The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

[Esaias]

Praying for you folks in Florida, stay safe.

[Raffi]

There is a brief lull in the storm here right now. I will attempt to finish my response to Mike.

I understand that you did not like my interpretation of Galatians 4:21-31, the allegory of Sarah and Ishmael. Okay, for you it was a novel interpretation, but I know first-hand of others who read it that way, or similarly. I even know that John Piper has a similar interpretation.

Okay, so maybe to help you understand a little bit more about how I came to have this interpretation, let me remind us that previous to this allegory, Paul had been discussing the issue of "bondage to the law", which I believe has to do with bondage to the law of sin and death in the flesh, NOT to The Law of God (i.e., The Torah), and that being "under the Law" means being under the Judgment and condemnation of The Law's Curse against "sin", which is "Lawlessness", "transgression", and "breaking of The Law". You disagreed with me about that.

I saw the allegory at the end of Galatians 4 as a continuation of that argument to help the Galatians better understand.
To help the Galatians understand what he had been teaching, Paul presented an allegory -- a midrash of the story of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar. It has to be understood that this was intended as a Midrash, not as a direct point-for-point type. Most commentaries who try to interpret Gal. 4 simply do not understand the difference between a Midrash and a Type-and-Shadow. The Greek equivalent for Midrash is ALLEGOREO (Strong's 238) from where we get the word ALLEGORY, and is used only in this one place in the New Testament. According to Strong's, an allegory simply means "to say something allegorically". An allegory is a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through the use of symbols drawn from actual material forms. Thus, an allegory takes perceived facts and applies them to unrelated thoughts in order to make a concept more understandable. It is important to keep in mind that in an allegory, there is no intent to imply a direct relationship between the things that are being compared.

Gal. 4:24 ". . . these are THE two covenants."
This translation has supported the unfortunate interpretation that Paul must here be talking about the HISTORICAL COVENANTS, namely the Covenant of Abraham and the Covenant of Sinai. However, the definite article THE is not in the oldest Greek manuscripts, but was added by the KJV translators. So, this indicates for me that the verse is referencing the concept of "covenant" as a generic concept rather than as a specific concept directly referring to the actual Historical Covenants. So, the term "covenants" is itself the allegory. We are not comparing literal, tangible covenants here. Paul is comparing intangible, abstract "covenants", that is ideological subjects that are merely "symbolized" by the allegorical device of "covenants".

What is more, this is not a comparison of the Sinai Covenant (Law Covenant) with the Messianic Covenant (New Covenant), but rather between the Abrahamic Covenant as a symbol verses the Sinai Covenant as a symbol. A lot of people do unfortunately miss that point. Paul is comparing the occasion of these two covenants, with the way by which the children of Sarah and Hagar came to be born.

Please notice that Paul does NOT tell us that Hagar represents The Law. Only that Hagar represents "Mount Sinai" and "Jerusalem". We all have assumed that Sinai means The Torah because God gave The Law to Moses at Sinai. However, we have to remember that it was ALSO at Sinai that Israel sinned against The Law, and also began to break the Covenant Oath that Israel made at Sinai (Ex. 24:3; Dt. 5:27). So, I think it is the occasion of Israel's breaking of The Covenant at Sinai that Paul has in mind, not the giving of The Torah. It is for THIS reason that Sinai represents "bondage" in the sense of Israel's sin and rebellion. NOT in the sense of God's giving of The Law. In the same way, in other places, the broken Tablets are used as a testimony to Israel's guilt in breaking The Law.

Okay, the weather is getting bad here again, so I am going to post what I have written so far and finish it later.

Peace.

[Raffi]

Okay, so we all already know that in Scripture sometimes, the broken Tablets of The Law stand as the testimony against Israel's sin at Sinai. It stands as a symbol against Israel's rebellion at Sinai. Not that The Law Itself was bad, but that Israel BROKE The Law. The Commandments themselves are not symbols against Israel as much as the actual crack in The Tablets.

In like manner, Paul is making the Covenant at Sinai to stand as a symbol testifying against Israel's rebellion. That's how I see it here.

