The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

According to this bizarre version of Purgatory doctrine, you have David going into heaven upon the Atonement.

Why don't you believe that? You never read that in the bible either? It was no purgatory as if they suffered. It was Abraham's bosom. Where were you when Jesus spoke of that? Or is that a pagan myth Jesus used like other legalists claim it is?

But that is not apostolic doctrine. Peter, a bona fide apostolic preacher, declared (some 50 days AFTER atonement was made, some 10 days AFTER Jesus ascended to heaven) very plainly that David IS NOT ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN. At that time ONLY CHRIST had ascended into heaven.

It's talking about his body, Esaias. Seriously?

Brother Blume, I notice that there are a collection of errors you have that are leading you to other errors.

Brother, when you keep sabbath you cannot tell anyone about their collection of errors. At least be civil like Raffi is civil.

How about answering some questions of mine?

One error begets another. Your error concerning the state of the dead has led to this bizarre error concerning the OT saints. And your error concerning the fourth commandment has led you to the error of antinomianism.

Now you're actually lying.

You really act wild when sabbath-keeping is attacked. Wow. Otherwise you've been great! But attack sabbath-keeping and something flares up in you akin to the wrath of the pharisees and their false accusations to Christ and Paul that you now direct to me.

Lies. I do not believe antinomianism, which is thinking there is no regard for sinless living since we are under grace. That is a blatant lie. I have maintained all along that God DOES NOT give us license to sin under grace.

Try again.

Legalists don't like it when they're told their two cents isn't worth anything in God's eyes as they try to earn righteousness by works. So, they get riled up. I think I hit a nerve.

You lied and said I believe there was no hope for anyone other than Abraham before the cross, when I clearly stated Christ's atonement saved them when the atonement was made. What do you think the promise involved? If you disagree, then you are a classic legalist saying people could be saved without the cross before the cross. This is what I said about atonement and baptism before the cross and after the cross, that you claim are the same. You misunderstand atonement and see salvation by people before the cross ever occurred. I propose no one could be saved before the cross, and when Christ made atonement THEN they were saved, making Him their hope as much as He is our hope. That's a far cry from your lies that teach I propose David had no hope.

if you think there was salvation with David before he died, then you believe in salvation without the cross. And you stated NOTHING to indicate otherwise. You won't believe the atonement of Christ was good for anyone before the cross, nor that it saved them when they were left awaiting the cross, though they never knew what they were waiting for. Just something to come.

These are, apparently, connected in your system of doctrine, leading you to repeatedly make erroneous statements. A little leaven is leavening the whole lump.

Brother, your legalism is coming through loud and clear, and it has led you to resort to lying about my statements.

I would suggest that perhaps your foundation is offset, perhaps not plumbed quite right, the square was bent, the level had a bend in it, or something.

Because your conclusions are just really, really out there.

Brother, when you stop lying about me and are willing to also answer my questions, let me know. Otherwise, stop responding to my posts.

Raffi and I are having a great discussion. If you cannot be civil then stop interrupting.

[mfblume]

Thanks again for your other material I am now responding to, Raffi.

Great discussion!

GALATIANS
CHAPTER 4

v.1-2. Before faith, we were slaves. Now keep in mind that Paul is talking to Galatians. These people had never been Jews. They were Pagans. What were they enslaved to BEFORE they came to faith? Were they enslaved to Torah Commandments? No.

Paul was not talking about Galatians when he said "WE". He was talking about Jews, since Paul was a Jew. He is instructing former gentile pagans that the JEWS were under tutors and governors. He distinguishes the JEWS by saying "WE" from the gentiles by saying "YOU."

