Should we still observe the sabbath?

[Esaias]

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.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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:

This is the overly-repeated line of reasoning that Sabbath keepers use. It is not new on this thread before anyone ever said it anywhere else, by any means. And I know Esaias is not claiming it is. But it is a common line of reasoning that he's using and it is faulty for the following reasons.

First of all, it is a strawman argument to say that those who do not keep sabbath day are the same who claim there were no commandments before Law.

The commandments mentioned in Genesis that Abraham kept were not the ten commandments. It is error to claim that simply because the word "commandments" was used that they must be the same ten from Mt Sinai. Those ten commandments on Mt. Sinai were not given to Abraham as is implied in the next quote..

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 implication in this explanation is that the same ten commandments from Sinai are the commandments Abraham obeyed. They were simply the things God revealed to Abraham, of which we are not informed, and Abraham obeyed them. Assuming them to be the same Ten that God gave Moses, without any number even being mentioned in Genesis 26, is the same argument sabbath keepers use to say that the commandments that Jesus claimed to be His were the Ten.

However, Jesus distinguished His commandments from the Ten as follows:

Matthew 5:21-22
(21).. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
(22).. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matthew 5:27-28
(27).. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
(28).. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Just because the word "commandments" is used, does not mean that they are in every case the "ten commandments".

In fact, some claim that the Ten Commandments were issued BEFORE Moses' day due to these words (Esaias, you will be very familiar with this line of argument, for it is a well-memorized line of reasoning for sabbath keepers - maybe you already mentioned it in your studies outlined lately):

Exodus 16:27-29
(27).. And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none.
(28).. And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?
(29).. See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.

This was before the Ten Commandments were given, they argue, before the Sabbath day was known to be the fourth commandment. While it is true that the ten commandments were not given yet, and Moses referred to commandments that they were breaking, it is not true that those commandments were given to Israel by word of mouth long before Moses' day, or perhaps into Abraham's day.

Please pay special note of this, readers, for it is always used by sabbath keepers.

When Moses said they broke God's commandments, before the ten were given, he referred to commandments that HE JUST GAVE TO THEM MERE VERSES EARLIER!

The sabbath keepers ask how could they violate sabbath day commandment if the ten commandments listing the fourth as keeping sabbath were not even given until Exodus 20? They must have been told to keep the sabbath centuries earlier, HENCE ABRAHAM'S WORDS OF KEEPING COMMANDMENTS!

No. This was given mere VERSES earlier here:

Exodus 16:22-27
(22).. And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man: and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses.
(23).. And he said unto them, This is that which the LORD hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning.
(24).. And they laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade: and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein.
(25).. And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a sabbath unto the LORD: to day ye shall not find it in the field.
(26).. Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none.
(27).. And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none.

Moses had just directed them about the sabbath day, because they never heard of it before, and they were instructed not to work and obtain manna on the seventh day, but to gather twice as much on the sixth so that they would not work on the seventh! THAT is what verse28 refers to! It was not a reference to a sabbath commandment that was not mentioned in Genesis 26. It was a sabbath that was mentioned in VERSE 26 of Exodus 16!

At any rate, to point to Galatians 3 and say that those who think there was no law before Mt Sinai in Exodus 20, after reading Paul said that Law was added due to transgressions AFTER Abraham's promise are actually distorting the picture. They imply LAW is the ten commandments. LAW refers to both the ten commandments and the covenant in Gal 3:17. BOTH!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

It is more than just a covenant. Paul did not write "Sinai covenant". He wrote "Law." And in the same Chapter he wrote that the Law said you will live if you DO all of the commandments.

Galatians 3:11-12
(11).. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
(12).. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

And that is a quote from Lev 18.

Leviticus 18:1-5
(1).. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
(2).. Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God.
(3).. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
(4).. Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.
(5).. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.

Law was a means of becoming righteous and obtaining LIFE by keeping commandments. not just keeping a covenant from Sinai. The covenant from Sinai was the ten commandments and that set of commandments had to be kept along with MANY other commandments and ordinances in order to LIVE. which is what Paul referred to in Romans 7 as something no man could successfully KEEP!

