7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believers

[mfblume]

This subject needs its own thread outside of the Islam section where it initially occurred.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Colossians 2:8 speaks of the stoicheion (rudiments or elements) of the world, connected to philosophy and vain deceit and traditions of men. That clearly does not describe the law of God.

We do not determine the reference of a term like elements and rudiments based on what list items are associated with it when the term itself is defined in a distinct way that clearly shows its reference. ELEMENTS means basic necessary building blocks. Necessary and good is the basic note.

STOICEION

Neuter of a presumed derivative of the base of G4748; something orderly in arrangement, that is, (by implication) a serial (basal, fundamental, initial) constituent (literally), proposition (figuratively): - element, principle, rudiment.

A fundamental.

The reason it's listed among vain deceit is because it is abused as being necessary when it's actually been fulfilled.

The same word is here:

Galatians 4:3.. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:


Israel was under bondage to these elements of the world. Paul is speaking of WE as in himself and the other jews who were under law. He just said (!!) in the previous chapter (Gal 3) that the law was a schoolmaster under how they no longer abide once Christ comes. The idea he is giving for being under schoolmastery of LAW is a bondage.

Gal 3:23.. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed...

PHROUREO (kept means GUARDED)

SUGKLEIO (SHUT UP) in subjection to.

It's clearly talking about elements of Old covenant rites and rituals and observances. The elements of the world under which Israel was kept and shut up under in bondage is LAW and its now-fulfilled rites and rituals.

When Paul plainly stated in Galatians that Israel was bound and subjected to the schoolmaster of Law, and then said that time of tutoring was over when "graduation" came, he not only is showing the expired purpose of the tutoring of law as a schoolmaster, but shows the error of remaining beneath it, letting us know the reason it's listed with traditions of men and vain deceit in Colossians 2 is because it's as wrong to follow traditions of men and vain deceit as it is to remain under a bondage that one is no longer meant to remain under. It's like saying, "You follow men's ideas and deceitful teachings at the same time you're under a set of rules observances and rites that were fulfilled and no longer meant to be followed."

Therefore, the stoicheion in Galatians do not "need" to be the law of God. In fact, Galatians 4:3 speaks of the "stoicheion of the world", not the stoicheion of God,

'

It's called the elements of the WORLD, not because it is not of God, but because LAW used material and outward observances that were physical representations using physical acts that were foreshadows of non-physical realities like a rest after physical activity that foreshadows a rest after spiritual activities of a sacrifice made by Jesus in heaven in atonement. His work was non-physical while the work engaged in before a sabbath rest is worldly activity of labour that is not speaking of evil or good, just necessary labour.

The world does not only involve evil. The day to day labour of a man working to support his family is a worldly activity that is not evil.

Anything of THIS WORLD that is not evil is noting in comparison to the greater existence of heavenly realities that are intangible. It's a contrast of the world, and its good and innocent things, versus heaven and its superior realities.

and Galatians 4:8 says the Galatians were previously pagans who did not know God and worshipped that which was not actually divine, and then verse 9 says they were falling BACK to the weak and beggarly stoicheion

I already showed that BONDAGE is the object here, and as Israel was in BONDAGE UNDER THE ELEMENTS OF THE WORLD when they were KEPT and made SUBJECT to the rituals and observances of LAW, but were meant to have graduated from them when Christ came is as much of a bondage as bondage under idols, albeit intended of God whereas bondage under idols was not. But the bondage under law is bondage nonetheless, and when saved gentiles went under Old Covenant rituals and observances that Jews were kept in subjection under til Christ came, it was a subjection and bondage similar to their bondage under idols. They went from one form of bondage to another!

to which they had previously served. Thus, the Galatians were not "going back to the law" but to the stoicheion (elements) of their paganism. The text is clear, the grammar is clear, the meaning is clear.

Their servitude under law, as Israel experienced, was as much of a servitude as under idolatry, as Paul clearly said what it was like under law in chapter 3.

Paul never speaks of the law of God in such disparaging terms as "weak and beggarly".[/ The same epistle says if a law could have been given that would produce righteousness it would have been the law of God given through Moses. Elsewhere Paul describes the law as weak - not in itself, but through our own flesh. That is, the law is fine but WE are the problem. And the solution God provided is Christ, and His Spirit, which accomplish what the law itself could NOT: secure our righteousness. And this looks like "doing the things contained in the law" per Romans 2:14-15. And so any doctrine which concludes with it's okay to NOT actually do the things written in the law (like it's okay to NOT remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy) is not in conformity with Paul's doctrine.

