7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believers

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Yet he maintained the fourth commandment is a moral obligation, a shadow of which the substance has not arrived yet, thus Sabbath keeping is still a moral obligation. I posted that to show that even Clarke, who agrees with you on the new moons and sabbath days in Colossians, yet disagrees with you on the weekly Sabbath.

And he disagrees with me on the godhead, too, as well as with you. SO MY intention of posting again, was to show that my thought is not silly.

I understand why you quote commentaries, its the same reason I do. Nothing wrong with that. Although I don't know why you prefaced it with "Historicists agree" as if historicist eschatology has anything to do with seventh day Sabbath keeping?

It was because you came across as your view is clearly seen in that verse, yet those who agree with you about prophecy do not clearly see what you claim you do in other verses, to soften the blow and show you what you claim is clear is not clear to others. Nothing more than that.

Besides which, most historicists maintained the fourth commandment is still obligatory (although many of them transferred the obligation to the first day of the week).

I know your opinion concerning stocheion is shared by many scholars. Not all, though (on the other big Sabbath thread, I believe it was, I posted a link to a scholarly, grammatical analysis of the verse in question showing that MY view is not something I cooked up myself, although I think you said you did not read it).

I read it but I never went to a website to see the lengthy study, if memory serves.

The majority of scholars believe the Bible teaches a god squad, a great many believe it teaches paedobaptism, many believe it teaches the non-essentiality of baptism. And so on. So, the scholars are not above being corrected, nor are they above being united in error.

Agreed.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Gal.3

[24] Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
[25] But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Simple as that.

So, the days, months and years that follow in the next chapter are obviously Israelite old covenant holy days, months and years.

Isn't it more than a coincidence that Paul said law was as schoolmaster before Christ came, and he said the tutors and governors that represent law are no longer over a Jew after graduation day comes with Christ and the new covenant... where he also wrote about Israel thereby being under the bondage of the elements of the world.... AND THEN LISTS HOLY DAYS, MONTHS AND YEARS that christians should not keep, when Israel actually had Holy Months, days and years????

Some great coincidence if he's not referring to Law's feasts and sabbaths!

[mfblume]

Gal 4:1.. Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;..
Gal 4:2.. But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father...
Gal 4:3.. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:..
Gal 4:4.. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,..
Gal 4:5.. To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons...

Paul is speaking of Jews when he uses the term "WE" in contrast to "YOU" gentiles in Galatia.

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


Before Christ came. while THESE gentiles were in bondage to the idols, Israel was on bondage under the law.

Why is that so hard to see? Chapter 3 says before Christ Jews were KEPT UNDER the law and SHUT UP from Christ, since Christ had not come yet. BONDAGE terms. That;s the Same thing chapter 4 is saying when jews were like students under governors and tutors OF LAW.

And being under tutors and governors is equated with being under the bondage of the elements of the world in that context!

Gal 4:1.. Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;..
Gal 4:2.. But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father...
Gal 4:3.. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:..
Gal 4:4.. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,..
Gal 4:5.. To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons...

The green shows both the type and the antitype. The tutors and governors over the Jews here in chapter 4 are the schoolmaster in chapter 3. Tutors and governors are in a SCHOOL, RIGHT? And Paul just sad they were under a schoolmaster called LAW in chapter 3, right?

The elements of the world are the TUTORS AND GOVERNORS, which corresponds to the schoolmastery of LAW in the previous few verses in chapter 3!

Well the schoolmaster and the tutors and governors are all allegories of the LAW, which is also called ELEMENTS OF THE WORLD in chapter 4:3.

And here is another grand coincidence, if Paul is not talking about keeping law's holy days, etc.... ELEMENT is the root word in the term we derive as ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, which everyone knows is the elements of the fundamentals on the level of children are meant.

Elements are NECESSARY fundamentals, which cannot be said about pagan days and rites.

With all of this "coincidences", which really goes stellar and off the charts with the amount there are here, it seems folks would rethink their position.

Being UNDER tutors and governors is said to have been under the elements of the world.

The students under these tutors and governors, was the "WE" Paul referred to as THOSE UNDER LAW.

This parallels the SCHOOLMASTER in chapter 3 specifically called LAW.

Why would Paul call the schoolmaster by the reference "law", and then refer to tutors and governors as pagan rites?????

