The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

[Raffi]

I don't want to make anyone mad at me. However, there is an interesting point to this suggestion about sacrifices. I believe that the whole issue of the "abolition of animal sacrifice" has also been very misunderstood in modern Christian theologies. There is a misunderstanding today about the reason, purpose, and nature of the sacrifice in Bible Religion. Furthermore, according to very specific Verses of The Torah, the sacrifices were to be kept so long as there was a Sanctuary active "in the place where I shall put My Name." That is in the Tabernacle and Temple. But The Temple no longer stands, and THAT is he reason the sacrifices do not take place today.

As long as The Temple stood in Jerusalem, the Daily Sacrifice continued even after the Ascension of The Lord, and we are told that every day the Apostles would go to The Temple, obviously it was to participate in the daily prayer services that were associated with those sacrifices (Acts 2:46; 5:42).

If it was The Atonement itself that did away with the sacrifices, why then are there so many prophecies that tell us clearly that animal sacrifice will be resumed in the future Kingdom Temple?
Isaiah 56:6-8
Zechariah 14:16
Jeremiah 33:15-18
Ezekiel 43:18-46:24

You are going to tell me that these are not to be taken literally, but they are allegory.

Sacrifice was not offered in the day of Daniel EVEN THOUGH he lived during the time you say was the Time of The Law of Moses. They did not slaughter lambs or goats in Babylon. Why? Because The Temple did not stand. Does that mean Daniel was in violation of The Torah?

The Temple stood in the day of Messiah, and HE went to The Temple to attend the sacrifices. I tell you, people misunderstand these sacrifices, just like they misunderstand the Sabbaths.

If all sacrifices were abolished, why on earth did Paul pay for the sacrifices of himself and four other Hebrew Christians in Acts 21? So many years after the Ascension. Where have we been missing something in our theology?

I stand consistent in what I say here. These sacrifices were not abolished by Messiah but were ceased because The Temple was destroyed. The sacrifices will be resumed under the Messiah in a future rebuilt Temple in The Kingdom. Likewise, the Sabbath has not been abolished either. And the Sabbath will ALSO be enforced in the future Kingdom over ALL people. Yes, the sacrifices were merely "shadow", but as I have said before, shadow need not be removed merely because the substance is present and seen.

Of all the things I have said, I am pretty sure you are going to think this is my most heretical thing yet. But I am telling you, I am not saying anything that does not have Scripture to back it up.

Peace.

[Esaias]

Raffi, I believe the Bible, especially Hebrews, explicitly teaches the offerings of the Sinaitic Covenant were abolished by the death, resurrection, and exaltation of Christ. If you'd like to discuss that subject, please present what you believe a little more specifically, and we can study the subject.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Raffi

I don't want to make anyone mad at me. However, there is an interesting point to this suggestion about sacrifices. I believe that the whole issue of the "abolition of animal sacrifice" has also been very misunderstood in modern Christian theologies.

Raffi, the New Testament teaches about what i said about animal sacrifices.

Hebrews 10:1-2 KJV For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. (2) For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

Animal sacrifices were for the purpose of removing sin. And if the old ones could have successfully accomplished that, they would have ceased. And if some claim they were not meant for that purpose, then why did Hebrews plainly sat that the work was never indicated as having been done by their offerings due to the fact that they remained standing, as opposed to Christ's work that indicated a finished accomplishment because He sat down?

Hebrews 10:11-12 KJV And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: (12) But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

You would not compare Christ finishing his purpose of sacrifice with the old covenant sacrifices by saying He sat down down whereas they did not, if their purpose never was to finish the issue of sin.

Since Christ finished the issue of sin and sat down to show that, then sacrifices were meant to take away sins. And since Christ accomplished that, then the work attempted by animal sacrifices is over. Those two verses say it all! They prove my point is correct.

There is a misunderstanding today about the reason, purpose, and nature of the sacrifice in Bible Religion. Furthermore, according to very specific Verses of The Torah, the sacrifices were to be kept so long as there was a Sanctuary active "in the place where I shall put My Name." That is in the Tabernacle and Temple. But The Temple no longer stands, and THAT is he reason the sacrifices do not take place today.

That is not what Hebrews 10 says was the reason.