Galatians 4:1-9 KJV Now I say, That the heir [JEW UNDER OLD COVENANT], as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant [GENTILE UNDER PAGANISM], though he be lord of all; (2) But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. (3) Even so we [JEWS IN LAW], when we [JEWS IN LAW] 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 [JEWS IN LAW] that were under the law, that we [JEWS IN LAW] might receive the adoption of sons. (6) And because ye [GENTILES WHO WERE FORMER PAGANS] are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your [GENTILES WHO WERE FORMER PAGANS] hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (7) Wherefore thou [GENTILES WHO WERE FORMER PAGANS] art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. (8) Howbeit then, when ye [GENTILES WHO WERE FORMER PAGANS] knew not God, ye [GENTILES WHO WERE FORMER PAGANS] did service unto them which by nature are no gods. (9) But now, after that ye [GENTILES WHO WERE FORMER PAGANS] have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye [GENTILES WHO WERE FORMER PAGANS] again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

They were not enslaved to God's Law, but to the LAW OF SIN.

No. They were in bondage shut up away form the faith that was cut off after Abraham and not reinstated again til Christ came along, in whom they could be baptized to become part of Christi and therefore heirs of Abe's promise.

The ELEMENTS is a term used to describe the trappings of law-keeping. It is using the same term SCHOOLMASTER related in chapter 3. ELEMENTary schooling.

They were enslaved to the "paidagogos". The use of the word "child", or as in one translation "underage", is used as having the same meaning as "servant", or "slave". Paul here makes the connection himself. Whether as a "child", or as a "slave", it is to SIN that one is in bondage. He clarifies this point in the next verse.

He is comparing Jews before Christ came with Gentiles before Christ came. Jews were HEIRS since Christ was coming to them and they would be redeemed from the cruse of the law and no longer be under that curse by becoming one by faith to Christ, the heir. And while they were in hte law of Moses they were like children still in school who had not graduated from the school because Christ had not come yet. Law was a schoolmaster to lead them to Christ.

And the GENTILES to whom he was writing were the SLAVES and SERVANTS. Paul stated that the heir was no different than a servant, meaning the Jews under law was no different than a gentile under idolatry, because both were in bondage, albeit different forms of bondage. Jews were in bondage shut away from faith of Abraham til Christ would come, because on Christ and Abraham were recipients of the promise. But when Christ would come, Jews could then be baptized into Him and come into union with His death, and then get the promise. So that's how they were HEIRS. They WOULD IN TIME OF CHRIST enter into the promise by entering Christ by faith. But before Christ came, they were locked away in law, which is not of faith (3:12).

v.3. This is an interesting verse. Here Paul says that we were in bondage under "the elements of the world".
Mike interprets this interesting phrase as referring to Torah Principles, that is to the Precepts of The Torah Commandments. Wow.

That's exactly what it is! Praise God! Law was ELEMENTary schooling. ELEMENTS means rudiments and basic building blocks, like ABC blocks kids play with to familiarize themselves with letters of the alphabet that they will progressively learn more about, so that by the time they graduate THEY left THE ELEMENTS and enter into everything those elements prepared them for! That's not a bad a thing, Raffi!

He spent a long time trying to demonstrate why he felt this way ut I think that Mike should reconsider this because down in verse 9, Paul adds to this that these are "weak and beggarly elements". Okay, I have a very, very hard time believing that Paul, who was a Jew, would EVER speak so disparagingly of The Laws of YHWH. Even had Paul believed The Torah was cancelled by Grace through Christ, Paul would NEVER have disrespected so important a revelation of Heaven that was given to illustrate the Character and perfect Holiness of The Creator of The Universe.

To say law was weak and beggarly is to compare the NECESSARY ABC building blocks and all the other ELEMENTary schooling provided to Israel through law of everything Christ would be later when He would actually arrive. They taught Israel the basics of everything Christ would be. Christ is COMPRISED of all those building blocks and elementary kindergarten and grade one lessons that law provided by way of OBJECT LESSONS such as sabbath that taught them the basic understanding of the REST Christ would bring. Resting on the seventh day is a weak beggarly, but NECESSARY, element of understanding compared to CHRIST and the rest He brings to all who labour and are heavy laden and come to Him.