But my point was to try with you to build the case that Hagar and Ishmael were not symbols of The Torah Law, but were symbols of the same "law of sin and flesh" that Paul had been previously discussing. I thought that my implication here would be clear to you, Mike, but I was mistaken. As I made the point that this allegory represented a "covenant" with sin and flesh, I thought you'd pick it up and connect it to Gal. 4:23 where Paul calls Ishmael the son born "according to the flesh". That the connection would be obvious. At least I thought my implication would be obvious to you without having to spell it out all the way.

Gal. 4:23, Ishmael was born "according to the FLESH". He was the product of self reliance. Abraham ceased to rely on God's power to fulfill his word and instead relied on his own power. In other words, Abraham resorted to a marriage "in the flesh" to create the blessing of God. Ishmael was conceived according to this work of the flesh.

[Raffi]

Isaac, on the other hand, was conceived in FAITH.

So Ishmael, rather than representing what God established by His Act of Grace (i.e. The Law), Ishmael MUST represent what man (Abraham) sought to establish in place of God's Way. God rejects what Abraham produced on his own. So, God then tells Abraham that He Himself will establish a birth that was the result of supernatural intervention. The only acceptable response to this is TRUST, not works of flesh.

For me, I do not believe that Paul is making a direct typological connection between the events of Genesis to Mount Sinai or to Jerusalem. I think Paul had, rather, in mind that the same "spiritual truth" in the story of Hagar and Sarah is also the same truth we can see in what happened at Mt. Sinai, and also in Jerusalem.

[Raffi]

According to verse 24, Hagar and Sarah represent two "covenants". The question is, How is Hagar and her relationship with Abraham and Ishmael like the Covenant of Mt. Sinai?

There are two similarities:
Hagar's giving birth to Ishmael is done "according to the flesh" (v. 23). Abraham and Hagar tried to get God's promised blessing by their own strength without relying on God's supernatural enablement (i.e. Grace). That is just what happened when God gave Israel His Law at Sinai. Instead of trusting God for help to obey His Commandments. Israel says, "All the words which The Lord has spoken WE WILL DO" (Ex. 24:3; Dt. 5:27). But they did not have hearts inclined to trust in God (Heb. 4:2) or truly depend on Him (Dt. 5:29). And so like Hagar and Abraham they depended on their own resources. And just as Ishmael was born according to the flesh, so The Law offered was not received because Israel thought to fulfill The Law according to flesh effort. All that Abraham and Hagar produced was a son "according to flesh". Likewise, all that Israel produced when they tried to keep The Law according to flesh effort was what we today call "legalism".

Which leads to the second similarity:

[Raffi]

Hagar AND Israel bear children for slavery.
Verse 24 says that the covenant Hagar represents is from Mt. Sinai. So what is meant by, "bearing children for slavery"? Since Ishmael was not accepted as an heir, he was no better than his mother, a slave. Likewise, when Israel took The Law upon themselves without trusting God for gracious enablement, they became slaves because they have no freedom to do The Law from the heart, and because their unbelief locks them into disobedience and excludes them from the inheritance.

Then, so as to bring the whole allegory up to date, at the end of verse 25 Paul says, "She corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children" (i.e. the Jews).
This is a direct indictment against those religious Jews of Jerusalem.
So you can see Paul's point: don't follow these teachers -- they may show you how to become sons of Abraham, but they will make you to be like Ishmael.

[Raffi]

Then in verse 26 Paul turns his attention to the other half of the allegory -- Sarah and her child, Isaac. What Paul means by "the Jerusalem above" can be seen in Col. 3:1-3. The Jerusalem Above represents God's Kingdom of which every true Believer is a Child of God. Sarah represents that city, because she gave birth to Isaac not by reliance on flesh but by her trust in the Act of God.

Therefore, spiritually speaking, Sarah is the mother of all true Christian Israelites -- those whose lives are not the product of human works (flesh), but of God's supernatural Work in their hearts. Our life is owing to the Work of God in us fulfilling His Promise to make for Himself a People (Gen. 12:1-3) and to put His Spirit witihin them (Ez. 36:27) and write His Law on their hearts (Jer. 31:33). See Gal. 4:28.

