The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

[Raffi]

Well, Preterism aside, I believe there is a very worthwhile argument to be heard by Apostolics who believe in and keep the Bible Sabbath. We have all heard the old traditional argument for years but few it seems are willing to listen objectively to the points of those of alternative positions. Sabbath-keeping belongs among us Apostolics. More than with anyone else.
As Apostolics, every Bible-faithful position that distances us more and more from Roman Catholic religion should be thoughtfully considered by all of us. And Sabbath-keeping has VERY solid arguments backing it up.

[Raffi]

Of course, I am sensitive to the fact that people can get pretty upset about any "new" doctrine that upsets our old traditions. But if we refuse to move on in Present Truth as our God restores It, are we any better than those of by-gone days who likewise refused to go on in the Present Truth of Name Baptism, merely because it upset longstanding tradition?

I believe that the Sabbath argument diserves to be heard and considered as a very likely NEXT step in the restoration of Apostolic Faith. Or are we to assume that the Restoration was fully complete in 1914? And if so, why hasn't Messiah come back?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Raffi

I just joined this forum, but as I said in my introduction of myself in the Welcome mat, I am a "Set-Apart Apostolic". We are Apostolic Pentecostals who keep the 7th-Day Sabbath, the Sacred Names, and Hebrew Roots. We do not agree that the Law of Moses has been done away with (Mat. 5:17), but a close reading of the Apostolic Writings ("New" Testament) everywhere tells us that the early Apostles continued to keep the Faith as it was taught and practiced by Messiah. Even the Apostle Paul kept The Law. As did the Apostle James (read Acts 21).

There are many Apostolics today who are abandoning Dispensationalism and Antinomianism, just as we abandoned Trinitarianism in the New Issue, and are coming to the realization that God is restoring a fuller Apostolic witness in these Latter Days, which includes the FULL practice of the WHOLE Bible. Apostolic Christianity IS a Sabbath-keeping Christianity. So I agree with the premise of the original supposition here.

Welcome to the forum.

Your view, however, overlooks context between Galatians 3 and Galatians 4 where Paul stated the Law was ONLY UNTIL Christ came, and the keeping of days and months and years from the Law are done away with. 2 Cor 3 also states the law was done away.

See the discussion here:

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...postcount=1040

[Raffi]

Greetings, mfblume. Thank you for that.
We are not unfamiliar with these Verses. I know that verses such as the ones you quoted, as well as Romans 10:4 and Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:1-6 and others are often used by people against our position. I get that.
But remember that also many Bible Verses have been used by Trinitarians to try to "disprove" our Apostolic beliefs about the absolute Oneness of God.

Concerning these verses that seem to call for the dissolution of The Law, I don't think it would surprise you for me to say that these verses are generally misunderstood because of traditional Church Dogma.
The Galatians verses, for example, which talk about "being UNDER the law" do from a certain perspective seem to be saying that when we come under Grace in Messiah, we are no longer "under The Law of Moses" (ie., The ancient Scriptures of Israel). But there is another perspective most people are unaware of for lack of a basic understanding of Hebrew idiom. The phrase "under The Law" is actually a well-known rabbinic phrase with a specific meaning. Paul is true when he makes clear that NO ONE is justified by Works of The Law. But Paul understood that it was not the purpose of The Law to bring about Justification. Justification has always been by the same way . . . namely FAITH (Hab 2:4). That has always been true, even in the days of ancient Israel. But Paul goes on to rebuke the Galatians for getting out of the Spirit and "getting under The Law". To a rabbi, being "under The Law" specifically means being under the CONDEMNATION of The Law, namely Deuteronomy 28:15-68, what we call the "Curse of The Law". Paul seems to rebuking the Galatians not for trying to keep The Law, but for trying to keep The Commandments of The Law by the flesh, and thus putting themselves under the condemnation of Deut. 28. Paul couldn't have theologized for the ending of God's Holy Law because he would be contradicting himself for what he said in Romans 3:31; 7:12-14; and 1 Tim. 1:8. In Acts 21 we see that Paul very clearly intended to send the message, by James' instruction, that he himself very much DID keep The Law of Moses, and that those who accused him of teaching that The Law was done away with were wrong. For whatever reason, keeping The Law of Moses did not seem to contradict James' and Paul's "Christian" theology, so many decades even after the Ascension of the Messiah.

