The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

[Raffi]

Whether before or after the earthly ministry of The Lord and his Finished Work, sacrifices NEVER had redeeming power. They existed only as symbols that pointed to the Work of Messiah. The writer of Hebrews plainly tells us that sacrifices NEVER did forgive sins. The writer of Hebrews calls the sacrifices an "annual REMINDER of sin". When the writer of Hebrews 10:1-5 is talking about The Law here, he is not talking about the whole TORAH, rather the context shows that he is talking exclusively about the Laws of Sacrifice, and he says of them that they are ". . . only a SHADOW of the good things that are coming -- not the realities themselves."

Shadow has no substance, friends. Shadow cannot DO anything of actual reality. They only "indicate", "suggest", "point to" something else -- namely the Real Atonement in Messiah. If you believe that these old sacrifices actually atoned for sins, you are diminishing the actual efficacy and distinctiveness of Messiah's Blood in the Work of The Atonement. You are also making a case that as far as God in concerned, He is willing to accept more than one way to Salvation -- one by animal sacrifices and the other by the Atoning Blood of Messiah. I cannot accept that, because I believe that in every Age there has always only been ONE way of Salvation, and that way has been and is still in the Atoning Blood of the Messiah.

[Raffi]

There is no way around it, if you believe that anything other than the Messiah's Blood has been a means for Salvation, then you believe in the "Two Ways of Salvation" heresy. I believe in and teach ONE WAY of Salvation, in EVERY AGE. That is not heresy. that is plain orthodoxy. Salvation is and has always been a work of God in behalf of Humankind, never a work of the human in behalf of God. Furthermore, God has never saved any one person on any other ground than in the Blood of Messiah alone. There is and has always been, therefore, only one way to be saved. This truth is so solid that it is upheld by Covenantists, Wesleyans, Baptists, and other groups, and even though earlier Dispensationalists were accused of teaching the "Two Ways" error, later Dispensationalists like John Walvoord actually had to back away from the "Two Ways" position in order to save Dispensationalism as a system.

[Raffi]

The discussion of sacrifices necessarily brings up the question, Were those living before the Crucifixion saved in a different way than people are saved today? Are there two ways of Salvation revealed in Redemptive History, or only One Way of Salvation?

"The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various ages."
(Charles Ryrie)

In other words, no matter what Dispensational Age a person lives in, his/her Salvation is ultimately centered on the Work of Messiah in the Atonement and a faith placed in God. Only the amount of explicit knowledge that a person had concerning the specifics of Revelation has changed.

"In short, it appears that at most, the normative Old Testament salvific requirements (in terms of explicit belief) were (1) faith in God's unity, (2) acknowledgment of human sinfulness, (3) acceptance of God's necessary grace, and possibly (4) understanding that there would be a coming Messiah."
(Norman Geisler)

Evidences of the real presence at least of the first three points is supported by numerous Passages of Scripture, such as Gen. 15:6; Joel 2:32; Heb. 11:1-2.

Scripture plainly states that faith is the key to salvation for all people down through History. The basis of Salvation has been, and will always be, the sacrifice of Messiah in the Atonement, and the means of Salvation has always been faith in God.

[Raffi]

What I am saying here is considered normative theology. I am not making any of this up.

It is normative in both Covenant Theology AND in Dispensational Theology.

Covenant Theology, for example, centers on the concept of The Unified Covenant of Grace, which began with Adam, runs through The Old Testament and New Testament, and is the same in substance under both The Law and Gospel. Under The Law, the sacrifices, prophecies, and other types and ordinances of The Law points to Messiah, and men and women were justified by their faith in him just as they would be under The Gospel.

Even later Covenant theologians under the influence of Reformed church leaders, continued to insist that all people in every Age were saved the same way in the Unified Covenant of Grace. They even put a finer point to that by insisting that the benefits and conditions of The Covenant of Grace were NOT received by duties required (works of The Law), but were extended freely by God's Grace, and that the requirements of The Law were to be seen simply as assumptive and confirmatory -- NOT themselves redemptive.

