The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

[Raffi]

v.13. Messiah did not redeem us from The Law of God, he redeemed us from the "Curse of The Law". Look again at verse 10.

v.14. This is a particularly interesting point, where Paul's theology believed that "faith" came in with ABRAHAM's Covenant (see vv. 6 and 7). Just as "faith" was part of Abraham's qualification for his receiving of the Promise, Paul sees the present reception of The Promise by the Gentiles to be by the same mode as it was for Abraham, through Jesus Christ. Thus, like Abraham, we receive the Promise THROUGH FAITH. NOT through works.

vv.15-17. This verse tells us that Abraham's Covenant could not be disannulled. That's pretty interesting, because there are theological opinions that try to tell us that every new dispensational covenant cancels out (disannuls) its preceding covenant. Yet, here, Paul says that The Law did NOT set aside Abraham's Covenant. Why is knowing that important? Because it suggests to us that FAITH was present even at the coming of The Law of Moses.

v.18. Here is part of the confusion for some people. In these two verses, I think the context shows that he is talking now about The Law of God/The Torah. The Inheritance is NOT by The Torah. If the Inheritance was by Torah-keeping, then that would have annulled the Abrahamic Covenant. But since The Torah did not annul The Abrahamic Covenant, the Inheritance still comes by the same way it came to Abraham, namely "belief" (Gal.3:6), that is "faith". And of course, keep in mind that we are to understand "faith" in Hebraic sense as Saving Faith.

v.19. continues the context of "law" here as The Law of God. Here he says, The Law was added "UNTIL the Seed . . . had come". Because of this, many claim that Paul is saying that The Law was to exist only until The Seed (the Messiah) came. implying that when Messiah comes, The Law is done.
But Paul does not say here that The Seed cancels or ends The Law once he comes. Only that The Law had something to do with transgressions, until The Seed comes. Whatever The Law had to do with transgressions, it only lasted till The Seed came. Once The Seed arrived, The Law's responsibility toward transgression shifted, but without CANCELLING The Law. It just entered into a new relationship with transgression.
If Paul taught that The Seed would come to END The Law, he would be in contradiction with MANY, MANY places of Scripture, such as Psalm 119:89, 152, 160; 111:8 all which tell us that The Law is intended to last forever (this alone is another, but incredible study in and of itself).

v.21. The Law is not contrary to the Covenant of Abraham.
Man, pay particularly close attention to this verse. Paul here clearly says something that proves that The Law had no power to impart Eternal Life.
Notice, the past-tense of the verse.

v.22. Paul introduces the concept that everything is under the control of "sin". The NIV says, "locked up under sin".
In other words, "sin" puts us in bondage. It does not say that "everything is locked up under the control of The Law".
This is a key to interpreting the next chapter.

v.23. This verse is the parallel to the previous verse. The "law" here cannot be The Law of God, it MUST be the "law of sin" in agreement with the preceding verse.

v.24. If this is right, we have been misinterpreting the nature of the "schoolmaster". We have been teaching that the "schoolmaster" was The Law of God/The Torah. I propose that we have been wrong. The "schoolmaster" is not The Law of God, but the "law of sin", until Messiah comes to free us from that law. The Greek word is PAIDAGOGOS, and scholars have debated the meaning of the word for centuries. In fact, at least one suggested interpretation is that the word could better be translated as "jailmaster".
That hardly describes The Law of God.

v.25. At any rate, however we translate "paidagogos", ths verse tells us that under faith, we are no longer under its bondage. We are no longer under the "jailmaster". I believe this means we are no longer under the "law of sin" and the Curse of The Law.

[Raffi]

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

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.
He spent a long time trying to demonstrate why he felt this way.
But 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. Paul knew that Psalm 19:7 said that The Law is PERFECT. Paul always, everywhere else spoke of The Law as 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?
How could Paul ever call God's Celestial Law (I can barely utter it) . . . BEGGARLY?

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)

So what are the "elements of the world"? They are not Torah Laws.
I think that these "elements of the world" are identical to the "rudiments of the world" spoken of by Paul in Colossians 2:8. These, Paul says, are the philosophies, 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.

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. 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.

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. 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". 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.

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

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.
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. 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.

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).

[Raffi]

So, you can see, I believe that the doctrine of Paul is not that we are free from The Law of God, but free from the "law of sin". As I have previously pointed out from Romans 7:6, it is not The Law that is made dead to us. Rather, we are freed from the penalty of The Law, which is death, because we ourselves have become dead to sin.

Romans 7:1-4. To me, the "law" here is talking about The Law of Sin, not The Torah (Rom. 6:2,7,22). Sin is the husband from which we are freed in Messiah.
We are therefore released to serve a new husband, in the spirit of The Law (Torah). Thus, our freedom does not make The Law void; rather it ESTABLISHES The Law.

Another misunderstood passage of Paul is Colossians 2:13,14. The "Handwriting of Ordinances" here, was not The Torah. Neither was it the Oral Law. Rather, it is the "record of debt" against us, the guilt against us for having violated The Torah.

[Raffi]

Okay, wow. After having finally posted all these notes I have been writing down over the past few days (and I am nit really done, as that I still have a few more responses to my brother Mike), I finally went back and re-read everything that everyone said over the past four days.

Esaiah, I really like you, brother. Glad to have you in my corner. And your responses were perfect.