Paul made a statement in Romans 7:22 that he himself DELIGHTS in The Law "after the inward man". What is he referring to? Well he has to be referring to Ezekiel 36:27 and Jeremiah 31:33 where we are told specifically that the purpose for the New Covenant was so that God could now finally write His Law upon our INWARD PARTS and by His Spirit CAUSE His People to keep His Statutes (Hukim) and Judgments (Mishpatim), two Hebrew words that always refer to The Commandments of God's Law. And remember that the Apostle John said in 1 John 5:2, 3 that the way we KNOW that we love God is that we KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS, and that His Commandments ARE NOT GRIEVOUS. They are not grievous to true Believers BECAUSE we are indwelt by His Spirit, which enables us to be Holy and to keep His Law.

Our Messiah said in Matthew 5:17 that he did NOT come to do away with The Law. He said he came to FULFILL The Law, and often we think that means to fulfill the types and shadows so that The Law is no longer binding. But that understanding makes no sense in context at all. The Greek word translated "fulfill" is pleroo, which according to Strong's 4137 does not mean to "finish", but to "make full". In other words, Messiah did not come to "empty" The Law, but he came to "fill up The Law", to make It MORE meaningful. Indeed, one could go on and on.

With so much support for a continued binding Law, and there is much, much more, why should we think that Passages like Galatians 3-4 or 2 Corinthians has to only mean that The Law with It's Commandments (The Law of Moses) has been done away with? We already know that according to the Prophecies, the very Law we say is done away with now, WILL be enforced over the nations in The Kingdom Age to come. Something to think about. And Romans 10:4, so often used as the clinch-pin to prove the abrogation of The Law, actually teaches the opposite. "For Christ is the END of The Law for righteousness to every one that believeth." But the Greek word translated "end" there is telos, which CAN mean "termination", but more often actually means "goal", "end-goal", "perfection", "aim" (Strong's 5056). So that the meaning of this verse is saying that Messiah himself is the AIM of The Law to make righteousness possible for every one that believes. Now, doesn't that interpretation agree more harmoniously with Matthew 5:17; Ezekiel 36:27; and Jeremiah 31:33?

We are Apostolic people. Theologically, we already adhere to a doctrine that insists upon an interpretation of New Testament Faith from the perspective of "Lordship Salvation". We are not afraid to insist to people that there ARE Commandments in The Bible we MUST keep if our faith is to be a true and LIVING faith. We are accused of "legalism" all of the time. Why should it be something shocking if we as Apostolics also insist that ALL of The Commandments of God are for His People? Why should we be squeamish to take our place as the champions of WHOLE BIBLE FAITH, including Holiness Standards, clean living, sexual purity, tithing, water baptism in the exclusive name of our Messiah, abstention from intoxications, and yes, the one and only Bible Sabbath, and even His Revealed Feasts. Our theology at its core is ready-made to be the home of Full-Bible obedience in faith. We say "Full Gospel", but really it's not truly a "Full Gospel" until our Gospel includes the "Full Bible".

Now simply concerning the Sabbath issue, it shouldn't be an argument with us. The Passages are clear. Our own theology virtually insists upon it. Many Apostolics since 1914 have come to see the place of The Sabbath in Apostolic Theology with no difficult hermeneutical acrobatics. There are whole Apostolic fellowships which include among their beliefs in things like the exclusive Redemptive Name also a belief in the Bible Sabbath. But yet the majority of us Apostolics are satisfied in letting the Adventists have it. Personally, I think that shouldn't be. So I lean toward a position that says, Hey Apostolics. Let's re-examine this Sabbath question.

Any way. It is awesome that we can call ourselves Apostolic. We are a truly blessed people. Let us continue to press on in his name to the High Calling.

Peace.

[mfblume]

The bible gives room for folks to keep sabbath, although I think it's spiritual lack of understanding. So, I am not condemning you over this.

Originally Posted by Raffi

Greetings, mfblume. Thank you for that.
We are not unfamiliar with these Verses. I know that verses such as the ones you quoted, as well as Romans 10:4 and Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:1-6 and others are often used by people against our position. I get that.
But remember that also many Bible Verses have been used by Trinitarians to try to "disprove" our Apostolic beliefs about the absolute Oneness of God.

The key is to understand the intent of the scriptures.