In Covenant Theology, the Covenant of Grace is the BASIS for all succeeding Covenants that God has made with Humanity in History, and under Covenant Theology, submission to God's Rule and obedience to His Moral Law (i.e., The Ten Commandments) was a RESPONSE to Grace -- never a means with which to earn Salvation.

There HAVE been a few Covenant Theology writers who have irresponsibly made statements that seemed to indicate that The Law WAS a means of Salvation (such as Oswald Allis and Louis Berkhof). But these guys spoke such statements outside of the consensus of Covenant Theology as a whole, and themselves didn't even believe that way. Covenant Theology has always insisted on only ONE way of Salvation down throughout History.

Allow me to quote a few recognized names in Covenant Theology:

"There is not a doctrine concerning Christ, taught in the New Testament, which the Apostles do not affirm to have been revealed under former dispensations. They therefore distinctly assert that it was through Him and the efficacy of His death that men were saved before, as well as after His advent."
-- Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. II, p. 371


"Perhaps the most important implication of the covenant of grace is that there has always been only one way of salvation. The way of salvation in the Old Testament era was essentially the same as it is for Christians today. As the Westminster Confession put it, Old Testament believers looked to 'the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation'. The divine purposes behind the religious arrangements of the Old Testament were 'for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah.' No doubt, many aspects of this affirmation need to be clarified . . . while Reformed theologians may answer these questions differently, all agree that Christ was the implicit or explicit object of saving faith even in the Old Testament. His death and resurrection have always been the basis of salvation for all who believe."
-- Richard L. Pratt, Jr., To The Jew First: A Reformed Perspective

"Evangelism guided by Reformed theology insists that the law of Moses remains God's law for his people today. Contrary to many Christian traditions, Reformed theology does not present Christianity as opposed to the guidance of Mosaic law. Christian traditions that tend toward antinomianism often require Jewish converts to abandon their traditions such as Sabbath-keeping, annual Feasts, and dietary observances . . . (but) Reformed theology finds all Mosaic law valuable for Christian living, and promote open attitudes toward Jewish Christians who wish to preserve their distinctively Jewish practices. Just as the book of Acts indicates that the apostles did not forsake all of their Jewish traditions as they followed Christ, so Reformed evangelism today should not discount many of the practices of contemporary Jewish Christian congregations . . ."
-- Richard L. Pratt, Jr., To The Jew First: A Reformed Perspective


"Salvation has always come through a covenant of grace (founded on an eternal and unilateral covenant of redemption), rather than on a contract or one's personal fulfillment of the law."
-- Michael Horton, God of Promise, p. 36


"On the one hand, we must resist concluding that the covenant concept in inherently conditioned upon personal performance and, on the other, that it is inherently gracious in character. In both cases, we are making a priori judgments about what a covenant can and cannot be rather than attending to the diverse ways in which the word is used in the Scriptures. Covenant in both Old and New Testaments, so we have argued, is a broad term encompassing a variety of arrangements: most notably, conditional covenants of law and unconditional covenants of promise."
-- Michael Horton, God of Promise, pp. 67-68


That believers are saved in ALL Ages through the same Atonement of Messiah rather than by works of The Law is also affirmed by other Covenant writers, such as:

R. C. Sproul
Paul Washer, and
J. I. Packer

[Raffi]

It is not just Covenant theologians who believe this way. Normative Dispensationalists ALSO uphold this same doctrine of Salvation.


"Are there two ways by which one may be saved? In reply to this question it may be stated that salvation of whatever specific character is always the work of God in behalf of man and never a work of man in behalf of God. This is to assert that God never saved any one person or group of persons on any other ground than that righteous freedom to do so which the Cross of Christ secured. There is, therefore, but one way to be saved and that is by the power of God made possible through the sacrifice of Christ. "
-- Lewis S. Chafer, "Editorial", Bibliotheca Sacra Vol. 102, No. 405 (1945): 1


"The law was never given as a means of salvation or justification."
-- Lewis S. Chafer, Grace, p. 113


"Law neither justifies a sinner nor sanctifies a believer . . ."
--C. I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible, 1245