Paul said the law written in the heart produces "doing the things written in the law". The Bible is clear that the law written in the heart is a product of the new covenant work of the Holy Ghost. Therefore the new covenant work of the Spirit is to write God's laws in the heart, producing the actual performance of the commandments of God. Nothing Paul says is contrary to that, he repeatedly affirmed it. He further declared he was NOT without law, but under the law to Christ. Being "of the law" or "of the works of the law" means to seek justification through the old covenant. It does NOT mean just to obey the commandments of God. Being "of faith" means to seek justification by Christ, through faith in God's provisions of mercy. It does NOT mean to NOT be obedient to the commandments of God. Genuine faith results in actual obedience to the commandments of God.

All the arguments used against Sabbath keeping - if correct - would dissolve all ten commandments, and even apostolic practices like the Lord's Supper, baptism, laying on of hands, etc, as I already proved.

The commandment is to sanctify the DAY, the seventh day of the week. You most certainly are violating that commandment if you choose not to sanctify the DAY as God commanded. The commands to offer animal sacrifices are NOT obeyed by believing in Jesus, they are SUPERCEDED by the new covenant, which the old testament plainly anticipates concerning burnt offerings and the Levitical priesthood, and which since 70 AD you couldn't offer anyway no matter how much you wanted to. But the same old testament not only does NOT teach the fourth commandment would be altered, superceded, and done away with, but in fact teaches the opposite. And Jesus and the apostles confirmed that as well.

to be continued...

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias View Post
Colossians 2:8 speaks of the stoicheion (rudiments or elements) of the world, connected to philosophy and vain deceit and traditions of men. That clearly does not describe the law of God.

We do not determine the reference of a term like elements and rudiments based on what list items are associated with it, tio understand what it means, when the term itself is defined in a distinct way that clearly shows its reference. ELEMENTS means basic necessary building blocks. Necessary and good is the basic note.

STOICEION

Neuter of a presumed derivative of the base of G4748; something orderly in arrangement, that is, (by implication) a serial (basal, fundamental, initial) constituent (literally), proposition (figuratively): - element, principle, rudiment.

A fundamental.

The reason it's listed among vain deceit is because it is abused as being necessary when it's actually been fulfilled.

The same word is here:

Galatians 4:3.. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:


Israel was under bondage to these elements of the world. Paul is speaking of WE as in himself and the other jews who were under law. He just said (!!) in the previous chapter (Gal 3) that the law was a schoolmaster under how they no longer abide once Christ comes. The idea he is giving for being under schoolmastery of LAW is a bondage.

Gal 3:23.. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed...

PHROUREO (kept means GUARDED)

SUGKLEIO (SHUT UP) in subjection to.

It's clearly talking about elements of Old covenant rites and rituals and observances. The elements of the world under which Israel was kept and shut up under in bondage is LAW and its now-fulfilled rites and rituals.

When Paul plainly stated in Galatians that Israel was bound and subjected to the schoolmaster of Law, and then said that time of tutoring was over when "graduation" came, he not only is showing the expired purpose of the tutoring of law as a schoolmaster, but shows the error of remaining beneath it, letting us know the reason it's listed with traditions of men and vain deceit in Colossians 2 is because it's as wrong to follow traditions of men and vain deceit as it is to remain under a bondage that one is no longer meant to remain under. It's like saying, "You follow men's ideas and deceitful teachings at the same time you're under a set of rules observances and rites that were fulfilled and no longer meant to be followed."

Therefore, the stoicheion in Galatians do not "need" to be the law of God. In fact, Galatians 4:3 speaks of the "stoicheion of the world", not the stoicheion of God,

'

It's called the elements of the WORLD, not because it is not of God, but because LAW used material and outward observances that were physical representations using physical acts that were foreshadows of non-physical realities like a rest after physical activity that foreshadows a rest after spiritual activities of a sacrifice made by Jesus in heaven in atonement. His work was non-physical while the work engaged in before a sabbath rest is worldly activity of labour that is not speaking of evil or good, just necessary labour.

The world does not only involve evil. The day to day labour of a man working to support his family is a worldly activity that is not evil.

Anything of THIS WORLD that is not evil is noting in comparison to the greater existence of heavenly realities that are intangible. It's a contrast of the world, and its good and innocent things, versus heaven and its superior realities.

continued...

[mfblume]

and Galatians 4:8 says the Galatians were previously pagans who did not know God and worshipped that which was not actually divine, and then verse 9 says they were falling BACK to the weak and beggarly stoicheion

I already showed that BONDAGE is the object here, and as Israel was in BONDAGE UNDER THE ELEMENTS OF THE WORLD when they were KEPT and made SUBJECT to the rituals and observances of LAW, but were meant to have graduated from them when Christ came is as much of a bondage as bondage under idols, albeit intended of God whereas bondage under idols was not. But the bondage under law is bondage nonetheless, and when saved gentiles went under Old Covenant rituals and observances that Jews were kept in subjection under til Christ came, it was a subjection and bondage similar to their bondage under idols. They went from one form of bondage to another!

to which they had previously served. Thus, the Galatians were not "going back to the law" but to the stoicheion (elements) of their paganism. The text is clear, the grammar is clear, the meaning is clear.