As long as The Temple stood in Jerusalem, the Daily Sacrifice continued even after the Ascension of The Lord, and we are told that every day the Apostles would go to The Temple, obviously it was to participate in the daily prayer services that were associated with those sacrifices (Acts 2:46; 5:42).

The reason the apostles did that was because they had not yet received the full understanding of things like those written in Hebrews 10. They soon learned the truth of these issues. But it took decades, for they were receiving insight until the last book of the new testament was written. That means at the early point, they did not know those things, though they were true anyway.

And when Paul explained the difference between grace and law, he plainly noted that the reason he kept certain vows and sacrifices was not because God required it of him, but because he knew he could not reach Jews due to offence should he not be practicing those things.

1 Corinthians 9:20-21 KJV (20) And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; (21) To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

If it was The Atonement itself that did away with the sacrifices, why then are there so many prophecies that tell us clearly that animal sacrifice will be resumed in the future Kingdom Temple?
Isaiah 56:6-8
Zechariah 14:16
Jeremiah 33:15-18
Ezekiel 43:18-46:24

You are going to tell me that these are not to be taken literally, but they are allegory.

Of course they are allegory. If Christ plainly was the last sacrifice as Hebrews 10 claims, then those old sacrifices were shadows of Christ. And if they were shadows of Christ in the time in which they took place before the cross, then to write of Christ in a prophecy would include the use of the shadow as well. That's why Ezekiel spoke of sacrifices. They represent Christ. Otherwise Hebrews 10 is nonsense.

Sacrifice was not offered in the day of Daniel EVEN THOUGH he lived during the time you say was the Time of The Law of Moses. They did not slaughter lambs or goats in Babylon. Why? Because The Temple did not stand. Does that mean Daniel was in violation of The Torah?

In days of Old Covenant Law, of course they required the temple, and that is why Daniel did not offer. But that does not do away with the fact that Hebrews 10 says Christ put and end to sacrifices. Again, and I repeat this because SO MANY miss it... if those sacrifices were not meant to take away sins, and to end when they could achieve that goal, then why was Christ's finished work compared to their work as though to make theirs unfinished by virtue of the fact they COULD NOT SIT DOWN? You do not say their work was not something that was meant to remove sins once and for all if you turn around and then say their perpetual standing indicated an unfinished task.

And since God knew their sacrifices could never remove sin during that old covenant period, of course he would say they must offer so long as there is a temple in that covenant.

The Temple stood in the day of Messiah, and HE went to The Temple to attend the sacrifices. I tell you, people misunderstand these sacrifices, just like they misunderstand the Sabbaths.

No, brother, you are not getting the message of Hebrews 10.

If all sacrifices were abolished, why on earth did Paul pay for the sacrifices of himself and four other Hebrew Christians in Acts 21? So many years after the Ascension. Where have we been missing something in our theology?

1 Corinthians 9:20-21 KJV (20) And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; (21) To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.


....that's why.

I stand consistent in what I say here. These sacrifices were not abolished by Messiah but were ceased because The Temple was destroyed.

No, that conclusion is bereft of understanding in Hebrews 10 and 1 Cor 9.

The sacrifices will be resumed under the Messiah in a future rebuilt Temple in The Kingdom. Likewise, the Sabbath has not been abolished either. And the Sabbath will ALSO be enforced in the future Kingdom over ALL people. Yes, the sacrifices were merely "shadow", but as I have said before, shadow need not be removed merely because the substance is present and seen.

Of all the things I have said, I am pretty sure you are going to think this is my most heretical thing yet. But I am telling you, I am not saying anything that does not have Scripture to back it up.

Peace.

No, the most heretical thing you said was that the covenant of sin was represented by Hagar and Mount Sinai, rather than the actual Old Covenant of Israel. But speaking of Jesus' blood not ending sacrifices is very serious, too. Actually, on second thought, you're right. Tt IS more heretical than the Hagar issue, now that I think of it, because you are dealing with the shedding of blood.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Feeding the hungry and taking care of the poor is part of the law.

Nobody is arguing one's righteousness comes through the law.