Lawkeepers fail to follow context of these passages:

Romans 7:7-11
(7).. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
(8).. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
(9).. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
(10).. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death [reference to Lev 18:5].
(11).. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Paul said that he was SLAIN and KILLED when the Law said you LIVE if you keep it. He did not say the "SINAI COVENANT" said... He said THE COMMANDMENT.

He said the LAW SAID, and the COMMANDMENT said, THOU SHALT NOT COVET, and DO WORKS AND LIVE.

The LIFE that Lev 18:5 referred to was unattainable by DOING WORKS OF THE LAW, which Paul distinctly said included the TEN COMMANDMENTS, by noting that the TENTH COMMANDMENT, "Thou shalt not covet" was unable to be kept by him and, therefore, the BLESSING of Lev 18;5's LIFE was not experienced, but DEATH INSTEAD.

So, this not only shows us that it LAW referred to the TEN COMMANDMENTS in Romans 7:7, but also that LAW demanded that ONE WORK TO LIVE and not DIE as Paul experienced death by way of FAILURE TO KEEP LAW.

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.

The entire acccusation of people who do not keep sabbath being people who violate commandments of God is missing a huge piece of understanding. Number 1, it misses the fact that Paul brought out in Romans 7:6, that there are two methods to SERVE God. And it would take more than this post to explain that verse.

Romans 7:6
(6).. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Serving God in BOTH manners demands that man not break commandments. However, the manner of serving God in oldness of the letter is reading a set of rules on rocks and making yourself obey them. Serving God in newness of Spirit is INSTEAD living by being changed in your heart and being empowered by the Holy Ghost to quicken you to SUCCEED in being able to keep commandments, without having resorted to rules written on paper (or rocks). The difference is looking to yourself in order to make yourself serve God successfully or looking to the power of the Spirit to EMPOWEERR you to serve God successfully. And Gal 5 says ...

Galatians 5:16
(16).. This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

Galatians 5:22-23
(22).. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
(23).. Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Why did Paul say "against such there is no law"? It is because resorting to Law is walking after the flesh in the context Paul is writing here and in Romans 8. It is serving God by oldness of the letter. And when you rely on the Spirit's power in faith, you will not break any laws of God.

People confuse the works of the flesh with walking after the flesh, as though walking after the flesh is committing works of the flesh, period. Walking after the flesh is trying to keep Old Covenant Law in the manner of oldness of the letter, which is totally void of believing for the power of the Spirit to empower us to serve God. And the results of people who do not rely on the Spirit, but simply read a rule on rock and try to make themselves obey it, will find out that they are committing sins that are outline in the works of the flesh that Paul listed.

But those who seek to live righteous lives by walking after the Spirit and obeying Romans 6:13 by presenting themselves to God in faith so that He can quicken their flesh to see them overcome sin, will find themselves keeping the righteousness of the law without living by the method of oldness of the letter!

And this explanation cannot go without saying that which I presented to Esaias many months ago in quite an emphatic manner that TRUE SABBATH KEEPING is not keeping the seventh day, but RESTING IN CHRIST'S WORK of the cross!

The lawkeeper and sabbath=-keeper always points to someone who does not rest the seventh day as breaking commandments. However, are we breaking commandments when we fail to offer animal sacrifices ever year because we know Jesus fulfilled the shadow of animal sacrifice by HIS sacrifice once and for all? Of course not. SABBATH IS A SHADOW as much as animal sacrifices were.

Colossians 2:16-17
(16).. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
(17).. Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

And when we KEEP THE BODY that cast those shadows, we rest in CHRIST'S WORK ON THE CROSS. THAT is the rest of Hebrews 4! Hebrews 4 even mentions SABBATH DAY along with Canaan as TWO FORMS OF REST that were SHADOWS Of CHRIST's rest.

So, don't let the accusation of breaking the commandments affect you when in reality keeping the true sabbath is resting in the work of the CROSS OF JESUS, and not going about to continue in your own works of LAW.