Their servitude under law, as Israel experienced, was as much of a servitude as under idolatry, as Paul clearly said what it was like under law in chapter 3.

Paul never speaks of the law of God in such disparaging terms as "weak and beggarly".

Sure he did!

Rom_8:3.. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Compared to the new covenant, law was BEGGARLY. It was elementary like Kindergarten is beggarly compared to a job in the economic world.


Scholars who hold your historicism agree perfectly!

BARNES:
To the weak and beggarly elements - To the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish law, imposing a servitude really not less severe than the customs of paganism. On the word elements, see the note at Gal_4:3. They are called “weak” because they had no power to save the soul; no power to justify the sinner before God. They are called “beggarly” (Greek πτωχὰ ptōcha, poor), because they could not impart spiritual riches. They really could confer few benefits on man. Or it may be, as Locke supposes, because the Law kept people in the poor estate of pupils from the full enjoyment of the inheritance; Gal_4:1-3.

Whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage - As if you had a wish to be under servitude. The absurdity is as great as it would be for a man who had been freed from slavery to desire his chains again. They had been freed by the gospel from the galling servitude of paganism, and they now again had sunk into the Jewish observances, as if they preferred slavery to freedom, and were willing to go from one form of it to another. The main idea is, that it is absurd for people who have been made free by the gospel to go back again into any kind of servitude or bondage.

ADAM CLARKE
To the weak and beggarly elements - After receiving all this, will ye turn again to the ineffectual rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic law - rites too weak to counteract your sinful habits, and too poor to purchase pardon and eternal life for you? If the Galatians were turning again to them, it is evident that they had been once addicted to them. And this they might have been, allowing that they had become converts from heathenism to Judaism, and from Judaism to Christianity. This makes the sense consistent between the 8th and 9th verses.

The teaching is so clear.

Paul says they as Jews were kept and guarded, as in bondage, to the schoolmastery of law in chapter 3. SHUT UP in SUBJECTION to law, until Christ came. Chapter 4 says they were in bondage to the elements of the world in verse 3 in his comparison of a student under tutorship as Jews were under LAW.

He says gentiles who got saved were under bondage of idols, but were turning to Israel's former BONDAGE under tutorship of LAW.

Then he says they were keeping days, month and years. Were there not DAYS, MONTHS AND YEARS Kept under LAW????

Did Paul not compare subjection and being guarded over by LAW in Chapter 3 with students being under TUTORS in chapter 4?

Did not Paul also compare their subjection to law in chapter 3 with bondage to elements (elementary schooling) of the world in chapter 4?

Did not Paul say they were "shut up" under law in the sense of BEING HELD UNDER and away from anything greater that would come with Christ, UNTIL Christ came in chapter 3 , while chapter 4 says they were students until graduation day in chapter 4?

He mentions idolatry ONCE in speaking of the gentile believers' former bondage, but mentions the tutorship of Jews under elements of the world right after he stated they were shut up and kept under the LAW as a SCHOOLMASTER in chapter 3.

The association with tutorship and under governors in chapter 4 with bondage to the elements of the world clearly shows elements are referring to elementary schooling that law was expressly stated to have stood as in chapter 3!

Is not the term "ELEMENTS" related to the word "elementary" in the concept of ELEMENTARY SCHOOL?

How much more plain can it get?

And your reference to Colossians speaking of RUDIMENTS/ELEMENTS of the world in 2:8 occurs before the same chapter speaks of the blotting out of the handwriting of ORDINANCES of Law in verse 14, showing the expiration aspect of law and its rites. To see how LAW continues to be the issue in Colossians 2, he refers to meats, drinks, holy days, new moons and sabbaths!

How more plain could he be?

To say that your need to not allow anyone to judged you in reference to meats, drinks and sabbaths means to continue to do so depsite their criticisms is proved patently wring seeing as it follows the statement that the cross blotted out the handwriting of ordinances. Holy days, sabbaths and new moon feasts were ORDINANCES, Esaias.

You do not tell someone that ordinances OF LAW were blotted out and then turn around and tell people to not let anyone judge them, if we're meant to know we're supposed to keep them. An ORDINANCE is a DECREE, and sabbaths, meats drinks, etc., were DECREED under LAW.

Col 2:20.. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,..
Col 2:21.. (Touch not; taste not; handle not;..
Col 2:22.. Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?..

Here, Paul stated that TOUCH NOT, TASTE NOT, HANDLE NOT were things upon which Paul warned them against focusing, because sabbaths are all about NOT TOUCHING and NOT HANDLING on a certain day, as opposed to other days, and laws of meats and drinks were rulings against the TASTE NOT of certain foods and drinks.