It is not speaking disparagingly at all! Is it speaking disparagingly to say the wooden ABC blocks kindergartners play with in school are weak and beggarly compared to written essays and theses used in life's careers, when those weak and beggarly building blocks LED THEM TO THOSE WRITINGS later in life? of course not! he is comparing the degree of value of the issues taught under law with the GREATER issues Christ brought them into when they graduated from law. It is not more disparaging of law to call it weak and beggarly elements than it is to call kindergarten weak and beggarly compared to post University life in the real world!

Paul knew that Psalm 19:7 said that The Law is PERFECT.

Amen. That has nothing to do with law's elements not being weak and beggarly compared to Christ's body of fullness. Are the ABC building blocks perfect for kindergartners? Sure they are perfect! Just what they need at that stage in life! And necessary to bring them to career life in their adulthood, too! So, the point is moot to say law is perfect when trying to claim law is not the elementary schooling Israel was under before Christ came. I mean, it's so plain to read it's hard to see someone miss it.

Paul always, everywhere else spoke of The Law as good.

Amen! Were ABC building blocks in kindergarten NOT GOOD?

Why on earth, pray tell, would Paul suddenly do such a turnabout and accuse God's lofty Law of being (Heaven forgive me) . . . WEAK?

Something weak is not necessarily bad, Raffi. What makes you think it would be? Kindergarten is weak compared to life in a career during adulthood. But it's not bad! You got it all completely wrong.

How could Paul ever call God's Celestial Law (I can barely utter it) . . . BEGGARLY?

Because it is BEGGARLY compared to the vastly greater existence in the Spirit with Christ! Life under Old Covenant law was beggarly compared to life in the Holy Ghost and in this BETTER COVENANT. The new covenant is BETTER than the old, and that the old is not beggarly compared to the new. That's essentially what you're denying because that is what Paul claimed about law of Moses when he used those terms that you think imply badness, when they really weren't.

Shadows are beggarly compared to the bodies casting them. Shadows are vague forms of the bodies, but the bodies are much more elaborate and sophisticated.

Consider something else. The Galatians had never been Jews. They had been Pagans. How then could Paul ask them why they were "returning AGAIN" to these elements?(v.9)

It was a return to BONDAGE. Esaias could never get this. But Paul compared Jews to HEIRS under tutors, while he compared former gentile pagans to servants to idols. BOTH people were in bondage. That's why he said the jews were like heirs in school and they did not really differ from the servants who were gentiles under idols. Israel was in a proper and God-intended BONDAGE, because Abraham's promise was by faith and after his time God introduced LAW WHICH IS NOT OF THAT FAITH. And not until Christ came WITH FAITH were Jews able to touch that faith by getting inside Christ to be able to be the only other person heir to the promise other than Abraham. So they were in BONDAGE, because faith of Abraham was shut away by THE LAW WHICH IS NOT OF FAITH. For goodness' sake, brother, read Gal 3:12 again.

And because gentiles were in bondage to idols before Christ came, into Whom they later were baptized, to start keeping Old Testament feasts and sabbaths and holy years was to enter the BONDAGE the Jews were under while in law, taking them FROM ONE FORM OF BONDAGE TO ANOTHER! Either way, they were in bondage. Under pagan idols or Israelite feasts and days and years.

So what are the "elements of the world"? They are not Torah Laws.

They most certainly are.

I think that these "elements of the world" are identical to the "rudiments of the world" spoken of by Paul in Colossians 2:8.

EXACTLY! LAW-KEEPING. Paul was talking about law-keeping there as well!

These, Paul says, are the philosophies

No, you read it wrong. They are in the same LIST as philosophies and vain deceits, but they are not philosophies and vain deceits. Paul LISTED several things that are not synonymous in Col 2 as things that can steal you from being inside Christ, and one of them was the law-keeping that was a kindergarten bondage from the faith that was put on hold in Abraham's day until CHRIST CAME.

, and vain deceits (empty deceptions), and traditions of men. He is talking about Pagan Mythologies and secular philosophies of this world. These Galatians were falling away from Truth and were returning to their former Pagan ideologies, or adding and mixing elements of these things in with God's Revealed Religion.