Hebrews 4:4-5
(4).. For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. (SEVENTYH DAY)
(5).. And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. (ENTERING REST OF CANAAN)

Hebrews 4:9-10
(9).. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
(10).. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

Hebrews 4:16
(16).. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

instead of resorting to our own works OF LAW to serve God, RUN TO THE THRONE and receive GRACE, NOT LAW, to help in your time of need! And GRACE is divine empowerment TO NOT SIN!

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.
(Gen 26:4-5)

This is stated because sabbath keepers think you are breaking the commandment if you do not keep the seventh day, when sabbath was a shadow of resting in Christ's work of the cross, and you are keeping the TRUE sabbath we you rest in the work of the cross, and walk after the Spirit instead of exert fleshly power to obey rules, which will empower you not to commit sin.

How can you violate sabbath commandment if it's a shadow and you KEEP THE REST in Christ which strengthens you to not sin, the antitype of the sabbath type?

[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]

For the sake of the readers, I'd like to point out Paul is NOT talking about two laws, nor is he talking about any particular sets of commandments, but IS talking about TWO COVENANTS:

"24......Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. "

Were the laws of God incorporated as part of the covenant at Sinai? Yes.

Were they also incorporated as part of the New Covenant? YES:

Jeremiah 31:31-33 KJV
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord : [33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Hebrews 8:8-10 KJV
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: [9] 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. [10] 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:

Does the power of grace in the new covenant through the Holy Ghost cause a person to actually DO the things commanded in the law? YES:

Romans 2:13-15 KJV
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. [14] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: [15] Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Romans 6:15-23 KJV
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. [16] Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? [17] But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. [18] Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. [19] I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. [20] For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. [21] What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. [22] But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. [23] For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 8:1-9 KJV
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. [2] For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. [3] 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: [4] That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. [5] For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. [6] For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. [7] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. [8] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. [9] But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

[Esaias]

The purpose of the Sabbath relates to rest, but the purpose for KEEPING it is to honour the true Creator God. Sabbath keeping is a mark of identification, that you worship Jehovah God the Creator.

Let's look at the passage in Isaiah:

Isaiah 28:7-13 KJV
But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment. [8] For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean. [9] Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. [10] For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: [11] For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. [12] To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. [13] But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

They are rebellious and disobedient. He had given them "the word of the LORD" but they despised it. That word or message was one of rest.

For example:

Jeremiah 6:15-16 KJV
Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the Lord. [16] Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

The rest was comnected to the word of the LORD which had become nothing but "line upon line, precept upon precept" to the rebellious ones. As it is even today. God's precepts are considered tedious and burdensome to many. As a result, they do not find TRUE rest.

Rest and refreshing isn't about one's personal emotional state. It isn't about feelings. It is SPIRITUAL and has to do with being conformed to the will of God. The rest and refreshing God offers is NOT some emotional happy-place of feelgoodism. It is a SPIRITUAL and MORAL place of RIGHTEOUSNESS, being right with God, which manifests in obedience. Because a person who is right with God does not find His Word to be a bunch of endless burdensome precepts ("line upon line, line upon line, precept upon precept, precept upon precept").

Barnes Notes:

To whom he said - To whom God had said; that is, to the Jews. He had taught them the way of rest through the prophets, but they had refused to learn.
This is the rest - That is, this is the true way of happiness, to wit, by keeping the commands of God which had been so often repeated as to become to them objects of satiety and disgust.

This is the refreshing - This is the way in which the mind may be comforted.

Poole's:

To whom he said, to which people the Lord, by his minister, said,

This, this doctrine or precept, as it is expressed, Isaiah 28:9,10, or the word of the Lord, as it follows, Isaiah 28:13, is the rest; the only way, in the observation of which you will find rest and satisfaction.

Cause the weary to rest, Heb. cause the weary (understand either soul or country) rest. As rest is offered to you by the prophets in God’s name, do you embrace it; which is to be done by hearkening to God’s word, as appears by the following clauses. So shall this people, which hath been so oft and so long wearied and harassed by great and manifold calamities, find rest and peace.