Concerning these verses that seem to call for the dissolution of The Law, I don't think it would surprise you for me to say that these verses are generally misunderstood because of traditional Church Dogma.

Actually, I got these conclusions of the scriptures on my own studies. Not tradition at all. I did a careful analysis of the scripture and carefully looked at context.

The Galatians verses, for example, which talk about "being UNDER the law" do from a certain perspective seem to be saying that when we come under Grace in Messiah, we are no longer "under The Law of Moses" (ie., The ancient Scriptures of Israel). But there is another perspective most people are unaware of for lack of a basic understanding of Hebrew idiom. The phrase "under The Law" is actually a well-known rabbinic phrase with a specific meaning. Paul is true when he makes clear that NO ONE is justified by Works of The Law. But Paul understood that it was not the purpose of The Law to bring about Justification.

I heard that before as well. But my reference to Galatians 3-4 included the idea of the keeping of days and months and years, which were none other than Old Covenant sabbaths, feast days and holy years. Context does not involve any chance of mistaking Law as something for justification when it was never meant to be. That is neitehr here nor there with Gal 3-4.

Justification has always been by the same way . . . namely FAITH (Hab 2:4). That has always been true, even in the days of ancient Israel.

That's not true.

Paul taught in Gal 3 that Law stated the person who keeps law shall live, or gain eternal life.

Galatians 3:12 KJV And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.


And Paul referred to this verse:

Leviticus 18:5 KJV Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.

But Paul goes on to rebuke the Galatians for getting out of the Spirit and "getting under The Law". To a rabbi, being "under The Law" specifically means being under the CONDEMNATION of The Law, namely Deuteronomy 28:15-68, what we call the "Curse of The Law". Paul seems to rebuking the Galatians not for trying to keep The Law, but for trying to keep The Commandments of The Law by the flesh, and thus putting themselves under the condemnation of Deut. 28.

Context again disallows that interpretation. After quoting Lev 18:5 when referring to Law, which clearly is speaking of the law of God in general, with its ordinances. And that's the context of Law when Paul said Israel was only under law until Christ came. So, is the law of Lev 18:5 what you thought Pau lwas speaking about to the Galatians, for that is the case.

Paul couldn't have theologized for the ending of God's Holy Law because he would be contradicting himself for what he said in Romans 3:31; 7:12-14; and 1 Tim. 1:8.

Romans 3:31 KJV Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

You took that verse out of context.Paul was stating that although Law is no longer in effect, it's not made void. Something made void is not something expired. Expiration implies purpose and usefulness for a time. To make void discounts any purpose.

Romans 7:12-14 KJV Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. (13) Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. (14) For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

That, too, is not saying what you imply. Saying Law expired does not mean it is not holy and just and good. Same with 1 Tim 1:8. None of those verses demand law still be in effect.

[quote]In Acts 21 we see that Paul very clearly intended to send the message, by James' instruction, that he himself very much DID keep The Law of Moses, and that those who accused him of teaching that The Law was done away with were wrong.[/.quote]

Incorrect. Paul knew law was not evil, as he was accused of saying. He distinctly said in 1 Cor 9 that he kept law for the sole purpose of WINNING THOSE UNDER LAW, and not because God required it of him in his relationship with God.

1 Corinthians 9:20 KJV And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

For whatever reason, keeping The Law of Moses did not seem to contradict James' and Paul's "Christian" theology, so many decades even after the Ascension of the Messiah.

There is no contradiction. Law was simply expired after its usefulness was complete.

But the largest proof is that the days and months and years of Gal 4 fall in line with the context of sabbaths, holy years, and feasts of Israel. That is all under the banner of law keeping from which Israel was delivered when Christ came.

Paul made a statement in Romans 7:22 that he himself DELIGHTS in The Law "after the inward man".

Again, that does not mean law is not done away with. It expired. 2 Cor 3 also states that Moses' shining face represented Law's glory. And law FADED AWAY and was done away.

Paul taught in Romans 7 that using law to serve God is walking after the flesh, because Law is designed for unregenerate people who were commanded to use flesh to serve God, which is what he called oldness of the letter. Romans 7:6.

What is he referring to? Well he has to be referring to Ezekiel 36:27 and Jeremiah 31:33 where we are told specifically that the purpose for the New Covenant was so that God could now finally write His Law upon our INWARD PARTS and by His Spirit CAUSE His People to keep His Statutes (Hukim) and Judgments (Mishpatim), two Hebrew words that always refer to The Commandments of God's Law.

