The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Raffi

Mike,
I appreciate the responses you gave to my previous post. I expected that when I took the risk to post my original comment, someone would likely respond in disagreement. I have had people disagree with my belief about this issue before, but I want to admit that this forum discussion is my very first "debate" over any subject in length. So if I am not a good enough debater, I am sorry for that. All I can offer is MY take on what the text seems to me to be saying. And I walk away from the text with a different understanding that you do. I have studied these texts for years, and I have become satisfied with the interpretation that I have finally concluded with. I do not know and cannot say that I am MORE studied than you or anyone else on this forum. But I think it is fair that every opinion has a right to be heard and equally considered. I used to be a Dispensationalist and an antinomian myself, and have since left that position. But still, to be fair, I like to believe that I nevertheless consider your arguments thoughtfully without automatic bias, and would like to believe that you would do the same for my interpretation. too often, we are so convinced that our belief is so correct that any time any other person offers a divergent view, we automatically reject it without really examining it's merits. My viewpoint may be novel to this forum, but in other circles, this view is a seriously held theological system that has held its own in numerous professional debates, and has in fact persuaded numerous educated college professors to change, or at the least to modify, their own previously held antinomian theologies. So there must be something to be said for the logic and Scriptural soundness of the teaching, even if I myself am not deft enough to best articulate it. But as for Dispensationalism,that system has been in steady de-cline for the past 25-30 years. There are those higher than me that have actually written that Dispensationalism has been "thoroughly discredited" (not my words) on the campuses. It has been seriously revamped twice (not counting the aberrant Hyper- and Ultra-Dispensationalist schools), one of those timeson the campus of Dallas Theological itself (I am referring of course to Walvoord's and Ryrie's Reformed Dispensationalism, and to Progressive Dispensationalism, so that at least it is the so-called "Classical Dispensationalism" that is largely considered discredited).
What is more, Dispensationalism is currently going through yet another overhaul. Yet,more-and-more professional theologians and clergy are leaning toward a Sabbatarian and/or Commandment-keeping interpretation of "New Testament" Faith.
Some may say this is the Apostasy afoot. But others may say it is the Restoration. I believe that in the end of it, we will see a group of Overcomers upon the earth who adhere to a theology based on a Message that holds equally The Commandments of Moses AND the Gospel Message of Christ, because I do not believe that these two are fundamentally different. His People will be those who bear witness to a faith of The Commandments AND to the Testimony of Jesus ("Yeshua") the Messiah (Rev. 12:17; 14:12; 22:14; 15:3).

I appreciate your words and believe them. I think you are sincere. As I think you know I am.

Dispensationalism has been the worst doctrine I've personally come across, other than trinity. So, I agree with you there. Covenant theology is far more correct.

My own studies about sabbath, without even coming across sabbatarians, were quite indepth and intense, having started in the late 80's. I have since delved deeper in them through the years, and received what I think is spiritual insight into the issue as well. I actually include them in my book I wrote on Kingdom Eschatology entitled THY KINGDOM CAME. But my strongest opinions come from the context of Gal 3 through 4, and Romans 14, along, of course, with Col 2.

I personally find that those who keep sabbath obviously consider Law to continue and, in my sincere and strong opinion, confuse all reference to "commandment" with the decalogue. And I also noticed that sabbatarians and law keepers seriously miss the point of what oldness of the letter as well as walking after the flesh is. And as I stressed in Lev 18:5, Paul was not referring to distorted law-keeping in Gal 3, but genuine law from Leviticus.

So, although there is barely anything I think you can say to me that would ever change my mind due to what I see as simply plain teaching against sabbath keeping, I have never been one to be closed minded. But it's easy for both of us to say we're open minded and in reality not truly be open to what the other says. So, I ask you to be open enough to consider you may be wrong, as I always try to maintain about my view, if anything else is to be said.

And sabbath is NOT a moral issue, and anitsabbatarian belief is not antinomianism.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I personally find that those who keep sabbath obviously consider Law to continue and, in my sincere and strong opinion, confuse all reference to "commandment" with the decalogue.