Interestingly you missed an important, key concept. Why are certain charitable deeds approved, and failure to engage in those charitable deeds grounds for censure and disapproval? Because of moral obligation. We OUGHT to do them, and are TO BLAME if we do not.

That means LAW, it means there is a RULE OF CONDUCT BY WHICH OUR ACTIONS ARE MEASURED. And that LAW is God's, not man's, because only God can reveal a perfect guideline (man, being sinful, cannot be trusted).

But again, nobody is arguing a person is justified by the deeds of the law. Paul clearly explained such a thing is impossible even by the built-in standard of the law itself, because the law has de jure declared ALL are guilty and under sin (Romans 3:19-20).

I do think that many assume that living under "grace" means having no law. I believe that we are bound by a higher law that the Law of Moses was predicated upon, love. Love for God and love for others. That being said, the Sabbaths, feast days, dietary requirements, ceremonial dress requirements, etc. were only for earthly Israel.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I do think that many assume that living under "grace" means having no law.

When people use grace as the reason for not having to obey a command of God, it is reasonable to conclude they are promoting a form of antinomianism.

That being said, the Sabbaths, feast days, dietary requirements, ceremonial dress requirements, etc. were only for earthly Israel.

Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man. That would be Adam, since the Sabbath existed 1000s of years before any Israelite walked the earth. Clean and unclean animals were known in Noah's day at the latest, centuries before Abraham was born. The only ceremonial dress requirements are those required during ceremonies, all of which were limited to the Levitical priesthood. The appointed times were instituted at Sinai, but have a new covenant application, and the history of the apostolic, post-apostolic, ante-nicene, and even post-nicene church shows they were kept in a new covenant context. Much of this has already been demonstrated in this thread, so I won't belabour the point.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

When people use grace as the reason for not having to obey a command of God, it is reasonable to conclude they are promoting a form of antinomianism.

I agree with you completely here.

Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man. That would be Adam, since the Sabbath existed 1000s of years before any Israelite walked the earth. Clean and unclean animals were known in Noah's day at the latest, centuries before Abraham was born.

As was animal sacrifice. It can be argued that though codified in the Law of Moses, these things have always been a type and shadow of the rest to come.

The only ceremonial dress requirements are those required during ceremonies, all of which were limited to the Levitical priesthood. The appointed times were instituted at Sinai, but have a new covenant application, and the history of the apostolic, post-apostolic, ante-nicene, and even post-nicene church shows they were kept in a new covenant context. Much of this has already been demonstrated in this thread, so I won't belabour the point.

Many Jewish Christians continued in the traditions they were raised in. But were these things observed by non-Jewish Christians in non-Jewish communities?

[Raffi]

I have just gotten to reading the last few posts since I have been at the Festival. Now that I am back from the Holiday I will respond as best as I can.

I will admit, I was very surprised with some of these statements because I was left to wonder if folks here are as versed in Historic Theology as I had previously given credit. Some of what I read seemed to me wholly unaware of a number of very significant theological points. I don't want to insult anyone, so the only thing I know to do is address the specific points from the position of a theological discussion. I have at length been trying to avoid that in all these past posts, but at this point I don't see an alternative, because so much of what I can say that is vital to my own argument FOR the Sabbath is dependent on a prior knowledge of certain basic issues that I had simply presumed was already well-known, and now I am no longer so sure.

For some of us I will just add that in my opinion, it is silly for a CHRISTIAN to argue that there is a difference between fulfilling the Law merely as Principle of Love from ACTUALLY fulfilling The Law as an objective standard of righteousness.
Somewhere along the line, this "Christian" discussion has jettisoned the objective aspect of obedience and has opted for a theology of subjectivity which to me just sounds like New Age spiritual relativism. To that, I cannot speak any more accept to say that we must repent, and in repentance come back to a Biblical position of objective obedience.

To others of us, there seemed to have been surprise over my explanation that the sacrifices of old were merely types that held NO efficacious power to save and that they were only stopped because The Temple was destroyed. That there was, in fact, such surprise to my remark about that, it lets me realize that some of you guys apparently haven't heard this viewpoint before. But be assured, friends, I did not concoct this idea out of my own little brain. It really is a theological view (and a pretty well-known one) that has been seriously debated, by far more educated individuals than I. It is a view that has been around even with non-Sabbath-keepers, but many Sabbath-keeping groups have also adopted it and in some cases expanded it.