It means the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us, by writing it in our hearts, since law was intended to fulfill the goal of getting people to love God, have true faith and possess a good conscience. It has nothing to do with continuing to keep the holy days, months and years that Gal 4:10-11 distinctly says to not keep.

And remember that the Apostle John said in 1 John 5:2, 3 that the way we KNOW that we love God is that we KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS,

That is not to say the ten commandments are what he intended. Jesus contrasted his commandments from the ten when he said the law stated thou shalt not kill.... but HE said to hate without a cause is like killing.

and that His Commandments ARE NOT GRIEVOUS. They are not grievous to true Believers BECAUSE we are indwelt by His Spirit, which enables us to be Holy and to keep His Law

Those commandments, again, are not the ten. Peter stated the law of Moses is hard to bear..

Acts 15:10 KJV Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Our Messiah said in Matthew 5:17 that he did NOT come to do away with The Law. He said he came to FULFILL The Law,

Fulfill means to cause it to be completed and no longer in effect. A prophecy is fulfilled when it comes to pass, giving no need for prophecy any longer. Same with Law. the animal sacrifices were under law and were FULFILLED when Jesus died, giving no more need for animal sacrifices.

continued...

[mfblume]

...continued

and often we think that means to fulfill the types and shadows so that The Law is no longer binding. But that understanding makes no sense in context at all.

Sure it does! Read carefully:

Matthew 5:17-18 KJV Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

If He came to fulfill law, and jots or tittles are passed when ALL IS FULFILLED, then jots or tittles passed! Tie together the reference to law PASSING in verse 18 with Jesus saying He came to fulfill law. There's only one conclusions. If Law "passes" when ALL IS FULFILLED, and Jesus FULFILLED all of Law, then Law is "PASSED".

The Greek word translated "fulfill" is pleroo, which according to Strong's 4137 does not mean to "finish", but to "make full". In other words, Messiah did not come to "empty" The Law, but he came to "fill up The Law", to make It MORE meaningful. Indeed, one could go on and on.

To make fiull is the same thing as to FINISH. It DOES mean to finish.

G4137
πληρόω
plēroō
play-ro'-o
From G4134; to make replete, that is, (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.: - accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply.

With so much support for a continued binding Law, and there is much, much more, why should we think that Passages like Galatians 3-4 or 2 Corinthians has to only mean that The Law with It's Commandments (The Law of Moses) has been done away with?

I showed where you took verses out of context and implied that if a verse says Law is good it must mean still in effect. Not true.

So, read Gal 3 through 4 and see how days and months and years are referring to Old Covenant holy time periods.

We already know that according to the Prophecies, the very Law we say is done away with now, WILL be enforced over the nations in The Kingdom Age to come.

No. There is no additional kingdom age to come. TODAY is the Kingdom age. Rom 14:17.

Something to think about. And Romans 10:4, so often used as the clinch-pin to prove the abrogation of The Law, actually teaches the opposite. "For Christ is the END of The Law for righteousness to every one that believeth." But the Greek word translated "end" there is telos, which CAN mean "termination", but more often actually means "goal", "end-goal", "perfection", "aim" (Strong's 5056). So that the meaning of this verse is saying that Messiah himself is the AIM of The Law to make righteousness possible for every one that believes. Now, doesn't that interpretation agree more harmoniously with Matthew 5:17; Ezekiel 36:27; and Jeremiah 31:33?

What that means is that Law is over when Christ comes, according to Gal 3 where we read law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ and we are no longer under a schoolmaster when Christ comes.

Galatians 3:23-25 KJV But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. (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.

It could not be more plain.

We are Apostolic people. Theologically, we already adhere to a doctrine that insists upon an interpretation of New Testament Faith from the perspective of "Lordship Salvation". We are not afraid to insist to people that there ARE Commandments in The Bible we MUST keep if our faith is to be a true and LIVING faith. We are accused of "legalism" all of the time. Why should it be something shocking if we as Apostolics also insist that ALL of The Commandments of God are for His People?

It is because you abrogate the teachings of Gal 3-4, and more. It is classic legalism to demand law keeping today. And by Law, Paul never meant a distorted version as lawkeepers suggest, for Lev 18:5 is not a distortion of Law.

