Doing some catch-up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
I don't recall saying I saw the Colossians reference ... was not speaking of the body as if it was the church that judges instead of others? Let me clarify: Paul is admonishing the Colossian believers to not allow the Errorists to judge them (the believers) in certain things, but rather the body of Christ (the church).
|
That's what I meant. The body is the church, so you were saying, were you not, to not let anyone judge you except the body of Christ, the church?
Quote:
|
Hebrews says the law is a shadow of GOOD things to come, and defines those good things as the ministry of Christ's priesthood and its results, effects, benefits, etc. The law being spoken of is the law of sacrifices and those things particularly associated with the Levitical priesthood. They could not take away sins, but Christ's death can and does. His priesthood REPLACES the Levitical priesthood, and His offering replaces the Levitical offerings. And this replacement is intimated in the old testament scriptures.
|
Good things to come included that priesthood, but it's everything that Christ is and brought, and not just those things.
Quote:
To extrapolate from that the idea that the fourth commandment is no longer obligatory is an unfounded leap. Such a change, replacement, or abolition of the Sabbath is not taught by Paul, nor can it be inferred from the old testament scriptures. The law that is changed and replaced is not the moral law, but the Levitical law of offerings and priestly regulations.
|
Sabbath is not a moral issue, and to prove it is not, show me a single heathen who consciously knows they must rest the seventh day, and not any of the others. Sabbath is levitical, too. I know it is moral to know a commandment that was plainly given to you and having to obey it. But that's not what I mean about sabbath not being a moral issue. In and of itself there is nothing about sabbath day that consciences are abler to know about without having been directly commanded. Homosexuality and beastiality are things that the human conscience knows are vile and filthy, and one has to sear one's conscience to think, otherwise. When I first heard of these things as a youth, I was appalled instinctively by conscience, and that is simply not the case with sabbath keeping. No one would consider it a violation of morality to not keep the seventh day for rest unless they had been taught a ceremonial style of law, which is exactly what that aspect of the Old Covenant actually is. If one says it is morally understood that one should rest a day, then fine. But such a concept is by no means restricted to the seventh day. Saying everyone knows we need to rest is a far far cry from saying a specific day is fro rest and none of the others count, as in seventh-day sabbath law!
Quote:
Ceasing from one's works means ceasing from sin, and ceasing from "deeds of the law" (a well known Jewish idiom referring to performance of sectarian halachic regulations, as used in pre Christian,
|
I disagree. Ceasing from one's works is ceasing from one's self-resolving efforts instead of going to Christ to find help in the time of need.
Quote:
|
1st century, and later Jewish literature, such as the Qumran writings nd other Jewish writings). It is "repentance from dead works", including both works that produce death (sin, violations of God's commandments which include the fourth commandment) as well as works that are done to cover sins and provide righteousness which cannot actually produce such results. Ceasing from one's own works does NOT mean "ceasing to obey God's commandments". One cannot enter God's rest by disobeying God's commandments. This was the very reason Israel of old could not enter His rest! (Unbelief, Biblically, includes disobedience.)
|
Law is not just a set of rules. It's a MANNER OF MAKING YOURSELF serve God without reliance on His grace. Check Out Watchman Nee's THE NORMAL CHRISTIAN LIFE.
Quote:
So Hebrews is NOT teaching and end to Sabbath keeping for God's people. In fact, as Peter inadvertently pointed out a few posts back) it explicitly says Sabbath-keeping remains for the people of God.
|
No. It is actually saying what the entrance into Canaan and the seventh day foreshadowed was a rest where we rest in His finished work on the cross and his ongoing support through His Spirit upon our lives. It is coming to his throne of mercy to find grace in time of need. Keeping law is what Paul described as having the will to obey those laws but not finding the ability to carry them out due to sin in the flesh, which is why God delivered from the law.
Quote:
God never intended Israel to abandon Sabbath-keeping upon exercising true sincere faith in God, that is preposterous.
|
No, God intended them to stop keeping days when Christ came.
Quote:
|
To suggest He expects Israel to abandon Sabbath-keeping upon exercising faith in Messiah is just as preposterous.
|
It is exactly what Palu stated from
Gal 3 through 4.
Quote:
|
We do not come to Christ so we can "rest" from obedience to God's commandments, so we can "rest" from following His ways
|
Strawman. We come to Christ to cease from efforts of law to render us life -
Lev 18:5 - and instead trust in Christ's work for our righteousness.
Quote:
. Quite the opposite: we come to Messiah to find rest from OUR ways, from doing OUR thing, from obeying SELF. And yes, that means the Sabbath-breaker comes to Messiah and finds rest from his Sabbath-breaking. 
|
All good words except that last clause. You miss aspects of the New Covenant when you keep the seventh day and not see that it is a shadow.
Quote:
(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.
Jeremiah:6:16)
|
Misapplication.
Let me end this post by saying that you recently claimed you believed
Gal 4 was talking about a pagan calendar of heathen days, months and years. That is a distortion of Paul's intention, and here is the reason:
If we follow Paul's narrative in the sequence he gave it to the church there, reading through chapter 3 and on into chapter 4 in the order he wrote it, we do not come across any reference to idols until 4:8.
Galatians 4:8.. Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
You claim that is what elements oo the world and tutors and governors refer to in verses 2-3, or at least elements of the world (if perhaps you recognize tutors and governors of verse 3 as LAW). That is by no means the antecedent to verses written before it. Note what is written before verse 8.
Galatians 4:1-7.. Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; ..(2).. But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. ..(3).. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: ..(4).. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, ..(5).. To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. ..(6).. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. ..(7).. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
To follow Paul's context, you cannot take verse 8 and claim that is the antecedent of what verses 2 and 3 refer to as tutors and governors, or the elements of the world. How on earth can tutors and governors refer to the same thing that "service unto them which by nature are no gods" refers to?..
Tutors and governors are the schoolmaster that Paul mentioned in chapter 3! And that is LAW! How can you not see that? LAW is the antecedent for the reference to elements of the world, and tutors and governors.
To take something written AFTER verses 3 and 4, such as verse 8's reference to "service unto them which by nature are no gods," and claim that is "the elements of the world" is to violate all grammar and comprehensive reading. ANTE in ANTECEDENT means BEFORE. You do not write about something, such as "elements of the world" and "governors and tutors" and mean idolatry and paganism that is not written until afterwards, if those phrases actually refer to idolatry. You look at what is written before verses 3 and 4 of chapter 4 to find the antecedent, and lo and behold that is LAW in Chapter 3. In fact, it repeats LAW in 4:5.
To say that his readers knew what he meant about idolatry, as though idolatry was what those phrases in verse 3 and 4 actually meant, without Paul having to actually write the reference to idolatry before verses 3 and 4 is grand assumption and inserting into the text things which you cannot prove whatsoever.
The reason he mentioned "service unto them which by nature are no gods" is because these pagans weer involved in the Old Covenant as converts to it before they came to Christ, and Pau noted that they were returning to bondage of law, which is what the warder references of chapter 3 already stated quite clearly.
He, therefore, mentioned "service unto them which by nature are no gods" as a side thought that they were orginally pagans before they came into Judaism, after which they were saved by Christ, and not the basic reference he's using to compare to tutors and governors who oversee an heir.
here i was start quoting from memory 
Linear Mode