Actually, I think you are mistaken. Sabbathkeepers believe the commands of God are still in force, while the Sinaitic Covenant has expired and been replaced by the New Covenant. We understand the word "law" has variable meanings, depending on context.

And while some Sabbathkeepers may apply all occurrences of the word "commandments" to the Decalogue, this is not true of all, probably not even of most. I certainly don't. I can't speak for the SDAs, but then they follow a dead "prophetess" so...

We understand the word commandments to be just what it is, commandments, things commanded, rules of conduct that prescribe obligatory actions, or proscribe prohibited actions. There are certainly more than ten contained in the Scriptures.

Just wanted to clear that up.

[phareztamar]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Actually, I think you are mistaken. Sabbathkeepers believe the commands of God are still in force, while the Sinaitic Covenant has expired and been replaced by the New Covenant. We understand the word "law" has variable meanings, depending on context.

And while some Sabbathkeepers may apply all occurrences of the word "commandments" to the Decalogue, this is not true of all, probably not even of most. I certainly don't. I can't speak for the SDAs, but then they follow a dead "prophetess" so...

We understand the word commandments to be just what it is, commandments, things commanded, rules of conduct that prescribe obligatory actions, or proscribe prohibited actions. There are certainly more than ten contained in the Scriptures.

Just wanted to clear that up.

While you're clearing things up, I have a sincere question about Sabbath. How can one be certain that the Saturday regarded as Sabbath today, is in fact the same Sabbath day as in the days of Moses? Seems that across the pages of time there have been different adjustments and changes made to the calendar so that it would be difficult today to know that you are observing the Sabbath on the correct day. Or, perhaps it doesn't matter, so long as you are setting aside one day a week to keep the Sabbath.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by phareztamar

While you're clearing things up, I have a sincere question about Sabbath. How can one be certain that the Saturday regarded as Sabbath today, is in fact the same Sabbath day as in the days of Moses? Seems that across the pages of time there have been different adjustments and changes made to the calendar so that it would be difficult today to know that you are observing the Sabbath on the correct day. Or, perhaps it doesn't matter, so long as you are setting aside one day a week to keep the Sabbath.

Good question!

1. I have searched but found no evidence at all that the day known to 1st century Judeans as "the Sabbath" was any day other than what we currently know as "Friday evening to Saturday evening".

2. Jesus kept the Sabbath at the same time all Jews did.

3. First century Jews kept Sabbath from the evening before Roman Saturday to the evening of Roman Saturday, ie Friday evening to Saturday evening.

4. The Sabbath was the day before the "first day of the week", which Romans dedicated to the Sun.

5. There has been no change in the actual weekly calendar (the first century seventh day of the week is the same as our current seventh day of the week).

I've studied arguments that the week was changed (the solar sabbath and Sunday Sabbath arguments) and have found them to be fundamentally flawed.

[Steven Avery]

An addition to what Esaias points out. Since the time of the New Testament (when Jesus and his disciples and his opponents all agreed on the sabbath day, thus verifying creation to Sinai to Bethlehem) we have sabbath-keepers all around the world. Keeping the same day. Why?

It is very simple.
1-2-3-4-5-6-shabbat .

No calendar needed. Fingers, twigs, mental remembrance, the rhythm of the community, simplicity. The seventh day Bible sabbath is trans-calendrical.

Steven

[Raffi]

