The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

[Raffi]

During the course of our discussion of Galatians it is clear that we interpret certain key passages in different ways. It reminds me of a discussion I stumbled into many years ago over the issue of Predestination VS Free Will. I took the position of Free Will and tried my best to defend that view with Scripture, and the other guy was a strong Calvinist, and disagreed with me at every point. We argued over disagreements of interpretation over the very same passages of Scripture. Verses where I saw a clear teaching of Free Will he clearly saw the converse.

For many years now, I have followed the path of belief that as part of the pure Apostolic Faith, we are to keep in faith ALL of His Holy Revelation. I didn't start out that way. I began as a Dispensationalist. Like a lot of young people in the 1980s, I was heavily influenced by personalities like Hal Lindsey. For all those years I believed in the doctrine of the abrogation of The Torah Law. So much of what you say in your argument, Mike, sounds like it came straight out of Dispensationalism. I know you say you are not a Dispensationalist, but it seems to me that the bread-and-butter of your arguments are the very same ones I remember hearing from them.

Later in my life, I went through a kind of transition where I began to study other theological models, such as Progressive Dispensationalism, and eventually Covenant Theology, which I became so taken with that I ended up leaving Dispensationalism altogether. But it was through Covenant Theology that I learned the counter-arguments against key Dispensational ideas. I learned about the Unified Covenant, the Covenant of Grace, the One Redemptive Model, and the idea of the Unified People of God. Concepts that made so much sense to me Scripturally, that even today many of these beliefs are still with me. But I don't hear you making any argument from a Covenant position, though that is what you claim is more your leaning (at least more than Dispensationalism). But Covenant Theology teaches a Unified Covenant of Grace within which the covenantal economies of Scripture are but PROGRESSIVE to one another, rather than presenting DIFFERENT ways of Salvation. I know of NO Covenant theologian that I studied who would say that Law was a means for Salvation at one time.

I am sure you would NOT identify yourself as a pure Covenantist in the classic sense. Obviously, neither am I. But I still agree with the arguments made by Covenantists that there is only ONE Covenant of Salvation in Redemptive History, and there is only ONE means for Salvation, namely by God's Grace through faith.

When you and I read The Scriptures, we arrive at different interpretations partly because of this theological understructure we operate out of. We look at the same Passages, but where I see continuity and progressive unfolding of a single grand Truth, you see dichotomies (Law vs Grace/Obedience vs Faith) and carefully separated distinctions (Promise/Law-Keeping/Faith). Perhaps there is no way around that. We may, like my old Predestinarian friend and I, just end up having to agree to disagree, as they say.

What I don't want to do is try to bend anyone's arm to see my point of view. Friendly discussion of differences, like what we are having, is fine. But I don't want any one to think that I am going to try to foist my beliefs about things like Sabbath on this forum. I am fine voicing my support of the Sabbath position, which not just myself but many Apostolic believers hold to. And I am glad to defend it Scripturally as best as I can, though as I've said, I am not worthy to do so.

So any way, with that I will continue to humbly offer how I interpret the Apostolic Writings that I read. And at some point, I hope to point out precisely why I specifically believe in The Sabbath as a legitimate Apostolic belief, and why recognizing that is key to taking a second look at the greater whole of God's Law as something that should ALSO be taken seriously by Apostolic believers as something with continuing validity.

[Amanah]

It amazes me how one's view of eschatology ties into the whole biblical perspective, it's fascinating.

[Raffi]

Our discussion of Galatians also kept bringing up a similar passage in Romans.

Romans is a book used by a lot of Sabbath keepers to support the Sabbath-keeping position. But it is also used by others to teach anomian views.

There are plenty of others who can do a better job than me at breaking Romans down, but I will do my best to explain how I interpret it.

One passage of Romans that is frequently used against Sabbath-keepers is Romans 3:20. This Passage is used to make the argument that The Law reveals sin but is incapable of fixing it. You yourself use this argument frequently.

What I get when I read this verse is not the same thing that non-Lawkeepers get. I notice, first of all, that though the verse is used a lot to "prove" that The Law is done away with, no where in this verse does it actually say anything about The Law being cancelled. That is an assumed association.

The NIV reads ". . . through the law we become conscious of our sins." Nothing more than that, really.