Why should we be squeamish to take our place as the champions of WHOLE BIBLE FAITH, including Holiness Standards, clean living, sexual purity, tithing, water baptism in the exclusive name of our Messiah, abstention from intoxications, and yes, the one and only Bible Sabbath, and even His Revealed Feasts.

Because Gal 4:10-11 says no to feasts and sabbaths.

Our theology at its core is ready-made to be the home of Full-Bible obedience in faith. We say "Full Gospel", but really it's not truly a "Full Gospel" until our Gospel includes the "Full Bible".

Now simply concerning the Sabbath issue, it shouldn't be an argument with us. The Passages are clear.

Gal 3-4 is certainly clear and teaches us not to keep them.

Our own theology virtually insists upon it. Many Apostolics since 1914 have come to see the place of The Sabbath in Apostolic Theology with no difficult hermeneutical acrobatics.

Sorry, but it is rife with acrobatics to bypass clear teaching in Gal on the issue. The same Law that is noted in Lev 18:5 is called bondage in Gal 4:3 and 5:1.

There are whole Apostolic fellowships which include among their beliefs in things like the exclusive Redemptive Name also a belief in the Bible Sabbath. But yet the majority of us Apostolics are satisfied in letting the Adventists have it.

No, the BIBLE teaches against New Testament day sabbath-keeping.

Personally, I think that shouldn't be. So I lean toward a position that says, Hey Apostolics. Let's re-examine this Sabbath question.

Any way. It is awesome that we can call ourselves Apostolic. We are a truly blessed people. Let us continue to press on in his name to the High Calling.

Peace.

Amen, Apostolic faith is awesome!

[Esaias]

Greetings, Raffi!

You will find most here are anti sabbatarian. Most here are also antinomians, unfortunately. Lots of Baptist and Evangelical doctrines still being clung to by many as well.

Looking forward to discussions with you!

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by mfblume

No one said the decalogue was wrong.

And no one said you said the Decalogue was wrong. Only that to the new easy peasy grace doctrines they are only incidentally right, with no fundamental spiritual force or import.

Steven

[Raffi]

Whether any of us say we believe in a Gospel with no Law, the truth is that even the harshest of antinomian Christians cannot deny that the keeping of Christianity requires some keeping of Law. The question is, what Law and to what purpose? I am positive that you yourself are aware that even Finis Dake, the Dispensationalist that he was, counted some 1,050 specifically stated Commandments under The "New" Testament, most of which were re-stated "Old" Testament Commandments, or amplifications of "Old" Testament Commandments. Certainly, taken at face value, 1,050 vastly gives The Torah's 613 Mitzvot are run for their money. What's more, there is no way to dismiss all the "New" Testament injunctions toward a pro-active "do this"-faith in the Apostles, that cannot allow us to believe in the passive-faith-Gospel of Hyper-Grace Theology. If you are indeed Apostolic, I refuse to believe that you would advocate for a Christian faith completely devoid of personal responsibility. In that case, even you yourself must argue for a faith that issues forth in obedience and in a response of faith, even IF that issuing forth would not be framed, in your opinion, within the parameters of a "Torah-loyal" understanding.

Also, I do not believe you are accusing me of teaching Salvation by Works, which of course I am not. I can tell, my brother, you have a very good grasp of the argument at issue.

But where you and I may differ is not over whether Justification comes to any one through obedience to The Law, but over the question of the continued validity of The Law for Believers under Grace, and that touches to the question of The Law's usefulness.

You implied, for example, that The Law is "expired", that It is "complete" because It is no longer USEFUL. But I have a hard time believing that you really believe The Law is not useful. Even Paul continued to believe that The Law retained usefulness for defining "sin", otherwise a lot of his argument would be moot. How is it then that The Law is no longer useful? As I see it, The Law is very useful still. Noting that The Law was NEVER a means for Justification (Gal. 3:11), that is not in the debate. Concerning as a means for understanding the perfect Righteousness of God, how can anyone argue that The Law is NOT useful here? Concerning as a means for defining a superior ethic, or for measuring moral behavior, again how can anyone argue against The Law's usefulness?

As a moral, ethical code, obviously The Torah has a usefulness even for unregenerate people, but It was specifically revealed FOR regenerate people, those who had a "circumcised heart" . . . the 'Ezrach, or "Born-In-The-Land-Man", the "Twice-Born-Man".