No, they were thinking they had to keep sababths just like you precious brethren are mistakenly thinking you have to keep today, when they were kindergarten elements of school that were building blocks to bring them to Christ.

continued...

[mfblume]

I told this to Esaias and he never responded:

What are ELEMENTS? Bad, pagan things? Far from it! GOOD and NECESSARY building blocks. Watch:

G4747
στοιχεῖον
stoicheion
stoy-khi'-on
Neuter of a presumed derivative of the base of G4748; something orderly in arrangement, that is, (by implication) a serial (basal, fundamental, initial) constituent (literally), proposition (figuratively): - element, principle, rudiment.

Something that is BASIC or FUNDAMENTAL is not something bad like pagan worship is bad! It is CONSITUENT. In other words, it is what CONSTITUTES greater and more advanced things, in the sense that ABC building blocks used by kids are CONSTITUENTS of the mature and advanced writing used in books! Without those BASICS of the ABC's the kids would never have a hope on earth to later write BOOKS! Can you say that about paganism? Paganism is NECESSARY building blocks required for adult life in the real world?

Of course not!

Are the elements shown on the periodic table of elements BAD things, keeping in mind that everything in existence is BUILT FROM THEM? That's the sort of thing you are saying, though unintentionally.

Is the element of lead a bad thing because it's only a constituent of along with many other similar elements that comprise something made from all them together?

Is the story of Noah BAD because it is elemental story of salvation by water from a world of sin, while the more advanced story of Christ, which is comprised of Noah's elemental truth, tells the full deal far more perfectly? THAT is similar to how Paul used the term weak and beggarly ELEMENTS.

G4747
στοιχεῖον
stoicheion
Thayer Definition:
1) any first thing, from which the others belonging to some series or composite whole take their rise, an element, first principal
1a) the letters of the alphabet as the elements of speech, not however the written characters, but the spoken sounds
1b) the elements from which all things have come, the material causes of the universe
1c) the heavenly bodies, either as parts of the heavens or (as others think) because in them the elements of man, life and destiny were supposed to reside
1d) the elements, rudiments, primary and fundamental principles of any art, science, or discipline
1d1) i.e. of mathematics, Euclid’s geometry
Part of Speech: noun neuter
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a presumed derivative of the base of G4748

Are pagan rituals the NECESSARY parts of a series or composite whole? Elements are good and necessary.

Law contained elements that were rude versions of the reality and fullness of what Grace does in the Spirit.

vv.4-6. The phrase "under the law" is another phrase often interpreted to mean the same thing as Commandment-keeping. I do not agree with that interpretation.

I proved that wrong. I showed you Romans 3 where Paul listed statements from the Law condemning everyone in the law. And if UNDER THE LAW meant BREAKERS of the law, then it is redundant and therefore moot to say the breakers of the law are the breakers of the law.

Tim Hegg, for example, has been able to demonstrate very convincingly that the phrase "under the law" is a rabbinic euphemism that simply means, "under the judgment of The Law". To be "under the law" is to be under The Penalty of The Torah. In other word's, under The Curse. This is continuing the same thought as the previous chapter.

I essentially agree with that, because in reality, as I showed, since NO ONE CAN KEEP LAW, and because law said you're cursed if you cannot keep it, then everyone under law is cursed. But that is not what UNDER THE LAW means. Romans 3:19 proves that.

v.7. As faith has come, we are no longer a slave. We have been liberated, set free from the bondage of sin. We are now made to be an heir.

v.8. We were slaves WHEN? Not when we were under God's Law

Paul was speaking to gentiles and used the word YOU. When he spoke of Jews he used the word WE. He meant HIM and other jews on contrast to the gentiles to whom he wrote. THEY were under pagan service to idols.

. Rather, when we did not know God. THAT is when we were slaves, and this is the meaning of being under the "elements of this world".

No. You confused the statements as one when Paul distinguished them by using the term WE for Jews including himself, and YOU for gentiles to whom he wrote.