Non-Lawkeepers use this verse to try to make Lawkeeping look bad. But the point of this verse is not to disparage Lawkeeping, only to show that no one can ever be made right with God merely by doing works of The Law. That's simple.

That is not a bad thing, it is a good thing. The Torah is like a mirror, It shows us how sinful we are. But It cannot fix the problems because that was never It's purpose.

What is more, when I read this verse, I get the distinct impression that if I take what the words a saying seriously, I have to conclude that Paul thought The Law was STILL valid because of the present tense of the verse.

Without the presence of a Law, there can be no knowledge of sin. For me this means that without the continuing presence of God's Law, we would have no way of making clear distinctions between what is sin and what is not. Thus, for me, this is an argument for a continued Law.

I take the practical interpretation of this verse. Others take a more mystical approach and insist that " . . . knowledge of sin" means something far more than what the plain, practical interpretation would have. Almost as if it means that The Torah IMPARTS sin, or imparts the INTIMATE KNOWING of sin. I cannot agree with that. And personally, I don't think Paul would agree with that interpretation.

[Raffi]

God's Law is given to clearly define sin so that there is no question or doubt in our mind (Rom. 3:20; 7:7). That makes The Law an indispensable tool of every Believer.

It is also given to enable us to correct and rebuke others:
2 Tim. 3:14-17.

[Raffi]

Another verse from Romans used against Lawkeepers is Rom. 4:15.

This verse is used to make the argument that The Law brings wrath upon those who follow it. The implication is that if someone were to try to follow The commandments, they would immediately come under Divine Wrath.

I don't even think YOU would interpret the verse that way.

Actually, I believe the meaning of this verse is explained best in 7:8-11, which I will attempt to discuss momentarily. So let us for now put a pin in this part of the discussion, and rather look at another point I would like to make.

If we pay special attention to the second part of the verse, we might notice that it is not possible to impute sin when there is no Law. Therefore, if there exists sin now, it must mean that there IS Law. For where there is sin, there MUST be a law being broken. This same point is made again in 5:13.

It did not escape my notice, Mike, that you made mention several times in your argument that though The Law is suspended, sin, or what constitutes sin, is still a reality in this world. I kept waiting for you to explain to me how you could see "sin" as something real, but have no Law to define what that sin is. Perhaps, if you don't mind, please explain clearly for me how you can posit that "sin" can be real without there being a Law that is also real and which defines "sin".

[Raffi]

A third verse that is used to prove that The Law is done away with is Romans 5:20.
Some try to make this verse mean that The Law literally produces sin in the person who does It. The problem with this idea for me is that it makes The Law look like the source of evil.
I cannot accept that.

For me, the meaning of this verse is explained by Rom. 3:20.
It just simply means that The Law was given so that all people could see how sinful they were. But as people sinned more and more, God's Grace became more abundant. Where sin abounded, Grace overabounded.

The Law does not "increase sin" in the way that some people try to imply.

I listened once to a preacher claim that every Believer should sin a little bit every day because it was good for us, in that sin increases Grace in us. His view was based on this idea that if The Law increased sin and sin increased Grace, it makes sense then, as some teach, that we SHOULD sin so as to increase Grace. But this exact point is dealt with by Paul in Rom. 6:1.

[Raffi]

Yet another passage from Romans used to argue against Law-keeping is Romans 6-7, the whole of these two chapters.

For example, the argument usually begins from verse 6.

Romans 6:6.
When I read this verse, I get the meaning that the "old man" (sinful nature) that used to be in us is NOW dead, that we should be free to NOT serve sin. For me, this verse also sets up the context for that which dies.

Romans 6:7
"He that is DEAD is free from sin".
This verse sets up the context for what death frees one FROM. As I read it, the answer is that death frees us from "sin", not from The Law.

Romans 6:8-9
"Death hath no more dominion".
This sets the context for what HAD dominion. As I read it, it is "death and sin" that had dominion. For me, that speaks of the "law of sin and death", which is the Law of The Curse in Deuteronomy 28:15-68.
The Law of Life is written in Deuteronomy 28:1-14.

Romans 6:10-11
We are "dead to sin", therefore "sin" (which is transgression of The Law, 1 Jn. 3:4) no longer reigns over those who are in Messiah.

Romans 6:12-13
"Let not sin therefore REIGN in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lust thereof".
I take this as a direct command NOT to let sin reign in our lives. If "sin" is defined by His Law, we then NEED His Law in order not to sin.