That's not to say that we teach that God requires the keeping of The Law in order to be Justified, but that the Justified will keep The Law out of the issue of his/her love for God. I mean, we teach that as a fundamental truth of Apostolic Pentecostalism. So what really is at question is NOT whether we keep laws or commandments as Christians, but the question is over the handful of those Commandments called The 'Edot (The Testimonies), such as those Commandments dealing with the Sabbaths, the Feasts, clean and unclean meats, and other identifier principles intended to mark Israel out as a unique, set-apart People. Are Christians supposed to keep these Commandments? Do keeping these Commandments put us in bondage, and if so, is this the "bondage" to which Paul was referring to in Galatians 3 and 4?

I think to get to the heart of what Paul was thinking about when he was talking about that bondage, we can look at other places in Paul's theology. For example, in Romans 7:6 Paul is talking about the need to be "delivered" from something.

"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." Romans 7:6 KJV

Some teach that here Paul claims that The Law is dead, so now we are free from It, implying that The Law was a bondage. But this would disagree with Paul in Romans 3:31 where he "ESTABLISHES The Law", that is "AFFIRMS" The Law. When he says, "we are delivered from The Law", he is talking about the "Penalty" of The Law, not The Law Itself, which was established by an UNCHANGING God, and affirmed by Paul himself. He is using a rabbinic Hebraism here. Messiah frees us from the bondage of sin, and this delivers us from the PENALTY of The Law against us. It does NOT free us from the obligation of obedience.

Romans 7, Verse 23 introduces us to the phrase "law of sin". This is not talking about The Torah, it is talking about what in Judaism is called the yetzer ha ra, the impulse of evil, which is in the flesh. The "law of sin" is the principle of transgression that is at work within us. It is from THIS law we are freed, not God's Holy Law.

Again, looking at Romans 7:6, people often say that we are freed from The Law because The Law is "dead". ". . . that being dead". But the better wording is this: ". . . being dead to that wherein we were held". For confirmation of this interpretation see Romans 6:2, and 7:4. These show that it is not The Law that is dead to us, but it is WE who are dead to the law of sin. This interpretation better agrees with the context of Paul's argument about the liberation of Redemption.

With this understanding in mind, we might get a different interpretation of Galatians 4.

"For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in BONDAGE with her children." -- Galatians 4:25

Jerusalem is in bondage to what? Many believe that Jerusalem is in bondage to The Law Covenant. That's the heart of the argument you make, as well. The idea that Jerusalem here was in bondage to The Law is merely an assumption. Paul nowhere in this chapter equates the "bondage" to The Holy Law.

Consider again what Paul had in mind in the context of Romans 7. The Law is not the bondage he is referring to here. SIN is the bondage. We are not in bondage to His Law. The New Testament always tells us that we are in bondage to SIN (see context Romans 6:16, 17; 8:21), Look especially at John 8:33-36 where the Master clearly says that their bondage is to "SIN". And if we want a clear "New" Testament definition of what "sin" is, refer to 1 John 3:4 where we are told that "sin is the transgression of THE LAW". Every scholar I checked agreed that "THE LAW" referred to there is The "Old" Testament Law. That Law defines and exposes "sin", even in the theology of "New" Testament Apostles.

Put this together: The liberty of Messiah sets us free, not from our obedience to God, but from bondage to sin. Would anybody really disagree with the logic of this interpretation?

I heard a preacher preach an entire sermon on the subject that The Law was "SIN". I was literally stunned that he could have the audacity to say that kind of thing, even IF The Law was abrogated.

Paul did NOT believe that The Law was sin (Romans 7:7). But he knew that people would come along after him and try to twist his doctrine to make it look like he thought that The Law was bad. So, in an effort to clarify his position, Paul said ". . . The Law is holy and good" (Rom. 7:11, 12). For Paul it is "SIN" that is the source of bondage.

According to Deuteronomy 5:31-33, The Law is there to make us free, not put us in bondage. Psalm 19:7 tells us that "The Law is PERFECT . . ."

To claim or teach or preach that God's Holy Law is a bondage is blasphemy.