For Mike, I also appreciated many things you said. I DO sense your sincerity. I was, however, surprised concerning your admission that you are NOT a Dispensationalist. Many of the arguments you use against the continuation of Law are the ones used by Dispensationalists. So forgive my assumption.
However, that you are more inclined toward Covenant Theology, well. I too left Dispensationalism for Covenant Theology many years ago. But I never met another Apostolic believer who held Covenant Theology.
What is more, most of my original foundations that allowed me to eventually open up to a continued-Law perspective were actually introduced to me FROM Covenant Theology.
For example, I am also a Kingdom advocate, and I studied Rushdoony's Christian Reconstructionism. Rushdoony believed very strongly that the Old Testament's Law was still binding in two out of the three classifications of Law. He felt that everything about the Old Testament's Moral and Civil laws were still binding on Christians, and only the Ceremonial laws were done away (or more likely in his view, "internalized" or "spiritualized"). Rushdoony and all the Reconstructionists were Covenant believers. But his arguments for the continued validity of Law even under Christ, began to open my eyes to the validity of the WHOLE Law. From Covenant Theology, I got many of the basic points that helped me understand how that obedience does not necessarily contradict faith or grace.

I wonder, have you ever considered or studied what is called "Remnant of Israel Theology"?

Any way, whereas you and I may not agree on whether Sabbath or Law may have a continued place within New Covenant Faith, I think there are many OTHER areas where we may find we DO agree.

Peace.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Raffi

Okay, wow. After having finally posted all these notes I have been writing down over the past few days (and I am nit really done, as that I still have a few more responses to my brother Mike), I finally went back and re-read everything that everyone said over the past four days.

Esaiah, I really like you, brother. Glad to have you in my corner. And your responses were perfect.

For Mike, I also appreciated many things you said. I DO sense your sincerity. I was, however, surprised concerning your admission that you are NOT a Dispensationalist. Many of the arguments you use against the continuation of Law are the ones used by Dispensationalists. So forgive my assumption.
However, that you are more inclined toward Covenant Theology, well. I too left Dispensationalism for Covenant Theology many years ago. But I never met another Apostolic believer who held Covenant Theology.
What is more, most of my original foundations that allowed me to eventually open up to a continued-Law perspective were actually introduced to me FROM Covenant Theology.
For example, I am also a Kingdom advocate, and I studied Rushdoony's Christian Reconstructionism. Rushdoony believed very strongly that the Old Testament's Law was still binding in two out of the three classifications of Law. He felt that everything about the Old Testament's Moral and Civil laws were still binding on Christians, and only the Ceremonial laws were done away (or more likely in his view, "internalized" or "spiritualized"). Rushdoony and all the Reconstructionists were Covenant believers. But his arguments for the continued validity of Law even under Christ, began to open my eyes to the validity of the WHOLE Law. From Covenant Theology, I got many of the basic points that helped me understand how that obedience does not necessarily contradict faith or grace.

I wonder, have you ever considered or studied what is called "Remnant of Israel Theology"?

Any way, whereas you and I may not agree on whether Sabbath or Law may have a continued place within New Covenant Faith, I think there are many OTHER areas where we may find we DO agree.

Peace.

We use Rushdoony's Institutes in our family's home school curriculum, among other texts.

[Raffi]

Wow, that is interesting to me. I have never met another Apostolic believer who studies Rushdoony.

[Esaias]

Free From the Law?
Romans 7:1-3

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

The widow is free from that law. Free from what law? The law of her husband. She can marry another man.

But notice: she is not "free from the law of God." Her freedom to remarry is only permissible within the law of God. The law of God stipulates she is free to remarry because her husband is dead. Her husband's death did not release her from her obligations to God. She is free to remarry, but why? Because the laws of God are still in force after her husband's death.

What has happened is she has entered a new relation to the law of God. Previously, she bore the relation of a married woman. But now, she bears the relation of a widow. Different rules now apply, though these different rules are all part of the law of God. The law of God still operates and governs her actions, but as a widow, not a married woman. She can be married to another man.

4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

This principle applies to us. Christ has died. He "became sin for us", and thus His death is the death of sin, our old husband. We are free from sin, and can be married to another - the risen Christ, so we can bear fruit (which is righteousness).

This is not saying we are dead to the law OF GOD ITSELF. If that were true, we would be under no moral obligations, nothing could be sin, we can do whatever is right in our own eyes. But Christ did not come to save us from obedience to God. He came to save us from our sins, or transgressions of God's law.

If you are saved from your transgressions, then you no longer transgress. Which means you now live obedient to God. And what is the standard of that? Paul says in verse 7 that the law identifies sin. The apostle John said that sin is the transgression of the law.

The conclusion then is inevitable: Salvation from sin results in obedience to the law of God.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Raffi

Wow, that is interesting to me. I have never met another Apostolic believer who studies Rushdoony.

My introduction to a systematic theonomic outlook is due largely to Charles Finney and his Moral Government Theology, but the seeds were sown during my conversion when "man shall live by every word of God" was burned into my soul as an unalterable truth not to be compromised.

[Raffi]

Among those of us who are part of the Set-Apart Apostolic persuasion, Classical Dispensationalism is, of course, rejected. But neither do most give much credence to Covenant Theology because usually Covenant Theology is associated with Double Predestination and with Replacement Theology. Some Set-Apart Apostolics come from a Progressive Dispensationalist background, from Messianic Olive-Tree Theology, or from what is also being labelled Remnant of Israel Theology. A few that I know come from a SDA background. But most do not study Rushdoony, or Gary DeMar, or David Chilton, or Gary North, or any of the Reconstructionists that I know of.

[Raffi]

Thank you, Esaias, for your contribution. I appreciate your viewpoint, and your responses.