We are to yield our bodies as one who is now ALIVE (the opposite of DEAD). Alive FROM the dead. If being "dead" is sinfulness, being "alive" means the opposite. We are to be the opposite of sinfulness.

Romans 6:14-15
For "sin" shall not have dominion. Why?
Because we are "NOT under Law" ("under law" being a euphemism for "under the condemnation of The Law, which basically corresponds to The Curse of The Law of Deut. 28:15-68.
The context for this verse is set up in vv. 8, 9.
fact 1: We have DIED with Christ.
fact 2: Therefore, DEATH no longer has dominion.

Because "death" no longer has dominion, the implication is that "Christ" also conquered SIN. Neither DEATH nor SIN has dominion.
"Death" is The Curse of The Law (Deut. 28), the earned wage of "sin" (which is transgression of The Law, pardon the redundancy). Therefore, when "sin" is conquered by "Christ" and no longer has mastery over us, we are also delivered from the sentence of death procured by The Curse.
Conclusion: When we "die in Christ", we die to sin and are delivered from the death sentence of The Curse. To live, we must die. This is called by some the Pauline Paradox.
Being "under the law" is talking about being "under the condemnation of the law of sin and death" (Dt. 28) that procures the sentence of death under The Curse. It is simply an Hebraic euphemism.

This verse, for me, proves that we are no longer "under the law of sin". Sin is Lawbreaking, even according to "NEW" Testament standards. Therefore, "Lawbreaking" shall no longer be master over us.
Why?
Because "Grace" has delivered us from lawbreaking ("sin") . . . deliovered us from the mastery of "the law of sin and death".
That is what the verse is saying to me.
If "lawbreaking" shall have no authority over us anymore, the implication is that now "Lawkeeping" IS possible.

Romans 6:16
Here I see that Paul is making a good idea for the Doctrine of Obedience.

Romans 6:17
"Were" (past tense) servants of sin.

Romans 6:18
Being freed from sin, we are now servants of "Righteousness" (tzedakah - obedience to The Commandments).

Romans 6:19-23
Paul in these five verses juxtaposes the life of formerly being in sin with the life we NOW have "free from sin".

[Raffi]

Finally, Romans 7 is used to disprove the Lawkeeping position by trying to make it look like Lawkeeping is impossible. Most commentators feel that chapter 7 unpacts and reiterates what Paul just said in chapter 6.
This chapter uses the word "law" in at least two different meanings. This is confirmed by at least one clear statement in 7:25 (and later in 8:2).
" . . . I myself serve THE LAW OF GOD; but . . . the flesh the LAW OF SIN."
But elsewhere Paul is not always clear as to which of these two meanings he is referring, so we have to be careful.

Romans 7:1
Here, Paul is making a statement that he is speaking specifically to those who "know the law". Probably Jewish converts to Messiah who were at Rome.
One interpretation of "the law" here could be the WHOLE Torah Law. But others have suggested that Paul here may actually specifically be referring to the Law of Divorce and Remarriage (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) because of what follows.

Romans 7:2
Some claim that the first husband is The Torah Law, The Law of God.
I don't think so.
I think this verse is explained by 6:20, 22. The woman is bound to her husband according to the Law of Marriage. This first "husband" to me is the "sin" spoken of in 6:20. As long as "sin" remains alive in our members, we are bound to it by the Law of Marriage. But if that first husband dies, we are set free from the Law of Marriage that bound us to it, and free to marry another husband.

Romans 7:3
Who is the husband? To find out we must ask who it is she is freed from?
Freed from WHAT? We find the answer in 6:7. So the husband must be "SIN", NOT The Law of God.

Romans 7:4
We are free from that Law of Marriage that bound us to SIN, in order to "bring forth fruit". For me, this is a euphemism for the Righteous Deeds of Torah.
We are become "dead to the PENALTY of The Law", that by Messiah, we should BRING FORTH THE FRUIT.

Romans 7:5
This verse clearly shows that the context of "law" in this verse is the law that was at work "in the flesh". To me this is speaking of the "law of sin" (v. 25)

Romans 7:6
But now we are set free from the PENALTY of the law (the law of sin).
"Oldness of the Letter" for me speaks merely of dry, lifeless, mechanical imitation of obedience without true Saving Faith.