So, back to Galatians. Again, concerning Galatians 4:10, and I already read your argument against this so I know you are aware of what I am about to say, the keeping of days, months, and years spoken of here has everything to do with Pagan feasts, not God's holy, revealed Festivals. There is NOTHING in the text that requires one to believe that Paul is referring to Bible Feasts. And you made almost your entire argument based on your interpretation that the "elements of the world" under which the Galatians were in bondage to was The Law (Gal. 4:3). Wow. I am amazed at this still, because down in verse 9 he refers to this as "weak and beggarly elements". Nowhere else in Scripture is His Holy Commandments spoken of so basely. Paul, a Jew himself, would certainly have never dreamed of speaking in such a way in reference to God's Holy Law. For me, Colossians 2:8 better interprets what Paul was referring to as "elements of the world", where he uses an almost identical phrase, "rudiments of the world" as referring not to God's Law but to worldly philosophy, vain deceit, and traditions of men.

In Galatians 3:12, this does not mean that if a man keeps The Law he shall gain eternal life. No, that is a huge stretch in interpretation. Paul is here making a reference to Leviticus 18:5 where God tells Israel that if a man keeps The Statutes and Judgments, his life on this earth will be blessed, preserved, and lengthened (the same blessings of Covenant that we find repeated over and over again in Torah. See Deuteronomy 6:1, 2, 17, 18, 24). No, we know by several sources that Salvation has at no time in the course of Redemption History, ever been by Works apart from Faith, and really that is the point being made also in Hebrews 11 and in James 2:14-26.

You made the statement that the reason why Paul took the Nazarite Vow and made the sacrifices in Acts 21 was because it was for the purpose of WINNING THOSE UNDER THE LAW. Well, firstly, I never said in my argument that God "required" this of Paul as something relating to Paul's spiritual relationship to God. The Nazarite Vow of Numbers 6 is not a required Mitzvah for any reason. It is strictly voluntary. No, the text itself gives us the reason Paul did this, and it was NOT because he was trying to win Jews to Messiah.

In Acts 21:24 we are told that Paul took upon himself the Nazarite Vow together with its Temple sacrifices (and that of four other men) specifically to prove to the Jewish Christians and to unsaved Jews that the reports against him were FALSE and that he indeed DID keep The Law. This is the meaning of Romans 3:31 where Paul says, "We ESTABLISH The Law". These Passages are all in agreement. They do not contradict each other. Paul was a Torah keeper even as a Christian.

As I read this, Paul's message to the Galatians is not an argument for the futility of The Law in their spiritual practice, but an argument against the false use of The Law. That which is based on the false idea that we can be justified by Law apart from faith.

So, as you can see, we have a different understanding of the Apostolic Writings than what most people traditionally see. We see a place in New Testament Christianity for Law-keeping and Sabbath observance, as expressions of obedience motivated by faith and love for God. Not out of legalism or out of religious duty. Those of us who have come to this position, testify that we are FILLED with a desire and hunger to do His Law. We interpret Ezekiel 36:25-27 and Jeremiah 31:31-33 very literally and very personally. And we do not sense for us that His Commandments are grievous, nor do we feel that our obedience to Him is some how a bondage. On the contrary, our obedience is our great privilege. We delight in keeping His Way. It is our Joy.

I do not for a moment think that my argument will ever somehow miraculously change your mind. But at the very least, I hope that I have been able to show you how that we Set-Apart Apostolics are inwardly and spiritually MOVED to ever deeper levels of obedience, and that this is borne out of LOVE.

Peace

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Raffi

Whether any of us say we believe in a Gospel with no Law, the truth is that even the harshest of antinomian Christians cannot deny that the keeping of Christianity requires some keeping of Law. The question is, what Law and to what purpose?

Paul stated clearly he only kept Law of Old Covenant in order to win Jews who were under law. He knew they would reject him if he violated law. So, knowing law was not wrong, although unnecessary, he kept it. And in the same breath he stated that those who were not under law he lived as one not under law. And when he said THAT, he made a qualifier that he did not live lawlessly. There is ANOTHER LAW that we must abide by. The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus. This is NEWNESS of Spirit, as opposed to oldness of the letter which I claim you are espousing. And the Spirit will not cause one to do things that are contrary to the spirit of the letter, knowing all the while that sabbaths and feast days are NOT to be kept today by believers in the new covenant.

1 Corinthians 9:20-21 KJV (20) And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; (21) To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

Now, how could he say the only reason he kept old covenant law was to win Jews, and said nothing about requirement from God to do so for his personal relationship with God, and then say he is yet not without any Law?