The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

[peter83]

Keeping the Sabbath is a weak and beggarly element alone. It is like somebody thinks "I keep the 6th commandment! But we know that this is not enough" or somebody thinks "oh i love God and i will keep the 7th commandment too" But we know that this is not enough too.
The law never be abolished but we know that :"That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

So the week elements of our faith are the "carnal ordinances" "imposed until the time of reformation."

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by peter83

Keeping the Sabbath is a weak and beggarly element alone. It is like somebody thinks "I keep the 6th commandment! But we know that this is not enough" or somebody thinks "oh i love God and i will keep the 7th commandment too" But we know that this is not enough too.
The law never be abolished but we know that :"That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

So the week elements of our faith are the "carnal ordinances" "imposed until the time of reformation."

As a Christian, can you break the fifth commandment? How about the seventh? The third? How about the fourth? Weak and beggarly elements? Abstaining from idolatry is a carnal ordinance imposed until Jesus sets us free from having to actually obey God? Christian liberty = do whatever you feel motivated to do? As long as you're not doing what is written?

Sorry, but that can't possibly be correct. Who could respect a religion like that?

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Esaias

As a Christian, can you break the fifth commandment? How about the seventh? The third? How about the fourth? Weak and beggarly elements? Abstaining from idolatry is a carnal ordinance imposed until Jesus sets us free from having to actually obey God? Christian liberty = do whatever you feel motivated to do? As long as you're not doing what is written?

Sorry, but that can't possibly be correct. Who could respect a religion like that?

6th commandment: 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.
7th commandment 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.
I did not say to brake the law but to fulfill! "That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Hebrew 9:10 [Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.
9 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.. 11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Raffi

People involved in this movement don't consider "Set-Apart Apostolic" to be the name of a denomination. It is understood more as a label given to a certain perspective of Apostolic Pentecostalism. So, in other words, some one does not have to actually be a member of one of our fellowship congregations to be considered a "Set-Apart Apostolic". If a person is Spirit-filled, does not believe in the trinity teaching, believes in Believer's Immersion in the name of the Messiah only (generally "Jesus", but we say Yeshua), believes in the Hananot (Spiritual Gifts, Charismata) including Healing, etc, and also believes in Hebrew Gospel Primacy, the Sacred Names, and a full restoration of Bible Truth, keeps the Seventh Day Sabbath and the Feasts, we call that person a "Set-Apart Apostolic".

Above, I see two glaring weak links.

1) Hebrew Gospel Primacy is nonsense, a charade, involving a hodge-podge of conflicting ideas about the supposed Hebrew Gospels. Whether you are following Shem Tov, Trimm, Younan and Roth on the Aramaic side, the Jerusalem Synoptic recreation ideas, Gospel of Hebrews or whatever Matthew text was seen by Jerome, or the pseudo-"prophecy" that Hebrew texts would be found in Judea. And I will conjecture that you really do not have a formalized belief here, since this hodge-podge of false theories all contradict one another and lead to having no sure and pure Bible.

2) Sacred Names - if this includes lifting up "Yahweh" you quickly descent into a very dangerous world, since that scholarly blunder is the devil jupiter (jove-pater, where jove is spoken as yahweh, thus jupiter is father yahweh) of Acts 14 and 19 and the abomination of desolation.

Caveat emptor.

Steven

[Raffi]

Hebrew Primacy is a serious school of thought, not some mere childish fantasy concocted be irreponsible dummies. Whether you or anyone chooses to agree with the major premises of the view, I don't think you would deny that at the ROOT of the existing Greek Gospels there simply HAS to be a Hebrew original. Yeshua/Jesus did not preach his great revelation in Greek. He preached to his hearers in their language, and that was either Hebrew or Aramaic, or both. That means that when the Revelation was given initially in its first form, it was in the Semitic tongue. Literary criticism of the Greek texts reveal a Semitic undertext, and that agrees with what Tatian recorded when he wrote that Matthew first wrote his Evangel in Hebrew using the handwritten notes of Peter, which were in Hebrew. The Baal Shem Tov text is a good example of an extant Hebrew, although most do agree there has been some alteration to the text in places. Nevertheless, it testifies to the reality that a Hebrew text was known to exist, and early too. Besides a Hebrew text, there is simply the matter of the Jewish cultural context. Far too much that is within the Evangels/Gospels make sense really only from an understanding of Jewish culture and religious theology.