Quick summary of Romans 7:1-6
For me, this section is seeking to explain in two phases what Paul is saying in chapter 6.
For me, the traditional interpretation of this passage just doesn't add up to what I read in Matthew 5:17-20, and dozens of other Passages that plainly talk about the eternality of The Law. I know, Mike, you don't agree with what I see in Matthew 5:17-20. Perhaps we can argue that specific verse at a later point.

Romans 7:7-24 Describes Pre-Faith life. The past tense is set up for us in verse 7:5. So the rest of this is plainly talking about when we were in the flesh, BEFORE we came to Faith. The section between vv. 13-24 are often misinterpreted. People who read this often miss Paul's point. Paul is simply saying, it is SIN, not Law, that kills.

Romans 7:10
"ordained to life". The phrase "was ordained" is not in the original text, but was added by the translators.
Should be, "And The Commandments unto life . . . " meaning The Blessing of The Law in contrast to The Curse. If the Curse of The Law is death, the Blessing of The Law is Life. This does not mean Eternal Life. Mike and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this verse, because he makes a big point of insisting this verse implies Salvation Life. So much of his argument to me seems to hinge on his interpretation of Lev. 18:5.

[Raffi]

As I read the section, Romans 7:4-6 seems distinct. I would describe this section as the parenthetical part of the chapter. The use of the word "law" is different in meaning than in other appearances of the word. How do we know . . . by the context.

*"dead to the law" 7:4, restates "dead to sin" 6:2, 11
*"delivered from the law" 7:6, restates "freedom from sin" 6:7, 18, 22

Romans 7:6
I think this verse is connected to Rom. 6:10-12.
We have been released from the "law of sin and death", not The Heavenly Law of God.
We have been delivered from disobedience to The Law.
The Law of God is not what bound us. The "law of sin" is what bound us (Rom. 6:10-12). It is to sin we are to die.
Being "dead to the law" means we are no longer under the PENALTY of breaking It. It has achieved it's penalty with Water Baptism, that's why you die to yourself and are raised with Messiah. Under the New Covenant, God gives us the Holy Ghost upon repentance and baptism. This enables us to keep God's Law. How can someone who is dead to sin continue to live in it? (Keep in mind that for me, "sin" is defined by His Law.)

Notice YOU are dead to the law, The Law is not dead to you.

Romans 7:7 We cannot know sin but by The Torah.

"What should we say then? Is the Law sin?" Paul feels he needs to address this question because of the wording of verse 5, since Paul said that our sinful passions had been aroused by the law and produced death. If sinful passions were "provoked by The Law, is The Law sinful?" Paul unhesitatingly rejects that option. Paul here declares his continued belief that The Law is spiritual and good (Rom. 7:12). But when we were of the flesh, sin used The Law as a catalyst in our lives to bring about our death.

Romans 7:7-11
These verses are not meant to amplify the meaning of "law" as used in the immediately preceding verses (4-6). Only to show that The Law is not Itself directly responsible for the imputation of sin, but is merely responsible only that It sets up an "occasion" for sin to work through the "law of sin".

Romans 7:10
"ordained to life".
The phrase "was ordained" was added by the translators.
Should be, "And The Commandment unto life . . ." meaning The Blessing of The Law in contrast to The Curse. If the Curse of The Law is death, the Blessing of The Law is life. this does not mean Eternal Life. mike and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this verse, because he makes a big point of insisting this verse implies Salvation Life. So much of his argument to me seems to hinge on his interpretation of Lev. 18:5

Romans 7:21
"I find then a law . . . that (is) . . . evil present with me."
Obviously, Paul is distinguishing a different "law" other than God's Law. And then Paul goes on to contrast this "law" with "The Law of God" in the very next verse.
And is CLEARLY distinguished in 7:25.

Romans 7:22 "I delight in the Law (Torah)." (Ezekiel 36:27)

Romans 7:23
Paul here is not talking about struggling with sin with frequent failures. He is describing complete and abject defeat. He is talking about being utterly enslaved to sin.

This description is contrary to what Paul describes in both chapters 6 and 8. Paul declared in 6:6 that the Believer is "free from sin" that enslaved us when we were unbelievers (6:16-19)

Romans 7:24
Paul cries out "wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death!" Thus ending his lament against the sinfulness of his previous life.
Immediately following this exclamation, in the next verse, Paul gives a shout of victory that he has finally found the answer to sinful Lawbreakingl.