"It is exceedingly important to observe . . . that the law is not proposed as a means of life."
-- William Pettingill, Bible Questions Answered, p.470


"Dispensationalism does not teach two ways of salvation . . . "
-- Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism,


"The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement of salvation in every age is faith: the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various ages."
-- Charles Ryrie,


"Salvation has always been, as it is now, purely a gift of God in response to faith. The dispensational tests served to show man's utter helplessness, in order to bring him to faith, that he might be saved by grace through faith plus nothing."
-- Daniel P. Fuller, "The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism", p.157


"In every age of the world's history there has been only one gospel, only one way to salvation."
-- William MacDonald, Believer's Bible Commentary, p.1215


"In every age, there has been but one way of salvation -- faith in God's promise -- though the outward evidence of that faith has changed from age to age."
-- The Wiersbe Bible Commentary: New Testament, p.237


" . . . there are not two ways of salvation. All salvation of God stems from the Savior, the Son of God, and His work on the cross . . . The two great essentials of salvation remain the same from the salvation of Adam to the last soul which God takes to Himself in the future. Faith is the condition and the death of Christ is the basis."
-- John Walvoord, "Series in Christology - Part 4: The Preincarnate Son of God", Bibliotheca Sacra. Vol. 104, No. 416, (1947): 422


"Let it be stated categorically that Dispensationalism has not and does not believe that the Law of Moses was a means of salvation. This concept is rejected because it would make salvation by means of works. Salvation was and always is by grace through faith. While the content of faith has changed from age to age, depending on progressive revelation, the means of salvation never changes. The law was not given to serve as a means of salvation (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16; 3:11, 21)."
-- Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, pp.590-591


". . . dispensations are successive stages in God's revelation of his purposes. They do not entail different means of salvation, for the means of salvation has been the same at all periods of time, namely, by grace through faith."
-- Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, p.1163


"The major reason that salvation must be a result of God's gracious activity lies in the condition of man. God demands absolute righteousness of any creature who would be saved. But no one except Christ ever met such standards . . . if God were to deal with men in strict justice alone, no one would be saved. Thus, since God has chosen to save men, He extends divine grace toward them . . . God's method of salvation is always a grace method, never a works method."
-- Feinberg, "Salvation in the Old Testament", p.53


". . . [dispensationalists] never believed that one is saved by the law. They have always taught that the basis of salvation was the death of Christ."
-- Mal Couch, A Biblical Theology of the Church, (1999), p.34



The theological concept of the "One Way to be Saved" is common to Covenant Theology, Dispensational Theology, and ALL of the main schools of Christian theology that I know of. I hold to a form of Remnant-Of-Israel Theology and it too believes this way. If I am a heretic for my claim that the blood of animals has NEVER atoned for sin, and ONLY Messiah's Blood has atoned, then I stand as a heretic with ALL of these other theologians, whose general soteriology on this question is likewise generally accepted by Holiness, Pentecostal, and Apostolic theologians as well.
Concerning the ancient animal sacrificial system under The Law, we know that the blood of these animals did not actually remove sin -- only the Blood of Messiah can do that kind of miracle. But the sacrifices DID "cover" the people (Heb. 9:11-14). But the worshiper was purified not by the sacrifice itself, but the faith released through his act of obedience (same principle as seen in Baptism of Water and Spirit).

[Raffi]

There are are group of people that I know who DO teach that sacrifices in The Old Testament saved people from their sins. The Ultra-Dispensationalists.

One of the things that got normative Dispensationalists into so much trouble with Covenantists in the early-to-mid-1900s was the accusation against Dispensationalists that they were teaching "Two Ways of Salvation" by claiming that animal sacrifices was an actual method of atonement in the Old Covenant. Scofield DID make a remark to such but later corrected himself. Still, the damage was done and Covenantists to this day continue to beat Dispensationalists up with that remark and insist that Dispensationalism teaches "Two Ways of Salvation".

"Two Ways of Salvation" is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. It is NOT the historic teaching of Christianity, and it is NOT the official position of any modern Apostolic denomination. God has NEVER allowed for legalism to be a method of salvation in ANY Age. There has always only been ONE way, and that is by faith through Grace.