As far as Sacred, or Set-Apart Names, I know no one on this forum will deny that the Tetragrammaton is a real element in the text of the Hebrew Scripture, and that it is spelled with the four Hebrew letters YHWH. This Name has to be pronounced in SOME way corresponding to those four letters. Some DO say Yahweh. Some others say Jehovah (an obvious bastardization as that neither J, nor V existed in Biblical Hebrew), or Yehoveh, or something like that. How would you have it pronounced? In my fellowship, we use the pronunciation "Yahuah" (Yah-Hu-Wah).

[Raffi]

By the way, Steven, are you also a Sabbath-keeper? It seems to me you'd make a great one. For a person so astutely keen to the dangers of Greco-Roman inculturations like the names of false "gods", you'd be equally keen on other Greco-Roman inculturations like Sun-day worship and Christmas festivities.
Just sayin'.

[mfblume]

I will answer in response to each point you make, which is what I always want folks to do to my posts.

Originally Posted by Raffi

I also think we need to understand a Biblical definition of "faith", or "belief". Not as a Reformational mental assent such as what we have in Lutheran theology. But as something more definite. A thing that actually has some teeth in real life.
I am quite sure you are familiar with the Hebraic concept that "belief" or "faith" carries with it a pro-active tense. You may not AGREE with what the Hebraic sense holds, but I know you would not deny that this is the way it is held by Hebraically-minded people. The Hebraic concept, and I therefore submit to you the BIBLICAL concept, of "belief" or "faith" (emunah) is TRUSTING CONVICTION THAT IS EXPRESSED IN OBEDIENT RESPONSE. That is not a matter of my opinion, it is a scholarly fact. According to the Hebraic/Biblical understanding, faith or belief (Heb. emunah / Gr. pisteuo) is not mere "intellectual assent". Biblical Faith has two components; a spiritual/soulish component that is unseen, and a physical/active component that is manifested in this world by corresponding deeds reflective of the spiritual/soulish aspect. True Faith therefore is BOTH inner and outer. And by extension, any so-called faith that has only one side without the other is NOT true Biblical faith, and therefore not Saving Faith. This is exactly the argument made by James 2:17,18,24 who is trying to clarify the misunderstandings that had been generated in some congregations by a misunderstanding of Paul's teachings regarding this. Some congregations were running with things Paul wrote in places like Galatians 3 and 4 and were teaching that "faith" was fully apart from works. So James sought to correct that wrong theology by re-explaining the Hebraic/Biblical understanding of "faith".
"Faith", "belief" is NOT passive consent of facts. Emunah is "trust expressed". Indeed, it is exactly why the Hebrew word "emunah" can be translated as "faithfulness" just as easily as it can be translated as "faith".

I have no issue with what you said above.

Now in regards to Galatians 3, I believe that when Paul says that Abraham "believed" God, it is to THIS Hebraic definition of "belief" that he had in mind.
Why do I believe that? For one, because I think he bears that out in this chapter. But also, because it is exactly the same point that James is making in James 2:21-24, which is the exact parallel to Paul in Galatians 3:6, using different wording. So that "to believe" is CONVICTION ISSUING FORTH IN DEEDS OF LOVING OBEDIENCE. I also think it is the point made in Hebrews 11.

In exegeting Galatians 3 and 4, I think it is worth noting that there are a handful of terms where you and I differ as to our understanding of the meaning:
1. What does "works of the law" refer to?
2. Which "law" had us in bondage?
3. What is the meaning of "elements of this world"?
4. What is Galatians 3:10 and 11 trying to say?
5. What is the "schoolmaster"?

These five points are at the center of our disagreement. So I think it is worthy for me to explain my view of Galatians 3 and 4 with a focus on these five points.
I know that each of us are always bothered when some other self-proclaimed "know-it-all" claims to be citing the plain text more literally than we, especially if we think we were already interpreting the text in an honest way. So, I only submit my interpretation with humility as how I see the plain meaning, admitting that I don't know it all. In the next few posts, I intend to explain more-or-less verse-for-verse how I interpret the meaning. I know you are not going to agree with me. But I am sure you are going to be surprised as to what I get out of it. Mike, I don't expect you will agree with my view, but if some other unbiased readers can look into it.

Thank you. Blessings and peace.

I will proceed to your next post.

Thanks!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Raffi

GALATIANS
CHAPTER 3

vv. 1-5 This is an introduction to the central problem going on at the Galatian congregation. Someone has come in and troubled the Galatians with an alternative theology. Whether it is a form of retro-Paganism, or of a Judaizing doctrine we are not clearly told here. Scholars have theorized one or the other, or BOTH. But I think a clue can be found in the fact that the Galatians were a congregation formed not from previously Jewish members, rather from previously Celtic Pagans who had settled in the region. That is worth noting.

vv. 6-9. What does Paul understand about Abraham's "belief"? I propose he understands this according to the traditional Hebraic understanding of EMUNAH which is clarified in James 2:21-24.

v.10. This is really where our disagreement of the text begins. Most of us would agree that according to the obvious reading of this verse, if we RELY on the works of The Law for our Justification, we come UNDER THE CURSE. For me, the obvious point is that one cannot trust his/her Justification in The Commandments themselves, that is, in the "letter of The Commandments".