Yet they would not hear; they are wilfully ignorant, and obstinately refused the very means of instruction.

Keil and Delitzsch:

Jehovah would speak to the scoffing people of stammering tongue a language of the same kind, since He would speak to them by a people that stammered in their estimation, i.e., who talked as barbarians (cf., βαρβαρίζειν and balbutire; see Isaiah 33:19, compared with Deuteronomy 28:49). The Assyrian Semitic had the same sound in the ear of an Israelite, as Low Saxon (a provincial dialect) in the ear of an educated German; in addition to which, it was plentifully mixed up with Iranian, and possibly also with Tatar elements. This people would practically interpret the will of Jehovah in its own patios to the despisers of the prophet. Jehovah had directed them, through His prophets, after the judgments which they had experienced with sufficient severity (Isaiah 1:5.), into the true way to rest and refreshing (Jeremiah 6:16), and had exhorted them to give rest to the nation, which had suffered so much under Ahaz through the calamities of war (2 Chronicles 28), and not to drag it into another way by goading it on to rise against Assyria, or impose a new burden in addition to the tribute to Assyria by purchasing the help of Egypt. But they would not hearken (אבוּא equals אבוּ, Isaiah 30:15-16; Ges. 23, 3, Anm. 3). Their policy was a very different one from being still, or believing and waiting. And therefore the word of Jehovah, which they regarded as en endless series of trivial commands, would be turned in their case into an endless series of painful sufferings. To those who thought themselves so free, and lived so free, it would become a stone on which they would go to pieces, a net in which they would be snared, a trap in which they would be caught (compare Isaiah 8:14-15)

[Esaias]

If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 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.
(Jas 2:8-11)

1. From this we see the principle of the "unity of moral condition". Meaning, there is no such thing as a "mixed moral character" in an individual. A person is not "partially good and partially bad". A person is not "partially obedient and partially disobedient". A person is either obedient, or disobedient. The same is true in all human jurisprudence. If you do not murder, but you commit armed robbery, you are still a criminal. Same with the divine law: if you don't commit adultury, but you do commit murder, you are guilty of sin, you are a "transgressor of the law". The unity of moral condition is a idea that unfortunately many Christians do not understand, but desperately need to.

2. Notice that James, a new testament author, writing to Christians, tells them that if they keep a bunch of commandments, but break one of them, they are still classified as transgressors of the law. The two commandments he chose to illustrate his point are irrelevent, it could just as well be "if you do not commit adultery, but profane the Sabbath, you are become a transgressor of the law." The important thing to notice, however, is that he as a Christian tells Christians that if they transgress God's law they COMMIT SIN and are "transgressors of the law". He did not seem to have any idea such as some have, that God's law was repealed and some new set of laws were put in its place.



1. Liberty is not liberty to transgress the law. Since sin is transgression of the law, by claiming that you have Christian liberty are therefore free to transgress the Fourth Commandment, you are actually claiming that your Christian liberty gives you permission to sin. Standing fast in the liberty of Christ is standing fast in FREEDOM FROM SIN:

Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
(Joh 8:34-36)

2. The issue in Galatia had to do with people demanding the (gentile) Galatians be circumcised, which is neither commanded nor recommended by either the law or the Gospel. Nobody is arguing for anyone to be physically circumcised here. Paul's argument is not against people who want to obey God, but against Judaizers trying to force circumcision upon gentiles as a condition of conversion to Christ.

Do you not find it curious that so many people actually believe that obeying God is somehow unChristian?

[Esaias]

What is sin?

1 John 3:4 KJV
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Should Christians transgress the law of God?

Romans 6:1-2 KJV
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? [2] God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Does being "under grace" and not "under law" mean Christians can transgress God's law with impunity?

Romans 6:15-16 KJV
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. [16] Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Does the new covenant cause people to forget about the commandments of God?

Hebrews 8:8-10 KJV
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: [9] 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. [10] 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:

How does one know if they truly have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ?

1 John 2:1-5 KJV
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: [2] And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. [3] And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. [4] He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. [5] But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.