sabbath keeping

[jenna]

And to FFC, yes, I agree with you about God's grace. 100% it is wonderful.

[edwardamo]

Instead of an actual physical circumcision, it is now a circumcision of the MIND that is necessary. In Colossians 2:11-12 "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

Yes, that is indeed a key verse, explaining how circumcision was given as a symbol of the greater truth that in Christ we are to cut off the flesh and its sinful desires, regarding them as crucified with Him. Just like the Passover was given as a symbol of the greater truth that in Christ we are sheltered from the wrath of God by His blood, since He became our substitute and took the penalty in our place. Just like the Sabbath was given as a symbol of the greater truth that in Christ we find our rest, because He completed the work of salvation once and for all so there is no work left for us to do to earn that salvation. Now that Christ has come, we can clearly see the fulfillment that each of these symbols was portraying. And I think the NT makes it pretty clear (e.g., in Acts 15:5-11) that God no longer requires us to observe the symbols, now that the fulfillment is here.

That's not to say there is necessarily anything wrong with voluntarily still keeping these practices if we choose to. But if the reason we choose to do them is that we think this somehow pleases God, or that by doing so we are obeying His commandments better than if we chose not to, then that is a big warning sign.

Gal 4:9-11 - (Paul addressing the Galatians who had the attitude that God still wanted them to keep observing the symbols) "...Why is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain."

[FFC]

Excellent post, Ed!

[jenna]

In response to your post, read from verse 8. " But then indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain." Clearly this passage is talking about the false worship of idols, false gods, and the elements, not about the Sabbath.

[edwardamo]

Well, you certainly are tenacious, but I'd still have to call you mistaken.

Actually, the "elements" (or "elemental things", depending on your translation) of Gal. 4:8 is not a reference to idol worship, but to the Law of Moses, since it is the Law that includes the special "days and months and seasons and years" mentioned in v. 9. To see this even more clearly, notice v.3 - "So also we (i.e., Jews, not Gentile idol-worshippers), while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things (or elements, same word as v. 8 ) of the world." The OT Law is elemental, meaning it is the foundation, but Paul's whole point is that we ought to move past the foundation.

The passage goes back to ch. 3, where v. 23 speaks of the time up until the coming of Christ, saying we were kept in custody (or bondage) under the Law during that time. Ch. 4 then explains this custody in more detail: It is like an heir who is a child, too young to be trusted with all that he owns, so he is kept under the custody of a guardian, so that in practice he is no different from a slave even though he is an heir (4:1-2). But with the coming of Christ a new era is issued in, in which we are no longer like the child-aged heir who is under custody, but we are now full-fledged adult sons (v. 7). The whole thrust of the argument is that since we are now sons, how silly it is for us to desire to still be under the custody of the Law, which was made for an earlier time. But that is exactly what the Galatians were doing, and that is why Paul says he fears for them (v. 9).

That Paul is talking about the Law here, rather than idol worship, is further confirmed by what he goes on to say in the rest of the chapter. For example, in v. 21, he challenges those "who want to be under the Law". (Why would he have any challenge for them if they were only against idol-worship?) In v. 24, he brings out the fact that there are two different covenants (a point which he had also made back in ch. 3). The OT Law is the Old Covenant, and those who live under it are thus in bondage to the Law, but (according to v. 31) we are children of the promise instead; we are free.

If you really want to believe that we should still obey the Law of Moses, I will once again ask you to consider Acts 15:5-11, where this is the exact issue that was being debated. Yes, some people argued it was necessary to direct the Gentile Christians that they should obey the Law of Moses (v. 5), just like some people still argue today. But Peter's response, as well as the resulting decision that was made and letter that was written in the rest of the chapter, are conclusive proof that these people were wrong. (So I'd have to advise against taking up their argument. )

[jenna]

Tenacious- stubborn, persistant. Yes, I can be. Here are some more verses. 1 John 2:3-7. "Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says "I know Him", and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His Word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him, ought himself to walk just as He walked. Brethren, I write no new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning. The old commandment is the Wird which you heard from the beginning." Also, chapter 3:22. "And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight". verse 24: "Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in Him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He is given us". Chapter 5:2-3: "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome".