The schoolmaster of chapter 3 is law. The same picture is repeated using illustration of students in elementary school under tutors and governors of LAW. This is the to say that the elements of the world, elementary schooling, is Law.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Gal.3

[24] Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
[25] But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

And so, if the conclusion from this is "we are not under obligation to obey the fourth commandment", then neither are we under obligation to obey any commandment.

But if indeed we are still obligated to obey, say, the fifth commandment, then we are still obligated to obey the fourth. And being "not under the law" does NOT mean we are released from obligation to obey the commandments of God.

Jesus came to save His people from their sins (sin is transgression of the law). So then Jesus came to save His people from their transgressions of God's law. Jesus did not come to save us from our obligation to obey God.

Galatians 2:15-18

[15] We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
[16] Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
[17] But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
[18] For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

Not being justified by the law does NOT mean we are to be sinners (transgressors of the law). What was destroyed in conversion was sin and the power of sin. Thus, our commandment-breaking was destroyed. But if we build that again, if we go back to breaking God's commandments, we make ourselves transgressors (sinners).

Conclusion? Justification by faith does not result in breaking God's commandments, including the fourth commandment to remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. And, obeying the fourth commandment is no more trying to be justified by the deeds of the law than is abstaining from idolatry.

[Esaias]

Notice, in Paul's allegory of Sarah and Hagar, and his statement concerning the two covenants, he does not say anyone is in bondage to the law of God. He never actually says that. It must be eisegeted into the text.

Paul's doctrine on bondage is clear: it is SIN to which people are in bondage. It is not the law of God, but SIN which is the bondage.

Read it all day long, you will not see the words "in bondage to the law" in there unless you add them to the text.

Paul explicitly states the law is not made void by faith (Romans 3:31). The law includes penalty for disobedience (sin), and in Christ we have been freed from the penalty of disobedience. And furthermore, this establishes the law THROUGH FAITH. Faith produces obedience to God.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

I've long found the position in favor of the seventh day sabbath to be very simple, resting on the Decalogue.

And the arguments against the keeping of the creation 7th-day sabbath I have found to be quite convoluted, tortuous and even at times headache-inducing. (No aspersion meant on the thread here.)

There is a maxim I came up with some years ago:



The first place I thought about this was the harmony of the baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Over the years I have seen additional applications.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

....as if historicist eschatology has anything to do with seventh day Sabbath keeping? Besides which, most historicists maintained the fourth commandment is still obligatory (although many of them transferred the obligation to the first day of the week).

In 2017, I recommended as a solid study followed by a last-second transference.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Arthur Walkington Pink (1885-1952)

The Christian Sabbath (originally published in A W Pink's Studies in the Scriptures - 1922-23)
Arthur Walkington Pink
http://www.libcfl.com/articles/sabbath.htm

================================

And this is related.

The Holy Sabbath (1940)
Arthur Walkington Pink
https://www.the-highway.com/sabbath_Pink.html

"The chapters in The Holy Sabbath originally appeared as serial articles in A.W. Pink’s Studies in the Scriptures, from January 1939 to April 1940. The Studies in the Scriptures was Pink’s expository digest, which he single-handedly maintained from the 1920s until his death in 1952."
https://books.google.com/books?id=BxJXCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT1

================================

An Exposition of Hebrews - Chapter 17 - p. 103-108
Christ Superior to Joshua.
(Hebrews 4:3-10)
http://www.biblebaptistelmont.org/BB...brews_017.html

This was from Studies in the Scriptures 1928-29. If searching, the OCR is a little funky, with e's sometimes being c's.
Also available at:

A. W. Pink Commentary on Hebrews 4
https://www.studylight.org/commentar...hebrews-4.html

Exposition of Hebrews, Volume 1
https://books.google.com/books?id=7RQiCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA198
p. 190-201, when I went in by this middle page, I could see all the pages. YMMV.

================================

Putting aside his transference of the day, I read The Christian Sabbath a while back and felt he had a solid understanding.

Steven

The urls should be checked. Ok, checked, one changed.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Notice, in Paul's allegory of Sarah and Hagar, and his statement concerning the two covenants, he does not say anyone is in bondage to the law of God. He never actually says that. It must be eisegeted into the text.