Every body knows that if you teach that people had their sins forgiven by the blood of animal sacrifices in The Old Testament, you are guilty of saying two things:

* God has promoted legalism as a means of salvation in the past.

* History has presented ways to be saved OTHER THAN the Blood of Messiah.

Nobody with any credential wants to say either one of these two points. They know that this is heresy. I have books in my private collection that show theologians going far out of their way to make sure no one says that they teach this "Two Ways of Salvation" heresy. Covenantists AND Dispensationalists.

Now, Ultra-Dispensationalists DO say it. Dual-Covenant folks say it. A few other fringe groups say it. I think same SDA theologians have said as much, in their attempt to prove their "Two-Laws" Doctrine. But no responsibly educated Christian will teach this.

I am a Set-Apart Apostolic. None of us teach this "Two-Ways of Salvation" doctrine. We teach Salvation by faith through Grace alone, in Messiah alone, for EVERY AGE since Adam. ONE WAY to be saved. PERIOD.

Granted, when I was UPCI I remember hearing a preacher once in a while make remarks like that, back when I didn't know better. But I am telling you, I don't know of ANY of the actual educated theologians of the UPCI who believe that animal sacrifices literally atoned for sins. I don't even think David K. Bernard believes that. Every main theologian I've ever studied (Covenant, Dispensational, New Covenant, Remnant Israel, Messianic, Progressive Dispie) all agree that Hebrews 10 proves that animal sacrifice did NOT atone for sins, and THAT is why those sacrifices were constantly repeated. And that is why those priests could not sit down. It is the nature of the type, that the type cannot accomplish what only the substance can.

The only people that I know who insist that animal sacrifices in the Mosaic Covenant were actual atonement sacrifices are the Hyper-Dispies and the Ultra-Dispies. Especially the Ultra-Dispies (Acts 28 Dispensationalists). There is the occasional mispeak by others, but in the main, most people agree that to teach that those sacrifices provided a literal atonement for sin is an affront to the Blood of Messiah, and contradicts Hebrews 10. So if I am a heretic for saying that, so are all these theologians and other Christian leaders.

I am not trying to say that all theologians agree with every single thing I have said on this forum. But as to this issue, I know what is taught and it happens so that in this point I agree with the main. Old Testament animal sacrifice did NOT atone literally for sins in ANY Age of Redemptive History. They existed as "shadows" ONLY, pointing in EVERY AGE to the Real Atonement of the Messiah.

This is why Peter, James, John, and even Paul could continue to go up to The Temple in Jerusalem and continue making the Offerings and Sacrifices, decades after The Lord's Ascension and not feel like they were going against Grace. They knew that those sacrifices were only tokens . . . only symbolic gestures and nothing more than that.

And so now to THAT point as dealt with in Acts 21, I want to turn real quick.

[Raffi]

I want to hit Acts 21 real quick because of something Mike said.

Mike, concerning your statement that the Apostles in Acts continued to keep Sabbaths and other "Jewish" Feasts, that the Grace Doctrines were present but that the Apostles "didn't know these things" until Paul came. By saying this you are suggesting that the "Christianity" that was revealed to the Apostles was not the FULL Truth. That it wasn't until Paul had the correct insight. But there are some serious problems with that theory.

* What the was the Resurrected Lord teaching the Apostles for 40 days (Acts 1:3)?

* What are we to make of Paul's account in Galatians 1 that after being alone for 3 years, he compared his doctrine with that of the Jerusalem Apostle's doctrine, and they were in agreement?

This is what Ultra-Dispensationalists teach. They say that between Acts 2-28, Christianity as taught by the Jerusalem Apostles was a mixture of Jewish-Christianity, but that Paul alone received a purer Gospel, that was superior to what the first Apostles had taught. Paul received the Message of the Mystery of Christ, which was a more heavenly vision of Christian Faith than what was taught by Peter, James and John. And that we should go by Paul's Doctrine today NOT the doctrine of the Hebrew Apostles, which was a inferior Gospel. Ultra-Dispies believe in the "Two-Ways of Salvation" Teaching.