The "elements of this world" ruled over us WHEN WE DID NOT KNOW GOD. So it cannot be referring to The Commandments. That is so important.

It is important and you have it completely wrong due to oversight of the pronouns used.

v.9. But now that we know God, we must not "turn back to the weak and beggarly elements", i.e., the law of sin, the jailmaster that ruled over us and kept us in bondage. Is this NOT the context?

No it is not. Far from it as explained. It is not jailmaster, but schoolmaster because the next chapter speaks of tutors and governors, carrying on the concept and thought.

It is not to The Commandments we were enslaved, but to the principles of this sinful world.

Nope. The LAW SYSTEM was a schoolmaster since it kept Israel away from FAITH of Abraham. Because LAW IS NOT OF FAITH. Law came after Abraham's time, after Abraham had faith for the promise. And Law is not of that same faith. So faith and promise were put on hold UNTIL UNTIL UNTIL. ... Until Jesus, the HEIR would come. So in that sense it was a schoolmaster of bondage. Kids are in bondage in school. They are bound away from careers and lives in the real world that require education. And until that education is provided by way of the schoolmaster, they are restricted and bound from those careers. SO IT IS A GOOD AND NECESSARY BONDAGE. Service to idols was a NEGATIVE bondage. But since good bondage and negative bondage are still both bondages, saved gentiles were leaving one form of bondage only to go into another under law, when Israel was not even supposed to be under it any more.

It's the difference between heirs of a family who attend school before they get their inheritance, and slaves under idolatry. The slave in those days was no different than the heir of a wealthy family. Both slave and school student were locked away from the inheritance. But when graduation day came for the heir, and Jews saw the coming of Christ and accepted him, that same Jesus ADOPTED former pagan gentiles and brought them into the same inheritance saved Jews were heir to and entered into!

Look now down to verse 24:
Most people interpret this verse according to a traditional understanding that the two "covenants" spoken of here by Paul are The Law Covenant and The Grace Covenant, or The Covenant of Moses and The Covenant of Christ.

Galatians 4:24 KJV Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

I disagree. The two covenants here are not The Law Covenant and The Grace Covenant. Rather, they are the covenant of sin (prior to coming to faith) and the covenant of freedom.

My oh my oh my,

Brother! You cannot be serious!

God gave the Old Covenant to Moses ON MOUNT SINAI. He flatly stated the first covenant was from mount Sinai. That's where Moses got the law and the ten commandments. There is no such thing as a covenant of sin! Where in all the bible does the phrase "covenant of sin" exist?

Paul is simply using the figure of "covenants" in the form of a parable to make his point. The covenant of sin is represented here by Mount Sinai.

No, the covenant there is FROM Mount Sinai. Moses got the LAW while he was on Mount Sinai.

It could not be any plainer.

Before I close this discussion on Galatians, one more point. Looking in chapter 5.

5:1 To go back to the yoke of slavery, is to go back under sin (Lawbreaking).

He did not say that.

Galatians 5:1 KJV Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.


Bondage was a school child in school learning GOOD AND NECESSARY, albeit weak and beggarly compared to what he'd enter after school, ELEMENTARY LESSONS. That was bondage because before Christ came the FAITH and PROMISE of Abraham was put on hold because THE LAW IS NOT OF FAITH that came afterward. And that same Law that is not of faith, continued until CHRIST CAME. Once Christ came, we INSTEAD OF PRESSING INTO LAW were PRESS INTO THE KINGDOM. And faith came with Christ! It was a good bondage. Not like the bad bondage of paganism, but nonetheless a bondage, too.

Blessings and thanks again!

[Esaias]

Brother Blume, it is obvious to me you cannot handle somebody disagreeing with you without taking it as some kind of personal slight. Therefore, I will no longer be interacting with you.

Good day.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Brother Blume, it is obvious to me you cannot handle somebody disagreeing with you without taking it as some kind of personal slight. Therefore, I will no longer be interacting with you.

Good day.