I also think we need to understand a Biblical definition of "faith", or "belief". Not as a Reformational mental assent such as what we have in Lutheran theology. But as something more definite. A thing that actually has some teeth in real life.
I am quite sure you are familiar with the Hebraic concept that "belief" or "faith" carries with it a pro-active tense. You may not AGREE with what the Hebraic sense holds, but I know you would not deny that this is the way it is held by Hebraically-minded people. The Hebraic concept, and I therefore submit to you the BIBLICAL concept, of "belief" or "faith" (emunah) is TRUSTING CONVICTION THAT IS EXPRESSED IN OBEDIENT RESPONSE. That is not a matter of my opinion, it is a scholarly fact. According to the Hebraic/Biblical understanding, faith or belief (Heb. emunah / Gr. pisteuo) is not mere "intellectual assent". Biblical Faith has two components; a spiritual/soulish component that is unseen, and a physical/active component that is manifested in this world by corresponding deeds reflective of the spiritual/soulish aspect. True Faith therefore is BOTH inner and outer. And by extension, any so-called faith that has only one side without the other is NOT true Biblical faith, and therefore not Saving Faith. This is exactly the argument made by James 2:17,18,24 who is trying to clarify the misunderstandings that had been generated in some congregations by a misunderstanding of Paul's teachings regarding this. Some congregations were running with things Paul wrote in places like Galatians 3 and 4 and were teaching that "faith" was fully apart from works. So James sought to correct that wrong theology by re-explaining the Hebraic/Biblical understanding of "faith".
"Faith", "belief" is NOT passive consent of facts. Emunah is "trust expressed". Indeed, it is exactly why the Hebrew word "emunah" can be translated as "faithfulness" just as easily as it can be translated as "faith".

Now in regards to Galatians 3, I believe that when Paul says that Abraham "believed" God, it is to THIS Hebraic definition of "belief" that he had in mind.
Why do I believe that? For one, because I think he bears that out in this chapter. But also, because it is exactly the same point that James is making in James 2:21-24, which is the exact parallel to Paul in Galatians 3:6, using different wording. So that "to believe" is CONVICTION ISSUING FORTH IN DEEDS OF LOVING OBEDIENCE. I also think it is the point made in Hebrews 11.

In exegeting Galatians 3 and 4, I think it is worth noting that there are a handful of terms where you and I differ as to our understanding of the meaning:
1. What does "works of the law" refer to?
2. Which "law" had us in bondage?
3. What is the meaning of "elements of this world"?
4. What is Galatians 3:10 and 11 trying to say?
5. What is the "schoolmaster"?

These five points are at the center of our disagreement. So I think it is worthy for me to explain my view of Galatians 3 and 4 with a focus on these five points.
I know that each of us are always bothered when some other self-proclaimed "know-it-all" claims to be citing the plain text more literally than we, especially if we think we were already interpreting the text in an honest way. So, I only submit my interpretation with humility as how I see the plain meaning, admitting that I don't know it all. In the next few posts, I intend to explain more-or-less verse-for-verse how I interpret the meaning. I know you are not going to agree with me. But I am sure you are going to be surprised as to what I get out of it. Mike, I don't expect you will agree with my view, but if some other unbiased readers can look into it.

Thank you. Blessings and peace.

[Raffi]

GALATIANS
CHAPTER 3

vv. 1-5 This is an introduction to the central problem going on at the Galatian congregation. Someone has come in and troubled the Galatians with an alternative theology. Whether it is a form of retro-Paganism, or of a Judaizing doctrine we are not clearly told here. Scholars have theorized one or the other, or BOTH. But I think a clue can be found in the fact that the Galatians were a congregation formed not from previously Jewish members, rather from previously Celtic Pagans who had settled in the region. That is worth noting.

vv. 6-9. What does Paul understand about Abraham's "belief"? I propose he understands this according to the traditional Hebraic understanding of EMUNAH which is clarified in James 2:21-24.

v.10. This is really where our disagreement of the text begins. Most of us would agree that according to the obvious reading of this verse, if we RELY on the works of The Law for our Justification, we come UNDER THE CURSE. For me, the obvious point is that one cannot trust his/her Justification in The Commandments themselves, that is, in the "letter of The Commandments". It is in Grace through Faith. So far, I don't see an argument that says that Commandment-keeping itself is NOT important, only that using The Commandments INCORRECTLY leaves one under The Curse.
So, I have to ask myself, what is "The Curse"?
To the Jewish mind, or I should say, according to Hebraic thought, "The Curse" is a direct reference to The Curse of The Law of Deut. 28:15-68. This agrees with the rabbinic phrase "under The Law", which in the Hebrew mind means to be under the Judgment of The Law, under the PENALTY of The Law, or in our case here, The Curse of The Law. All are synonymous phrases.
If we think that Salvation comes by our own works, even works of The Commandments, we come under The Curse of The Law, not The Blessing of The Law. Keeping the Letter is not less important, only that keeping The Letter apart from the Spirit, apart from faith, is empty. The Blessing is not in mechanical obedience, but in loving obedience.
Again, this agrees with the Hebraic concept of "faith" emunah we are introduced to in v. 6.