It strikes me as funny how that the Apostles themselves supposedly "didn't know these things", but WE do. And yet, ironically, we call ourselves Apostolic.

Almost all of the leading scholars and historians today agree that the original form of historic Christianity was in every way that is important, a Hebraic form of Christianity. Although a lot of this was in time lost to most of Christianity in the West, there are still some traces of Hebraic elements that can be seen today in Eastern forms of Christianity, such as Coptic, Syriac, and Malabar.

And what's more, there is a clearly documented historical trail about how the Sabbath and the Feasts were gradually removed from Christianity, if anyone truly cares to look at the record and study it.

If anyone wants to deny that the Sabbath was a part of original Apostolic Christianity, he/she would have to do so with blind eyes to this history and with a deliberate effort to remain ignorant of everything we now know about the facts of biblical text and post-canonical history. The other options are Ultr-Dispensationalism, or as Mike has opted, Okay, these things WERE a part of early Apostolic Christianity but it was only because they had an INFERIOR form of Christianity and had not yet learned the full truth. At which case we can neither trust the Book of Acts for doctrine and practice, or any epistle written before Acts 28, which puts us back in with Ultra-Dispensationalism again.

My view is this, If Acts is our model for APOSTOLIC faith, why are we today not continuing therein? If they "soon learned the truth" of those things, where is the record of it? Certainly not in Acts, and definitely not in Hebrews, James, Peter, John, Jude, or Revelation. And so one is left with the writings of Paul which Peter says is hard to understand (2 Pet. 3:16) and I concur has been misinterpreted by theologians who have a theological ax to grind against all things they deem "Jewish".

[Raffi]

Paul wrote the Epistle of 1st Corinthians to the predominately Gentile church at Corinth. many scholars now believe that Paul wrote the Epistle during the Feast of Unleavened Bread, because of several points of internal evidence, especially chapter 5, where Paul uses the analogy of leaven to make important spiritual points about sin. This clearly implies that the Corinthians must have already had an understanding of putting out leaven during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 5:8 Paul actually gives an instructive command to the Corinthians about the correct manner for keeping the Feast. Some have tried to say that this command was intended to be taken as figurative. However, the whole reason that Paul says to "keep the Feast" is because "Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us". Messiah's sacrifice was a literal event; thus, in keeping with that pattern so is the Festival that relates to his sacrifice. Daniel B. Wallace, in his Greek Grammer Beyond the Basics explains that the phrase "let us keep the Feast" is horatory subjunctive, which "is commonly used to exhort or command oneself and one's associates. This use of the subjunctive is used to urge someone to unite with the speaker in a course of action upon which he has already decided." (p. 464).

Apparently, the Corinthian Believers were accustomed to keeping Passover without feeling that doing so was "going back under The Law".

People who argue that only such Commandments that are explicitly repeated in The New Testament are still valid for Christians. This is called the "argument from silence". But how do we explain that Paul and other Apostles continued also to keep OTHER "Jewish" Feasts that do not seem to have any explicit "command" in The New Testament? It is my belief that The New Testament does not repeat MANY Old Testament Commandments because the writers of The New Testament Writings assumed that these Truths were already evident from The Torah, and needed not repeating.

If this is not enough to prove that Paul was a Christian Torah-keeper, I would like to propose that one of the strongest proofs of Paul's loyalty and commitment to The Torah is summed up in a quote of his from Acts 18:21; "I MUST BY ALL MEANS keep this Feast that cometh in Jerusalem . . ."

Paul did not say this to impress the Jews in Ephesus. He said this because he felt a personal conviction about the binding religious obligation of Passover. Some have questioned whether this verse is valid because it is not found in some manuscripts. But, the verse is in the earliest manuscripts, leaving one to wonder if the verse was deliberately omitted later because it offers much too strong a support for the validity of the "Jewish" Feast Days among early Apostolic Christians.

What's more, no one questions the validity of Acts 20:16. In this verse, we see Paul's determination to be in Jerusalem for Shabu'ot. He had intended to be there for Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, but circumstances required him to keep them locally (Acts 20:1-6). That made him even more determined to be in Jerusalem for the next Feast Day -- Shabu'ot.

