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.