Romans 7:25
Paul now turns his focus to the ANSWER. Victory is in Messiah, ". . . so . . . I myself serve The Law of God . . . "

Romans 8:1
"Therefore . . ." This word returns us to Paul's exultation of triumph over the law of sin in 7:25.
The "condemnation" is referring again to Deuteronomy 28:15-68.
Here "walking . . . after The Spirit" is an identical way of saying, "The Law of The Spirit". This has freed us from that OTHER law . . . "the law of sin and death" in the next verse.

Romans 8:2
". . . the Law of the Spirit of Life . . . hath made me free from the law of sin and death."
To me it seems clear that the context demands that "law" must refer to The Torah Law.
". . . the Law of The Spirit of Life . . . hath made me free from the law of sin and death."
Notice the clear juxtaposition of TWO laws here.
You see, Paul has in mind two separate and distinct "laws". And the only way to tell which "law" he is referencing, we must rely on context.
It also helps to understand parallel idioms:

* "dominion of death" 6:9 is parallel to "dominion of sin" 6:13-14
* "dead to sin" 6:2, 11 is parallel to "dead to the law" 7:4
* "free from sin" 6:7, 18, 22, 23 is parallel to "delivered from the law" 7:6
* "body of sin" 6:6 parallels "body of death" 7:24

So "sin", "death", and "law" are seen to be synonymous with each other.
Contrast that to:
"righteousness unto holiness' 6:19, or
"Newness of life" 6:4,
"Newness of Spirit" 7:6

Romans 8:3-4
Yes, we are to fulfill the requirement of The Law.
(The Law is still relevant: 1 Cor. 3:11; Heb. 8:13)

Romans 8:7
To me, this verse is saying that not being subject to The Law of God is "ENMITY against God".

[Raffi]

Concerning Romans 7:7-24.

A lot of people have argued about the meaning of this section of Romans 7.
My personal view is that in this section, I think Paul is relying upon a retrospective view of his life PRIOR to his conversion to illustrate his own theological juxtaposition between unsaved life (chapter 7) versus a saved life (chapter 8).

This is evidenced, partly, in the overall structure of the chapter, but in particular we see in verses 5-6 a brief synopsis of this to set up his argument. Verse 5 clearly speaks in the past tense about life "in the flesh", back when sinful passions (the yetzer ha ra, the "law of sin") operated in us to produce death, i.e. the Curse of The Law. For such an unregenerate sinner, The Law only really served to ignite sin all the more, which for me basically means to "expose one's sin so as to magnify one's sinfulness." But in verse 6, Paul says "But NOW . . ."
Now it is different, you see. Now we are Redeemed. Now we are Regenerated. Now we are filled with the Holy Ghost so that NOW we have been released from that "law of sin" in which we were once in bondage and slavery.

Nearly every commentary I looked into seems to agree that verse 5 refers to the unregenerate while verse 6 applies to those that are saved. (This reflects the exact same pattern we see in 6:17-18.)
But if you look, you will notice a pattern that shows that Romans 7:7-24 etches out verse 5 (unregenerate), while Romans 8:1-17 etches out verse 6. How so? Well in 7:7-24, Paul is describing how that sin brings death to those who are in the flesh. Romans 8:1-17, conversely, explains how the Spirit gives life to those who belong to the Messiah. So, we can see by this pattern what Paul must have had in mind back in 7:5 and 6. These two verses are setting up his argument in the next two chapters.

Take note also that the Holy Ghost is never mentioned in Romans 7:7-24. Compare that to Romans 8:1-17 where Paul mentions the Holy Ghost no less than 15 times. What that says to me is that the person described in the earlier section must be an unregenerate person who does not have the Holy Ghost. Instead of being indwelt by the Holy Ghost, Paul in 7:14 and 7:18 uses the term "flesh". So you see, this is describing the struggle of an unregenerate. It is not the experience of a Spirit-filled Believer.

Then in Romans 7:25 Paul pivots and shifts his discussion to life in the Spirit. Notice the similarity in thought and language between 7:6 and 7:25, both verses talk about a victory won.

What I see here is Paul explaining not how The Law is done away with, but how we now keep The Law in a new way. No longer do we keep The Law by the effort of our flesh. The only alternative to keeping The Law by the flesh is to keep The Law by The SPIRIT.