The Expositor's Bible Commentary makes it clear:
"Having been unable to get to Jerusalem for Passover, Paul remained at Philippi to celebrate it and the week-long Feast of Unleavened Bread." (Vol. 9, p.507).

The Book of Acts makes it very clear that Paul did not dump The Law when he became a Christian. Although later, there were those who accused Paul of teaching Jews to "forsake Moses" (Acts 21:20-21), Paul proved this accusation to be false when at the behest of James he performed the "cleansing sacrifice" ritual for himself and four other Hebrew Christians who had taken a Nazarite Vow according to Numbers 6.

He did not do this to win the Jews to Christ as some have claimed. Acts 21 specifically tells us the reason. He did it to PROVE to all of his accusers that even as a Christian he still kept The Torah (Acts 21:22-24).

And in keeping with James' instructions (v. 24), Paul went into The Temple and made the Purification Offerings for himself and for four other Jewish Christians who had also been on a Nazarite Vow (Acts 21:26). Are we to say that even still, so late in the narrative of the Acts story, Chrsitians STILL have not received the full truth of The Pure Gospel?

We know that Paul kept Torah laws even by his own voluntary choice. We already saw that in Corinth, Paul got fed up with the Jews there and decided instead to preach to those Gentiles who were interested (Acts 18:6). Paul met with these Gentiles every Sabbath day for 1 and half years (Acts 18:4, 11). That is a total of 78 Sabbaths.

Some people have tried to argue that Paul did this in order to win the Jews according to 1 Corinthians 9:20-22. But keep in mind that most of the time Paul was there, he preached ONLY to Gentiles.

In Acts 18:18, we are told that Paul shaved his head at Cenchrea because he was on a vow. What vow? It would have been a Nazarite Vow, according to Numbers 6. Why did Paul do this? Was it to impress the Jews so as to win them to The Gospel? No. It was because Paul wanted to make the annual Pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover Feast (Acts 18:21).

Cenchrea was in Corinth. Paul had continuously spent more than a year and a half among the Gentiles (Acts 18:8, 11, 18). Some say that Paul continuously instructed the Gentiles not to keep The Law of Moses, yet no less than THREE times, Paul contradicts this assumption by the taking of the Nazarite Vow in the presence of Gentiles (Acts 18:18; 21:24-26; 24:18). This is the same Paul that in 1 Cor. 11:1, asks the Corinthians to be his imitators.

So in Acts 18:21 Paul specifically says to his GENTILE converts: ". . . I MUST BY ALL MEANS keep this Feast that cometh in Jerusalem . . ."
Was this so as to win the Jews to The Gospel according to 1 Cor. 9:20-22? No. Paul said this to Gentile Christians. He said, "I" must keep this Feast. In other words, it was a personal commitment that HE himself felt. He felt a RELIGIOUS NECESSITY to keep that Feast. Not because of pressure from the Jews. Not even in order that he might impress the Jews. It wasn't even just a matter of convenience to go up to Jerusalem, for he was at that time very far away from Jerusalem.

Just as Paul didn't keep those Sabbaths at Corinth to win the Jews, he did not seek to keep this Passover to win the Jews. He kept those Sabbaths week-after-week-after-week because HE BELIEVED IN THE BINDING OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. We are told in Acts 17:2 that it was PAUL'S custom to go to the synagogue on the Sabbath. It was HIS custom to do so. In Acts 13:14 Paul preached on the Sabbath to Jews and Gentiles, but the Jews there were "filled with envy" (13:45). They were incensed against Paul. But the Gentiles came to Paul and asked him to preach to them the FOLLOWING SABBATH (Acts 13:42). Paul did not correct them and instruct them for a different day, but the following Sabbath Paul met with the Gentiles that following Sabbath Day (Acts 13:44).
Paul was an Apostolic Believer and Apostolic Believers in The Book of Acts KEPT THE SABBATH.

[mfblume]

Raffi, thanks for your thoughts, but I must take exception to the following:

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:

The bible plainly states the contrary.