This is confirmed by the contrast in verse 29. Recall how in verse 23 the contrast was between one born according to the flesh and one born through promise. But notice here in verse 29 that the same contrast is between one born according to the flesh and one BORN ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT. "Born according to the Spirit" is parallel to "born through promise." This confirms that "children of promise" in verse 28 refers to people whose inner life is the work of God's Spirit in fulfillment of His Promise. The difference between Ishmael and Isaac is a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit of God.

Then verse 30 assures us that not Ishmael, but Isaac will inherit the blessing of Abraham, even though they may be persecuted.

Finally, Paul concludes in verse 31 that we -- that is, we who live by faith in the Son and don't rely on what we can achieve on our own through flesh -- are not in the slave category but in the category of the free.

[Raffi]

I should add that the particular interpretation I chose to mention to you in our former discussion is only one theory worth considering. There are in fact other good interpretations that ALSO do not interpret this passage to mean that Paul is teaching the setting-aside or doing-away of The Torah. If you do not like the particular interpretation I mentioned before, perhaps you can also consider some of these other very worthy interpretations.

For example, Ami Yisrael teaches that the allegory of Gal. 4 is intended by Paul simply to be saying that if a person tries to gain covenant status by his works (i.e. -- the covenant at Mt. Sinai) instead of the way Abraham did (i.e. -- faith as shown in Gen. 15:16) then that person will remain in bondage because The Torah was never intended to provide a way to gain covenant status but instead was given to a people who (in Abraham) already had covenant status. So, if a person understood that his/her redemption and covenant status is by faith, he/she would then understand that he/she is indeed an heir (Gal. 3:29). But recognition of this status says nothing about God's People being "freed" from their obligation in faith to God's Law.

Regardless of the interpretation, my point was to show that this passage in Galatians 4 was not intended by Paul to equate Torah to bondage. But "sin and flesh" -- that is bondage.
Before we come to God in Saving Faith, we are all in bondage (i.e. "have a covenant with") sin and flesh. We are all like Hagar and Ishmael, and like the Children of Israel at Sinai and later like the Jews at Jerusalem. But when we come to Saving Faith, we are delivered from bondage and we enter into a NEW Covenant . . . a covenant with God's Grace, a covenant in The Spirit. We are made to be like Sarah and Isaac, and come unto Mt. Zion (Heb. 12:22, 23). We do not promote a covenant status by works (flesh). And this was my whole point.

[Raffi]

Peter83,
I DO believe that Jesus/Yeshua is YHWH/God Almighty. I am not trinitarian, though, rather I am Oneness.

[Raffi]

Aquila,
I liked what you had to say. It touched my heart, especially as a Sabbath-keeper. But I would like to mention a couple of points for your thought.
"Legalism" as a word is not actually a word from The Bible, but is a theological concept that was developed by men who in their over zealous loyalty to the Reformation Doctrine of Solifideism, lived in paralyzing fear that ANY THING that might constitute a work of man might nullify their Salvation.

"Legalism" as a concept means any work one does to try to earn Salvation.

We do not teach that Sabbath-keeping is legalism. When people come to me and say that Sabbath is legalism, I tell them that OBEDIENCE is not legalism. Any more than obedience in Water Baptism "earns" one Salvation, Sabbath-keeping does not earn one Salvation. We do not DO Baptism, rather we SUBMIT to Baptism. The "work" inherent in Baptism is not our work, but God's work corespondent to our willingness and obedience. The same principle applies to the Sabbath. It is not OUR work, it is HIS work in us if we simply respond in obedience.

The Sabbath is really the most appropriate symbol of Grace because of all that we submit in obedience to, Sabbath is the one thing that is the OPPOSITE of a human work. By submitting in obedience to His Sabbath, we recognize HIS work both in Creation and in Redemption, and by ceasing all our own works, we show our faith in Him. That is the spirit of The Sabbath.

So I hope your reticence about Sabbath-keeping can melt away in simple faith and trust in Him. And your fear that you may displease Him because of some perceived "legalism" on your part will relax, and you can enjoy His marvelous Sabbath in the way He intended.

Peace.