Deut. 27:26 clarifies my point here. Who is cursed? The man that refuses to do the words of His Law.
In this case, "The Law" is The Torah Law. So the man who does not keep The Commandments of His Torah (with a circumcised heart, Dt. 10:16), comes "under The Law" (the Curse of The Law, the PENALTY of The Law).

Okay, with this in mind, I next have to ask myself, what is the "works of the law"?
We assume we know what this means, and traditionally we interpret this to mean any keeping of The Commandments of The Law. But is that what this phrase means? I do not think so. And I will attempt to demonstrate why in this chapter and especially in chapter 4.
In this verse the "works of the law" is contrasted to another phrase: "continueth in The Book of The Law, to do them", or in short-hand, "doing The Book of The Law". I am going to show you that in this verse "works of the law" is not the same thing as "doing The Book of The Law".

[Raffi]

The Book of The Law is The Torah. There is no argument there.
But the phrase "works of the law" here does not mean "doing The Book of The Law". To understand this distinction is a key to correctly understanding these two chapters. I know you are not going to agree with me. You are going to INSIST that the "works of the law" refer to keeping the Commandments of The Law of Moses. But let me show you why I do not think that "the works of the law" is the same thing as "obedience to THE LAW (Torah)".

First of all, keep in mind that the word "law" can mean many different things in Hebrew. It does not always only refer to The Torah.
Secondly, I refuse to believe that no one has noticed that this verse, the way it is worded, seems to directly contradict itself.

Let us divide the verse into two parts:
1. "For as many as are of the works of the law are UNDER THE CURSE . . ."
2. " . . . Cursed is every one that continueth NOT in all things which are written in The Book of The Law to do them."

The two sections are linked by the phrase "FOR it is written," to show that the second part (which is quote from Dt. 27:26) explains the first part.
But hasn't anybody noticed that something doesn't seem to be right here? If we understand "works of the law" to mean "doing The Torah", we've got a serious problem with this verse.
The first part says that whoever is OF "the works of the law" are under the Curse of Deut. 28. This is the part every one focuses on, and upon which the antinomian ended-Law interpretation is based.
But if that is the meaning, the second part would be in direct contradiction:
It is a quote from Deut. 27:26. It tells us that whoever does NOT continue in the things written in The Book of The Law is under The Curse.

So, which is it?

Whoever is OF the works of the law, OR whoever does NOT continue in The Book of The Law? Logically, it cannot be BOTH unless we are under a very bad misunderstanding. I believe that the "works of the law" is not talking about obedience to "The Book of The Law". It is my belief that the second part agrees with the first part, and is saying the same thing in different words. But, I think we are looking at two DIFFERENT understandings of, or uses of the word "law", and that whatever they are, they are in contradiction to one another.

I propose to you that the "works of the law" refer to "works of sin", that is works of "the law of sin". Where does that interpretation come from?
Well, if the second part of this verse amplifies the meaning of the first part, we can only conclude that doing the "works of the law" means the same thing as "NOT continuing in THE LAW".
So the "works of the law" is something OPPOSITE of "continuing in THE LAW".
Am I the only one here who sees that, or am I taking crazy pills? This must mean TWO DIFFERENT "LAWS" are being referenced here and juxtaposed.

In Hebrew theology, there is The Law (Torah). There is also the "Jewish Law" (the Takanot, or Oral Laws). But there is also a "law at work in the flesh" (Rom. 7:23,25;8:2;Gal.5:17). This is the YETZER HA RA, the "Impulse of Evil", also called "the law of sin". It is the principle of lawbreaking, transgression that is at work within the flesh to put us in bondage to HET ("sin").
I believe that Galatians 3 and 4 is classically misunderstood. And I think it begins in verses 11 and 12 with a misunderstanding of the phrase "works of the law", which is assumed to refer to The Law of Moses, i.e., The Torah. This verse is contrasting two different laws. The "law" which I will show you is the "law of sin", and The Law of The Book (The Torah, God's Law).