Galatians 3:15-22 KJV Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. (16) Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (17) And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. (18) For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. (19) Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. (20) Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. (21) Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. (22) But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Paul explained that the law that came by Moses was not of faith, and that was making a contrast to the promise to Abraham. And to further make the contrast between the two, we read Law cannot disannul the covenant given to Abraham focused on promise. The law came 430 years after the covenant was made with Abraham. It is by no means a continuation of the covenant of Abraham. That was meant to help us see that the contrast was so stark that one MIGHT THINK the Law disanulled promise. And Paul even gives the reason why people might think that. He noted the Law is not of faith like the promise was, because Abraham's faith made the promise applicable to him.

If inheritance of the promise be of Law, showing the law certainly is NOT a continuation of promise, then the inheritance is no longer one of promise. But we read God distinctly "promised" the inheritance to Abraham.

So, although there is an extremely STARK contrast between Law and Promise, disallowing any note of continuation of Promise, Paul states law was incredibly necessary. And the purpose is dealing with transgressions til Christ, the ONLY OTHER heir to the promise aside from Abraham should come.

Until Christ should come, something had to be implemented to handle transgressions, and that something was Law. But that was ONLY UNTIL Christ should come.

And there is another issue to do with transgressions. The Law concludes everyone under sin. This corresponds to Paul's words to the Romans regarding the purpose of Law. It came to how that when Christ comes, He is not only coming for the sins of gentiles, but Israel itself was so full of sin, and required redemption from it, that Law would expose that sin to them. This was for the purpose of p[roving to Israel their need of salvation from sin, alongside the truth that Christ would inherit the promise given to Abraham before Law existed.

When the Seed Christ would come, things would revert back again to FAITH, OF WHICH LAW WAS NOT, so even Jews would realize they must BELIEVE, along with Gentiles, in order to receive the promise.

And this shows how the importance of faith. If only Abraham and Christ were heirs of the promise, how could anyone else be heirs? Law-keeping? Of course not. Paul already stated law was NOT OF FAITH. But through FAITH, we become one with Christ in His death, which solves the conundrum of how only Abraham and Christ were heirs, but yet anyone can receive the promise.

So, Law was NOT a continuation of Abraham's covenant. It was an interim means of teaching a lesson about transgressions, so that when Christ would come, ALL, not just Jews and not just gentiles, can become heirs BY FAITH!

Law was neither a replacement to Abraham's covenant, nor was it a continuation of it.

I am not concerned about the traditions of Judaism in this regard. I am concerned about the tradition of the apostles and what they distinctly taught about the matter.

Blessings!

[Raffi]

In Acts 21:39 Paul says "I AM a Jew . . .", not "I WAS a Jew". Even though he was a Christian, Paul did not see this as a break from his previous religious heritage. He simply saw himself now as a "Jewish Christian".
In Acts 22:3 Paul again admits to being a Jew.
In Acts 24:14 Paul flatly and plainly admits: "But this I confess unto thee . . . believing ALL things which are written in THE LAW and in The Prophets."
Acts 25:8

In Acts 28:17-20 Paul admits that as a Jewish Christian he had NOT committed an offense against the Customs of "Our Fathers" (that is, the ABBOT -- the Rabbinic Fathers). In trial Paul presented himself as a "Jew", and not as a "Christian". His whole defense was that he had NOT denounced his affiliation to Judaism, nor had he converted to some new religion. Instead, Paul chose to go to his death as a Jew rather than renounce his affiliation to that religion. Even as a Christian, Paul never surrendered his commitment to God's Law.

Rom. 7:25 ". . . with the mind I myself serve The Law of God: but with the flesh the law of sin."

The last book of The New Testament to be written was probably either The Gospel of John, or The Book of Revelation. BOTH of these books support a continued validity of The Commandments of Torah. Several times within this Book there is a repeated motif of religion in which one sees BOTH the keeping the Commandments of Moses along with the keeping of The Testimony (Gospel) of Messiah.

Rev. 12:17
Rev. 14:12
Rev. 15:3

In Revelation 22:14 in the KJV, we see that those who shall have the privilege of partaking if The Tree of Life shall be those who "DO His Commandments".