Look, I might be getting myself routed on heresy accusations here, but I can assure you that if so it is more because of the average person's ignorance regarding the topic than it is my actual heterodoxy. Fact is, as I intend to show, my beliefs about the relationship of Old Testament sacrifices to faith and salvation are very much in the norm, and are not heretical at all.

I challenge the notion that I am a heretic. But if to get to the heart of why I believe that the Sabbath has a continued relevance to Apostolic Believers I must explain a few points regarding the theology of Covenant, allow me then to do so and you will see that Hebrews 10 does NOT teach that the sacrifices of The Old Testament were expiatory, and so their actual abrogation in a physical way is irrelevant to salvation.

God's Covenant is offered by His Grace to Abraham, not as a response to his works. From the very beginning, God required faith, issuing in obedience. Yet, we still see an Abraham who understood that despite Grace, there was still a place for circumcision, animal sacrifice, moral rectitude, tithing, daily prayer, etc. What we learn from this is that for Abraham, these outward works do not contradict God's Grace. Both Grace and Works coexist in true faith.

In His Covenant with Abraham, God promised to make of his descendants a great nation through whom He will bless the whole world. When you understand that you can see that the Mosaic Covenant which came after Abraham is not a "replacement" of the Abrahamic Covenant, but a CONTINUATION of it. There is nothing to indicate that the Covenant of Abraham was set aside by the Mosaic. In fact, you cannot understand the Mosaic Covenant without understanding that The Mosaic Covenant is a direct fruition of The Abrahamic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant is tied up in the Abrahamic. This is basic Jewish theology even to this day:

"Jews believe that there are provisions within the Mosaic Covenant that are so indissolubly tied up with the Abrahamic promises that they are practices as much a part of the Abrahamic Covenant as the Mosaic." (Dan Juster, Jewish Roots, 1995, p. 39)

The Mosaic Covenant is nothing but the "constitutional" phase of the Abrahamic Covenant. The very Feasts of The Torah directly have in mind as the inspiration behind them the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant concerning Israel becoming a nation under God. The Torah, as both National Constitution and Law Text, also has in mind the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham. The Mosaic Covenant is the evidence that God is fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant because through the Mosaic administration, the promises made to Abraham are now being realized in the physical world.

Covenant Theology in Christianity agrees with this thesis and postulates that ALL of Redemptive History is framed over ONE UNIFIED underlying Covenant called The Covenant of Grace, and that all of the successive Bible Covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, Messianic) are but progressive economic administrations, or "outworkings" of that One underlying Covenant. So therefore, the Abrahamic Covenant leads to the Mosaic Covenant, which next leads to the Davidic and into the Messianic.

For this reason, all the terms and promises of the Abrahamic Covenant remained in the Mosaic. This same principle is also true of the Davidic and the Messianic Covenants. They do not replace one another, rather they progressively build atop one another. Like a staircase rather than a boxcar train.

This unified and progressive understanding of the Covenants is why we can say that things like the Sabbath and the Feasts still exist, and are as applicable to Christians as they are to the Jews. NOTHING is "abrogated". Technically, not even those sacrifices. There is no need to require abrogation of them when you understand correctly that they were NEVER EVER understood to be expiatory, redemptive, or atoning.

And as to my "heresy", I do not doubt the efficacy of the Blood of Messiah. If I did, THEN you could accuse me of heresy. I only doubt the efficacy of the blood of animal sacrifices. I only see those animals as type and shadow . . . NOT as actual atonement. So I ask, does Hebrews 10:1-12 explicitly tell us that the sacrifices of the Old Testament system were ABOLISHED BY THE MESSIAH?

I am telling you that they DO NOT.

[Raffi]

Concerning Hebrews 10:1-2.
Verse 1, all these Verses are saying is that clearly they tell us that those sacrifices were only shadow and could NEVER make real atonement. They only pointed to the true Atonement. That the priests had to repeat the rituals continually does not speak to any effectiveness in those sacrifices, in fact it spoke to their IN-effectiveness. The repeated rituals were themselves part of the type.