[edwardamo]

And one more verse from me before we end this discussion:

Heb. 7:12 - "For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also."

Yes, the NT makes it clear that the commandments which are moral in nature are still to be obeyed, not because they are part of the Mosaic Law, but because God's moral standards do not change. (E.g., It was just as wrong to murder before the Mosaic Law was given as it was after, and it is still wrong today.) But the commandments that were ceremonial in nature (dietary laws, special days, etc.) are not part of God's universal moral standard, but were rather given as part of the special Mosaic Covenant between Him and Israel, under the Levitical priesthood. Now that we are no longer under the Mosaic (Levitical) priesthood, but rather the priesthood of Christ, we are not under that Mosaic Law anymore.

[jenna]

And yet again I quote "Now by this we know that we know Him, if WE KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS. He who says "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him." 1John 2:3-4. This passage does not specify which commandments are to be kept, and which are not, so how are we as mere humans to say which should not be kept?

[edwardamo]

This passage does not specify which commandments are to be kept, and which are not, so how are we as mere humans to say which should not be kept?

That's the basic question on which this discussion hinges, all right. I'm not claiming it's always an easy one to answer, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even try. Of course, we should do this not by simply picking and choosing, but in light of the principles of God's Word. One pretty good hint would be to see which commandments are restated in the NT. (Hint: 9 of the 10 in the Decalogue are; can you guess which one isn't?) Another is to ask if breaking the commandment was implicitly condemned in the OT even before the commandment was explicitly stated in the Law, as murder and lying were, for example in the cases of Cain and of Abraham going to Egypt. Another is to see if it falls under and helps clarify the two great principles of loving the Lord with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind, and loving your neighbor as yourself. And a final one is to see if the commandment was explicitly stated to be a sign between God and Israel (not mankind in general), as the Sabbath was. (Ex. 31:13 - "...speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations...")

[jenna]

Ah, you do raise some good points! The Sabbath was very important and people were put to death for breaking it in the O.T. Also, about the covenant between God and Israel "for all generations"- many people do not realize that WE ARE THE DESCENDANTS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL, so it would apply to us today. And one other thing, the Sabbath did not actually come from Moses's time, so therefore it can't truly be called a "Mosaic Law". The Sabbath was actually made in the creation week. (As far as we being descendants, that's another post, but I do have FACTS, not assumptions, to back this up)

[FFC]

Also, about the covenant between God and Israel "for all generations"- many people do not realize that WE ARE THE DESCENDANTS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL, so it would apply to us today.

Jen, that would help your theory if it was true, but I don't believe that everyone on the earth is a physical descendant of Israel. Maybe I'm reading you wrong there, is that what you meant?. Also Paul said something about not all of Israel being the Israel of God, or the chosen ones? So even if we were physically descended from Israel it wouldn't matter anyway as far as receiving anything promised to His chosen people.

If I completely misunderstood what you were trying to say, please disregard my ramblings.

[jenna]

Actually no, I was referring to America and Britain being descendants of Israel. Not everyone on earth. Again, I need to phrase my responses better. I actually have a book that tells the lineage of America and Britain. I need to condense it a lot before I can post anything though.

[JCSx2]

Jen.

I am interested in what you will post on this.

Also, what book is it?

I have always thrown myself in the Gentile category not even thinking I may actually have a lineage going to ancient Israel.

My Mom is German 100%

My Father is Hillbilly 100%

[zoegirl]

I know this is bad and corny, but that reminded me of a joke

How do Germans that live in the southern regions of Germany say goodbye?














Auf Weidersehn, y'all

Sorry (and sorry for any spelling errors, going on memory)

[jenna]

Actually the name of the book is America and Britain in bible prophecy. It is a rather intensive book, and unfortunately I cannot post all of it. It may be easier if you were to read it yourself. (not saying that to be sarcastic, but in order to be able to post it, I would have to leave out a lot, but this cannot be done, and still get the full meaning behind it.