I am handling disagreement with Raffi quite well!

Thanks for your departure, for you attacked me ridiculously compared to your usual discussions, to the point of lying about my beliefs and I distinguished what were lies. Raffi disagrees with me but has not resorted to lying. I asked you to stop if you continued, so thanks for stopping. I never mocked you in my latest post but stated a fact. You never responded to what I claimed you didn't, and I asked you questions you refused to answer while you continued to attack me, so it is indeed good to cut off discussions with me. So let's keep this discussion on track with what we're dealing with.

Raffi disagrees with me, but I am not speaking anything to him like you describe was spoken to you, because he did not attack me as you did. So, it's not a matter of someone disagreeing with me. It's the way you ridiculed whereas he has not. He's been civil and very disagreeing, but civil is the magic word. No problem between him and myself, though!

Good day!

[mfblume]

Summary of one point so far...

The bondage of law was bondage from the faith that was seen in Abraham, because the law is not of faith. It was such a plain statement in Galatians 3 that Paul had to clarify his point. Some might think that because law is not of faith and that law was a bona fide covenant that it might disanul the promise to Abraham that required faith. So, he said promise is not disanulled just because a covenant came in that is not of that kind of faith. It's just that Jews were shut up from the faith that would indeed come later! It was still going to come and be reinstated.

The faith that is in 3:25 that was said to come so Israel was no longer under a schoolmaster, was the same faith that Abraham had and was the faith that law was not "of" in verse 12.

[mfblume]

Also....

UNDER THE LAW does not simply mean under curse the law spoke about as though only those disobedient to law are in the schoolmaster. Romans 3 lists statements from law saying no one ever succeeded in keeping law, and Paul said that was said to those who were under law. If under the law meant only those disobedient, then it is redundant and moot to say scriptures speaking of those who break the law are written to those who break the law.

The reality is that those scriptures spoke of EVERYONE being unable to keep law.

Look:

Rom 3:9-19 KJV....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; ..(10)....As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: ..(11)....There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. ..(12)....They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. ..(13)....Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: ..(14)....Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: ..(15)....Their feet are swift to shed blood: ..(16)....Destruction and misery are in their ways: ..(17)....And the way of peace have they not known: ..(18)....There is no fear of God before their eyes. ..(19)....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.

Does all mean all? So those statements say that EVERYONE failed to keep law. Now, if UNDER THE LAW meant only some who tried keeping are intended, being the ones who failed, then it REALLY wreaks havoc of the logic.

Read it the way you are thinking, Raffi:

The scriptures say EVERYONE failed to keep law, and that is only written to SOME who failed to keep law.

If everyone kept law then everyone was under the curse you claim is what UNDER THE LAW means. So your point still fails, anyway you look at it.

It fails because those statements said EVERYONE who tried to keep law failed. Therefore, it is moot for Paul to have meant it is only written to those who break law.

It also fails because, if it was true that only those who failed are said to be "UNDER THE LAW", the verses said everyone who ever tried failed, anyway! So, that means everyone who ever tried to live for God by law are under the curse. Which is what I was trying to say about Gal 3:10.

[Amanah]

People have mentioned dietary laws in this thread, does this mean people are keeping a "Kosher" home?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

People have mentioned dietary laws in this thread, does this mean people are keeping a "Kosher" home?

No (at least not me). "Kosher" means "in accordance with Rabbinical tradition" and I do not follow those traditions. However, God's Word specifies what animals are sanctified as food for human consumption, and I do agree that God knows best. Christians who keep the food laws abstain from "unclean" animals (like pork, shellfish, reptiles, arachnids, rodents, etc).

[Raffi]

Forgive my delay. I do not deal with online matters during the Sabbath, and so I didn't get to read Mike's input until Sunday evening. I worked today. And so, I will re-read Mike's responses, plus the new posts I see you have added since Sunday night. And after my own reflection, and maybe some prayer (I'm sure I'll need it), I'll try to post my own responses.

Hope everyone enjoyed the eclipse.

Peace.