Paul's doctrine on bondage is clear: it is SIN to which people are in bondage. It is not the law of God, but SIN which is the bondage.

Read it all day long, you will not see the words "in bondage to the law" in there unless you add them to the text.

Paul explicitly states the law is not made void by faith (Romans 3:31). The law includes penalty for disobedience (sin), and in Christ we have been freed from the penalty of disobedience. And furthermore, this establishes the law THROUGH FAITH. Faith produces obedience to God.

No matter what you claim about these other chapters, Galatians 4 says the tutors and governors that were the schoolmaster in chapter 3 under which Israel was subject and shut up, were the elements of the world under which Jews before Christ were bound.

Paul said it in Gal 4.

You have to break the continuity of the thoughts from chapter 3, where law was as schoolmaster, from chapter 4, where law was elements of the world, to make your claim.

You have to completely ignore the parallel between the following to keep your belief:

Chapter 3
Schoolaster over students
Law over Jews

Chapter 4
Tutors and governors over students
Law (elements of the world) over Jews

The schoolmaster and tutors and governors are both allegories of elements of the world and law. ELEMENTary schooling.


And the bondage under law is seen in the terms SHUT UP and KEPT in chapter 3.

The bondage in Chapter 3 and 4 of Galatians is not a bad one, but was necessary. Whereas the bondage under idols was a bad thing.

So tell me, Esaias, how elements of the world, alleged to be pagan feasts to you, were tutors and governors (which refer to the schoolmaster in chapter 3) to Jews before Christ, as Paul said they were. And tell me how TUTORS AND GOVERNORS were not the SCHOOLMASTER Of chapter 3.

(I'm going to write a book on this subject!)

[Esaias]

A common antisabbatarian argument is "The Sabbath is a ritual, but Christ has abolished ritual religion."

This is error.

First, Christ established ritual: the Lord's Supper, footwashing, baptism, laying on of hands (which is an act or rite common under the old covenant). Paul commanded the lifting up of hands in prayer, another "ritualized, symbolic action" common under the old covenant. The apostolic Christian religion is full of "ritual".

Second, it is asserted "the Sabbath deals with carnal things, but we Christians deal with spiritual things." But Christians routinely engage in "carnal actions", that is to say, PHYSICAL ACTIONS, such as foot washing, communion, baptism, etc, with no doubt as to the spiritual nature of those acts. The Sabbath likewise is a spiritual act, even though it - like most everything else in Christian faith and practice - is demonstrated by physical action.

Honoring one's mother and father, not bowing to or making graven images, not bearing false witness, etc, are all physical actions, the commands respect physical actions and realities, etc.

Once again, the arguments made against the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue would overthrow all of them, as well as practically all Christian piety and faith and practice.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

A common antisabbatarian argument is "The Sabbath is a ritual, but Christ has abolished ritual religion."

This is error.

First, Christ established ritual: the Lord's Supper, footwashing, baptism, laying on of hands (which is an act or rite common under the old covenant). Paul commanded the lifting up of hands in prayer, another "ritualized, symbolic action" common under the old covenant. The apostolic Christian religion is full of "ritual".

Second, it is asserted "the Sabbath deals with carnal things, but we Christians deal with spiritual things." But Christians routinely engage in "carnal actions", that is to say, PHYSICAL ACTIONS, such as foot washing, communion, baptism, etc, with no doubt as to the spiritual nature of those acts. The Sabbath likewise is a spiritual act, even though it - like most everything else in Christian faith and practice - is demonstrated by physical action.

Honoring one's mother and father, not bowing to or making graven images, not bearing false witness, etc, are all physical actions, the commands respect physical actions and realities, etc.

Once again, the arguments made against the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue would overthrow all of them, as well as practically all Christian piety and faith and practice.

Again you use this argument after I fully responded to it MANY times.

Sabbath is not destroyed. IT IS FULFILLED with the GREATER sabbath of rest that Christ entered into after he did the work of NEW creation on the cross, that we must also enter according to Hebrews 4.

Nothing else in the commandments is like that, and spelled out that way as sabbath is in Hebrews 4. Hebrews 4 teaches this. There is no teaching anywhere in the bible that lists a commandment like sabbath and shows it is a shadow like Hebrews 4 and Colossians 2 showed about sabbath.

But people still write as though this was never stated in rebuttal.