Verse 2: "For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshipper once purged should have no more conscience of sins'"

You see here. The Verse is not saying here that the sacrifices ceased with the Messiah. The writer is asking a rhetorical question. And then proceeds to answer himself. Why couldn't those sacrifices just be done once and stopped? Precisely because they could NOT atone. They could not provide for real atonement or truly take away sins. If the priests ceased performing the sacrifices after only one time, knowing that the blood of those animals could never really atone for sins, the people would no longer have before them the "reminder" of sin, and therefore have no more cause to look forward to that REAL Atonement which was in the future Messiah. Those sacrifices only served to awaken their "conscience of sins" and "remind" them of the Real Atonement.
So then, the REAL heresy is claiming that anything OTHER than Messiah's Blood could actually atone for sin. Brothers, animal blood could not, could never, and can not ever atone for sin.

[Raffi]

Hebrews 10:4 The Book of Hebrews explicitly states that animal blood could not take away sins.

Nowhere in The Old Testament is it ever claimed that sins were "taken away" (i.e., expiated, completely removed) by animal sacrifices.

The Hebrew word translated "atonement" in The Old Testament is QAPAR, which simply means "covering". It does not mean "removal".
All the sacrificed animals in The Old Testament did not take away any sin. They only served as a "covering". How so? They were foreshadows of the future Blood Atonement of Messiah and as such pointed the worshiper's faith to THAT Atonement. This served to raise the worshiper's consciousness to his/her own sin and to its awefulness, but served also as a mnemonic device reminding the worshiper of God's Gracious Mercy and pointing toward the Real Atonement which is in Messiah. In that way, the best that could be said of those old sacrifices was that they "covered" sin. Animal sacrifices were NOT for the purpose of removing sin. They served as SHADOW ONLY. Period! There existed ZERO actual efficacy in those sacrifices other than having the ability to move the heart of the worshiper to faith.

Hebrews 10:11 Now on the other hand, the phrase "take away" here is translated from the Greek word PERIAIREO, which does convey the idea of removal.
So you see, rather than comparing Messiah's Atonement to the old animal sacrifices and claiming that the two systems are in like manner, the writer of Hebrews does the very opposite. He contrasts the two systems, claiming that the former system could never take away sin, but that Messiah's Blood COULD.

[Raffi]

The writer of Hebrews CLEARLY tells us it was NEVER possible for the blood of animals to take away sins. It is not even a question. To understand why we MUST take Hebrews 10:1-4 for what It says, that The Laws about sacrifice were only there as a SHADOW, not as a real means of atonement. He is arguing that those sacrifices held NO power to forgive sins.

But now in Hebrews 10:12-14 we see that Messiah brings ONE sacrifice, and that alone is sufficient for ALL TIME -- past, present, and future. The writer then proceeds to explain just how this works by explaining how the concept of FAITH worked for people in The Old Testament, how that faith is demonstrated by action (cf. James 2:22). A given so-and-so had inward faith, and so responded to that inward faith by DOING such-and-such, thus perfecting his/her faith. This is how the sacrificial system worked. They were but TOKENS for the purpose of raising conscience and helping the worshiper release his/her faith by DOING an act of worship, an act of corresponding deeds. But the OBJECT of the worshiper's faith was never the sacrificial animal or it's blood, but the Gracious Provision of The Almighty God, which we NOW realize was secured in the person of Messiah.
So now, the reason that Messiah could sit down was because his sacrifice was NOT a mere type or shadow.
And THAT is the point of Hebrews 10:11-12.

But, you might ask, Doesn't Leviticus plainly tell us that the sacrifices atoned for the people's sin?

Leviticus 16:2, 6, 9, 30
The word "clean" is translated from the Hebrew word TAHOR. In the understanding of the writer of Hebrews, when commenting of these Levitical Passages, it was not the blood of the animal that provided the cleansing, but it was the FAITH of the worshiper (in this case the priest) that provided the cleansing (Hebrews 10:4).

Animal sacrifices illustrated to the mind of the worshiper the severity of sin, the cost of rebellion against God, the death that sin brings according to Deuteronomy 28, and the cost that is required to be paid to atone for that sin. The Old Testament sacrificial system was a picture, a symbolic playact representing the Real Atonement that would come later.