And this is where I noted that Paul quoted Lev 18:5 to show that Law did indeed promote justification by works by saying the one who DOES the law noted in that verse will live as a result. That means one will attain eternal life. So, the argument perhaps actually lies in Paul's use of Lev 18:5, as I noted before.

Notice the context:

Galatians 3:10 KJV 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.

Paul is quoting Deut 27:26.

Deuteronomy 27:26 KJV Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

So one had to do all of the Law Moses presented in order for the people to not be cursed. And that is not a distorted Law, nor is it a distorted view of how we handle the Law. Paul did not say law was never meant to be taken as something people had to fully obey in order to avoid the curse. He was saying Moses commanded them to keep all the law so as not to be cursed.

Once he shows us the law had to be fully obeyed in order to avoid the curse, then Paul proceeds:

Galatians 3:11 KJV But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

So, even though Moses demanded that one do all the law to avoid the curse, Paul then explained obedience to what Moses said in Deut was even stated by one of the minor prophets who lived in the days of Law that one cannot be justified by keeping law fully.

Paul quoted this:

Habakkuk 2:4 KJV Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

Then Paul continues after relating an apparent dilemma. Moses said one must obey all the law in order to not be cursed. Then Paul stated that it's not obedience to Law that justifies, but rather it is faith. I agree with you that faith will work, but the works do not make us righteous. Belief makes us righteous. So, the works of the law that people had to fully obey or else by which they'd be cursed, are not the works that justify us. Belief in something justifies us.

So, it looks like Moses demanded salvation by works, at the pain of experiencing thing curse otherwise, while at the same time another prophet under Law stated that is not possible.

Paul clarifies it all.

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

Paul then quotes Lev 18:5.

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.

So, the full picture so far is this:

Moses demanded obedience to all the law or else suffer the curse.

Habakkuk stated justification can only be by faith, making it an apparent contradiction for Moses to demand works of law to avoid the curse.

Furthermore, Moses stated in plain language the Law is not of faith but is of DOING, which is WORKS, when Moses stated that DOING the law causes one to live, or get eternal life. Now, everyone knows you cannot avoid death by not being righteous and justified.

Moses taught salvation by works of the law. Otherwise he would not have stated you will live if you do all the law. So both verses Paul quoted from Deut 27 and Lev 18 emphasize ALL and ENTIRETY of the Law.

Deut says that ALL the law must be kept or one is cursed. Its twin verse in Lev 18:5 says that if one DOES the same law Moses mentioned in Deut 27, one will live. This means failure to obey law brings death and a curse. Same thing.

All the while, Hab said justification is not possible by Law.

So, I see the picture telling us those under law that Moses commanded are under a curse.

At this point, one might respond saying, "How can you say everyone under law is under a curse, when Moses only stated those who fail to keep ALL the law are under a curse? You cannot tar everyone under law by the same brush if the only ones cursed are those who fail to keep it all. Moses implied there will be those who SUCCEED in keeping all the law. They cannot be cursed."

But for Paul to take that statement of Moses, saying those who cannot keep all the law are cursed, and then turn around and say that ANYONE under that same law is cursed, tells us something. Paul knew one is not cursed if one can keep the Law fully. But he knew NO ONE CAN KEEP IT FULLY. Therefore, he said, everyone under law is cursed.

And That's why Paul then stated that Christ came to redeem us from that curse. That was not a distorted version of a curse from a twisted keeping of law. It was the same law Moses demanded people keep, and it was the same curse Moses said would come upon those who fail to keep the entirety of the law.

Galatians 3:13 KJV 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:

The law Paul is mentioning cannot be a retro-pagan issue or false version of Mosaic Law. It is the LAW Moses commanded... the same Law in Deut 27:26 and Lev 18:5.

So, Paul is stating it is impossible to keep the commandments which are included in the Law. And the argument that says the commandments are distinct from the Law Moses referred to in Lev 18 and Deut 27 is error, and that is how law-keepers escape Paul's conclusions if they don't use the other argument that Paul spoke against a twisted version of the law.

So, we have to deal with this section i think, first.

I will see if what you wrote after my quotes of your words deal with this, for I am responding AS I READ, without looking ahead to what you say before I make those responses..