These are the same two laws that Paul MANY times in his writings contrasts, such as in Romans 7:25, which appose one another.
The Torah is NOT the law of sin. I heard a preacher, based on this misunderstanding, preach a whole sermon on how that The Torah was the law of sin. That is blasphemy.

So for me, Gal. 3:10 is just another expression of Paul's theology about the conflicting of these two different laws: The Law of God and the law of sin. From a Hebraic perspective, this verse is understood to mean as follows:

"For as many as are of the 'works of the law (of sin)' are under the Curse (of The Holy Law); FOR it is written, Cursed is every one that CONTINUETH NOT in all things which are written in The Book of THE LAW (TORAH), to do them."

We are in bondage to this "law of sin" NOT to The Law of God. There is freedom in The Law of God . . . freedom from sin, "Lawbreaking".
"Works of the law" MUST mean works of the flesh . . . sin . . . NOT works of The Law of God, contrasted with The Book of The Law, which is The Torah.
The Curse comes not for being a doer of The Law of God, but for breaking The Law. "Sin" (het), which is the transgression of The Law (1 Jn.3:4), leads to death, which is the Curse of The Law (Dt.28).
I expect you to disagree, but I invite everyone else to examine this verse and see if what I am saying here is not valid. And I will continue my break down of this chapter later, after my work my work shift.

Peace

[Raffi]

v.11. Several scholars I read are agreed that the better reading if this verse would be "No one is Justified before God by relying on The Law"
Okay, I believe that this verse is proving that Paul did not believe that people were Justified by The Torah, because The Torah had never been given for that purpose. Only Dispensationalists teach that God gave The Torah as a means for saving souls. That is not a Jewish understanding. Neither was it Paul's understanding, as I will show momentarily. Paul agreed with Hebrews 10:4.

Please, understand that theologically, Judaism is "nomistic", observing The Law not as a means of Justification, but as a response to a gracious God, Who acts on behalf of His People and requires that they in turn identify themselves as His People by keeping His ordinances (covenantal nomism). Thus, Commandment-keeping does not refer to an individual's striving for Salvation, but to a religious mode of existence, marked out by certain religious practices that demonstrate the individual's covenant relationship.

What is more, I believe that when Paul said, "No one is justified" he meant NO ONE of ANY AGE: past, present, or future.
The Law NEVER justified. Even under the times of ancient Israel, people were justified by trusting faith. And Paul quotes from The Hebrew Scriptures to back up his Justification by Faith doctrine (Hab. 2:4).

I know, there are some individuals on this forum that disagree with me, and insist that The Law was the means for Justification under the Old Testament Dispensation. Well, that is there opinion. I encourage everyone else, please, examine this Passage and see if I am not exegeting this in context.

[Raffi]

v.12. This is Mike's favorite verse to quote in this conversation. This is the verse that he claims teaches that faith had nothing to do with The Law, but that "Eternal Life" was earned by obedience to The Law by people under the "Old" Testament.

This verse does NOT at all teach what these folks are claiming. Actually, Paul here is simply restating exactly what he just said in the preceding verse using different wording.
Take note:
*"And The Law is not of faith", this parallels what he said in verse 11, ". . . no man is justified by Law. . ."
*"The man that doeth them shall live in them", parallels what he said in verse 11, "the just shall live by faith".

Mike keeps trying to claim that when the verse reads to "live" in the Commandments means "Eternal Life", as if in ancient Israel, Eternal Life was gained through obedience to Torah. Salvation by Works. He insists that this was the meaning of the verse quoted here by Paul: Lev.18:5.

That is taking the verse out of context. The verse was not talking about spiritual life, but life here-and-now. In EVERY comparable verse of the same teaching, it is talking about life in this world (Deut.4:1; Neh.9:29; Ez.18:9; 20:11,13,21). And I do not believe that Paul was trying to twist this or any other Passage to claim that Eternal Life had EVER been a matter of Works Righteousness. It is impossible for a man to earn Salvation by works, in this or ANY Age, and God knew that.