through faith. This new covenant change results in the righteousness of the law being actually fulfilled in the life of the Spirit led and Spirit filled believer (see Romans 8, already discussed).

This change required a change in priesthood, from Levitical to Melschizedec. The change in the law being discussed is a change regarding the priesthood, not a change in the Ten Commandments or any other such nonsense.

Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
(Heb 8:1-5)

The "example and shadow of heavenly things" is NOT the Ten Commandments, but the TABERNACLE and its furniture.

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
(Heb 8:6-13)

What is new is the covenant. It is not new laws and new commandments, but the laws of God being written in a new location, namely, the hearts and minds of His people. What is waxing old and being done away with is not the laws and commandments of God, but the old COVENANT. The NEW Covenant incorporates the laws of God into the hearts and minds of the people (thus producing obedience).

Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly. Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
(Heb 9:1-10)

The Levitical law of sacrifice and offering and priesthood, the old covenant liturgical system, consisted of a frail limited human priesthood based upon geneology (rather than actual ability and prophetic promise). It consisted in "ordinances of divine service" that revolved around the various altars, the laver, the candlestick, the shewbread, the offerings and washings and so forth that were instituted for the Tabernacle and the Levitical priesthood. This is what has been changed from the old covenant to the new.

This liturgy is what was imposed upon the people until the time of reformation. Carnal ordinances of washings, food and drink offerings, sacrifices, a carnal priesthood, etc. None of these could produce obedience to the commandments of God. All of these were instituted to deal with the issue of TRANSGRESSION, to provide a "temporary atonement" or covering if you will, pointing forward to Christ's cleansing atoning sacrifice at Calvary.

As in, "the law (which was added because of transgressions) was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ".

[Esaias]

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
(Heb 10:1-4)

The "shadow of good things to come" being discussed here is the "example and shadows" already mentioned, the various furniture of the Tabernacle and the Levitical rites associated with offerings and sacrfices. Those things do not make anyone perfect (morally complete).

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
(Heb 10:5-9)

David, a type of the Melchizedek priest, prophesied the end of the various Levitical oblations and offerings and sacrifices, to be replaced by something better - actual obedience, doing the will of God. The first (Levitical sacrificial system) has been taken away that the second (actual sincere voluntary obedience) may be established. This is the story of the old covenant being replaced by the new covenant. It is not the story of the laws of God being replaced by some set of new laws, whereby we can ignore what God has already commanded.

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
(Heb 10:10-18)

Again, this is the same thing spoken of in Galatians, and in Romans, especially Romans chapter 8. Christ by His sacrifice brings us into the new covenant where God's laws are written into our hearts and minds. This is the replacement of the Levitical system of sacrifice with actual obedience to God.

This is not about the Sabbath being done away with, or changed, or replaced by some nebulous "Jesus is my sabbath" excuse for disobedience. This is literally telling us that true Christians redeemed by grace will desire to do and will actually do the will of God, they will desire to perform and actually will perform the actual laws of God. And yes, that includes the Fourth Commandment.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

We are at like 100 posts and we have been off a while, sorry if I have forgotten. I am glad you reposted this. The context of the passage in James isn’t about keeping mosaic law, the context is about showing partiality to people of higher social status. You are correct we cannot have mixed moral character, but that has nothing to do with being under mosaic law. James used vs 9, because it was an already established fact (law is our schoolmaster) to illustrate his point, if we say I love my neighbor, but show partiality to the wealthy then we become a transgressor of the law that is written on our hearts.

What about the James 2:12?

James 2:12
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

I forgot to address the last part of your post. This is from another post I made some time ago in another thread:

That the entire word of God is God's "law" is not just a theonomist's opinion, but it is the opinion of the bible itself:

Luke 4:4 KJV And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Here, Jesus affirms that every word of God is the rule of faith and practice. Man is to be governed by "every word of God". What is "law"? It is a rule of conduct, a rule that governs activity. If every word of God is to govern man's activity, then every word of God constitutes the "law of God."

James 1:21-25 KJV Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. (22) But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. (23) For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: (24) For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. (25) But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.



Here, the word of God is identified as the "perfect law of liberty". This "perfect law of liberty" is further identified as "the royal law":

James 2:8-12 KJV If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: (9) But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. (10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (11) For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. (12) So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.


The Scripture referred to is Leviticus 19:18. Obeying Leviticus 19:18 is fulfilling the "royal law", which is also identified as the "law of liberty". We saw in chapter 1 of James that the "law of liberty" is the word, which we are to DO and not just hear.

Paul said something about hearing vs doing:

Romans 2:13 KJV (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Thus, the law of God is the entire word of God, which we must do, and not merely "hear" (or read, study, concoct wonderful sermons and bible studies from, etc). We must do the word of God, we must live by every word of God. This means that everything the word of God has to say about any particular subject is the sum total of God's law on that subject. And this of course means the law of God is not restricted merely to the Pentateuch, or various portions thereof, but includes the entire Old Testament scriptures as well as the New Testament scriptures (which may be considered as an authoritative commentary on the law of God, since the "word of God" according to the new testament would be what we today call the old testament scriptures).

Hence it necessarily follows, that anything not expressly repealed or altered in the new testament stands as written in the old testament.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Is Jeremiah prophesying to Jews or Gentiles? This passage has no context in bringing NT Christian’s under the Mosaic law. I agree that Father knows best

What an astoundingly modernistic liberal statement. Nevermind the straw man about "bringing Christians under the Mosaic law". But that's standard operating procedure when one follows a "make it up as you go along" religion. Bible buffet, just pick and choose what you like, right? So I guess you are on record as being decidedly against the old paths? That therein is decidedly NOT the good way? I guess that's good to know?

Meanwhile:

1 Corinthians 10:6-12 KJV
Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. [7] Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. [8] Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. [9] Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. [10] Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. [11] Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. [12] Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

And again:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

[Esaias]

Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

How do you people defend teaching this verse has any relevance for today, for Christians? Or does it?

Is there any actual reasoning involved? Or just "muh feelz"?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

A closer look at Galatians, part 4

Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
(Gal 4:8-10)

Here is a specific problem Paul was addressing in regards to the Galatians. They had previously been in bondage to the weak and beggarly "elements" while they were pagans worshipping idols (which are not in fact real gods). They had become Christians, and now were returning to their paganism. It is undeniable that they were returning to paganism. He specifically lays it out that they were once pagans and are now returning to paganism. "How turn ye AGAIN" he asks? He lists as proof of their backsliding the fact they observe pagan holidays. "Days, and months, and times, and years" is a phrase used specifically to refer to pagan calendrical and astrological systems mostly relating to the Emperor worship cult of the Roman Empire. It is never used to refer God's feasts, new moons, or Sabbaths.

In fact, I will PROVE it right here.

(cut for brevity).

So that verse is sandwiched between:

3 So when we were children, we were in bondage to the elements of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth His Son, born from a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons

and

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?

So you say that the Galatians congregation had two problems: those that were incorporating paganism into the worship and those that wanted to justify themselves with the law of Moses? Like, Paul switched topics back and forth?

Originally Posted by Esaias

Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

How do you people defend teaching this verse has any relevance for today, for Christians? Or does it?

Is there any actual reasoning involved? Or just "muh feelz"?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Like the Apostles did: sometimes the commandment is directly applicable, sometimes you extract the principle behind, excluding what was discontinued. Even those that are directly applicable, you may go to the principle behind and still find it applicable. The reason is because the Law was given by God, and reflects God's character. It is not that hard for those that want to know God's will.