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Raffi

GALATIANS
v.10. This is really where our disagreement of the text begins. Most of us would agree that according to the obvious reading of this verse, if we RELY on the works of The Law for our Justification, we come UNDER THE CURSE. For me, the obvious point is that one cannot trust his/her Justification in The Commandments themselves, that is, in the "letter of The Commandments". It is in Grace through Faith. So far, I don't see an argument that says that Commandment-keeping itself is NOT important, only that using The Commandments INCORRECTLY leaves one under The Curse.

No.

I strongly disagree. Paul was stating the actual failure to keep Law that Moses demanded people keep will cause one to be cursed. That is far from abuse of the law. It is failure to keep the actual law that puts one under a curse.

So, I have to ask myself, what is "The Curse"?
To the Jewish mind, or I should say, according to Hebraic thought, "The Curse" is a direct reference to The Curse of The Law of Deut. 28:15-68.
This agrees with the rabbinic phrase "under The Law", which in the Hebrew mind means to be under the Judgment of The Law, under the PENALTY of The Law, or in our case here, The Curse of The Law. All are synonymous phrases.
If we think that Salvation comes by our own works, even works of The Commandments, we come under The Curse of The Law,

That is not what Paul said. Paul did not refer to an abuse of the law that Moses never promoted. Paul merely REPEATED the same command that Moses proclaimed. The actual Law God wanted Israel to keep had to be kept entirely -- one had to continue in ALL the law. If one did NOT continue in ALL that was commanded in THE LAW, one would be cursed. Nothing is stated about using the law in an incorrect manner. Paul did not apply Moses' words to an issue Paul dealt with in his day that Moses never addressed. Paul merely repeated exactly what Moses commanded and applied those words to the same issue Moses intended his words. Paul REPEATED Moses' words and re-stated them. Nothing more. And Moses simply stated in order to not be cursed, one had to obey the Law as God intended it to be obeyed FULLY. Paul reiterated that command and again stated that one had to obey the Law as God intended it to be obeyed FULLY OR BE CURSED.

So, I now see where our differences actually begin. It is as I suspected. You think Paul is saying do not abuse the law. No, Paul only repeated what Moses stated. If Paul stated people are cursed if they abuse the law, then Moses stated people are cursed if they abuse the law. But that is not what Moses said. Moses simply said that the genuine and actual Law they must keep must be kept fully, or else one is cursed. Paul said the same thing and nothing more.

. Keeping the Letter is not less important, only that keeping The Letter apart from the Spirit, apart from faith, is empty. The Blessing is not in mechanical obedience, but in loving obedience.
Again, this agrees with the Hebraic concept of "faith" emunah we are introduced to in v. 6.

Deut. 27:26 clarifies my point here. Who is cursed? The man that refuses to do the words of His Law.

Doing the words of the law are DOING WHAT THE LAW SAID TO DO. But I now see more clearly what' your're saying. Moses commanded a heart-intent obedience to law, and if one does not do it from the heart, one is said to not do it. And if one does not do it from the heart with the intention to obey it, since faith involves active obedience in its definition, then one is not doing it, even though the action is carried out.

I disagree that is the issue. Paul stated nothing about that. I know you think it was a given in his words, but the issue is what do we DO. Not whether it's from the heart or not.

Paul repeatedly showed that it is impossible to actually obey law since the force of sin in our flesh is too powerful against our human ability to do what we intend to do. THAT entire concept, I think, is totally missed by lawkeepers.

In this case, "The Law" is The Torah Law. So the man who does not keep The Commandments of His Torah (with a circumcised heart, Dt. 10:16), comes "under The Law" (the Curse of The Law, the PENALTY of The Law).

Moses said the man who simply does not do all the Law commanded is cursed. Whether one's heart is in it or not, the issue is failure to do all the law.

Okay, with this in mind, I next have to ask myself, what is the "works of the law"?
We assume we know what this means, and traditionally we interpret this to mean any keeping of The Commandments of Th
e Law.

It's ANYTHING the entire law said to do. ANYTHING. EVERYTHING Law commanded.

But is that what this phrase means? I do not think so. And I will attempt to demonstrate why in this chapter and especially in chapter 4.
In this verse the "works of the law" is contrasted to another phrase: "continueth in The Book of The Law, to do them", or in short-hand, "doing The Book of The Law". I am going to show you that in this verse "works of the law" is not the same thing as "doing The Book of The Law".

I think the context is far more simple than that. It is doing ALL the entire law said to do, or else one is cursed.

I will move on to your next post.

[mfblume]

BTW, Raffi,

I was not taught these things from others, but was self-taught in careful study of Galatians way back years ago. I never saw anyone teach this and had to do my own analysis. And realized later many others saw the same thing I did. ...for the record.