How can we miss it?

continued...

[mfblume]

The same epistle says if a law could have been given that would produce righteousness it would have been the law of God given through Moses. Elsewhere Paul describes the law as weak - not in itself, but through our own flesh.

And that is the reason he said it was WEAK. Law was WEAK, nonetheless. It was weak because of our inability in our flesh. It was weak nonetheless. He simply provided the reason in Romans 8, which he did not elaborate on in Gal 4. That's all.

'' That is, the law is fine but WE are the problem.

Exactly, which fits my proposal perfectly. My view does not disallow that.

And the solution God provided is Christ, and His Spirit, which accomplish what the law itself could NOT: secure our righteousness. And this looks like "doing the things contained in the law" per Romans 2:14-15. And so any doctrine which concludes with it's okay to NOT actually do the things written in the law (like it's okay to NOT remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy) is not in conformity with Paul's doctrine.

That is a completely false conclusion you make. Those conditions do not restrict us to your conclusion. The truth of the matter, using all of Paul's thoughts on the issue, is that Law was weak and could not fulfill righteousness in us because of the inability of our flesh that disallowed that from occurring. So, Christ did what law could not do. Furthermore, law was not only weak because of our flesh, but it had an expiry date on it as much as tutorship and governors had an expiry date on them that occurred when the "graduation" came with Christ's arrival. For, the law "subjected" Jews under its tutorship and bound them away from the greater factors of more superior involvement and activity that Christ would bring us into when he'd cause us to know new birth. So, we're no longer meant to be under the ELEMENTARY SCHOOLING of the A,B,Cs of observances that used the world's material requirements, like working jobs and resting every week from them, or refraining from tasting certain drinks or eating certain foods under law.

Furthermore, in reference to your thoughts of what WEAKNESS refers to, when Paul used the term weak and beggarly elements, it is WEAK of a believer to still be restricted to certain meats or drinks since Christ came!

1Co 8:4.. As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one...
1Co 8:5.. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)..
1Co 8:6.. But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him...
1Co 8:7.. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

Paul taught that a person's CONSCIENCE is WEAK when it hinders them from serving God when they consider another believer who eats meats offered to to idols. When Paul said that an idol is nothing when the issue of meats offered to idols was raised, he was trying to say in actuality there's nothing wrong with eating meats offered to idols when we know the idol is not a god at all, but only wood or stone, and that there is truly only ONE REAL GOD. Such WEAK believers are clinging to a WEAK law in comparison to the strength afforded by faith that retains the understanding there is only one true God, rendering the meat only food. If it's ONLY FOOD in reality, since the idol is NOTHING and not a god at all, then so long as a person is fully aware of that, there is no sin in eating meat offered to idols, WHICH WAS OFTEN BOUGHT in the meat markets for COMMON FOOD after the idolatrous ritual involving them was over.

And the only reason Paul tells believers to refrain from such meat is for the sake of the WEAK CONSCIENCE of the one easily offended from serving God by such eating, not the sake of the STRONG believer's conscience that is not offended due to the AWARENESS of the truth.

In like manner, it is WEAK of a believer to think he still has to keep the seventh day, when the apostle clearly stated that such days are part of the weak elements listed as observances under law.

This does not meant, as you're sure to bring up, that the ten commandments also state to not murder, so we can murder if our consciences are not weak, for there's nothing ceremonial in the need to not murder seeing as murder is a moral issue aside from religious ceremony.

Furthermore, we actually KEEP SABBATH when we rest in the work of the cross, seeing as sabbath was a shadow of this superior rest, as much Paul said we establish the law as of God when we demand that Jesus is the last sacrifice and we need not keep old covenant animal sacrifices, because those foreshadows were FULFILLED and EXPIRED, as much as sabbaths were, when Christ came, because Israel under LAW UNTIL Christ came.

Refusing a seventh day rest based on the day God rested from the work of old creation is establishing the law by showing that law of the 7th day was right and good in foreshadowing the fact that as God rested after his work of old creation, Christ rested after his work of new creation when he sat down on the right hand throne in heaven (Hebrews 10).

It is as much a case of rejecting, albeit unknowingly due to lack of understanding, the NEW CREATION and its -new covenant, and clinging to the old non-regenerating covenant, when one continues to keep sabbath day and fails to see a NEW CREATION in Christ's rest after His ascension and KEEP THAT SUPERIOR REST!

Paul said the law written in the heart produces "doing the things written in the law". The Bible is clear that the law written in the heart is a product of the new covenant work of the Holy Ghost.

And that's why we keep the need for sacrifice for sins that law demanded, but without the old covenant's form of animals, and instead the superior form in Christ's sacrifice! This also makes it the reason we do not keep the inferior seventh day sabbath honouring God resting from the work of OLD CREATION, and instead KEEP THE SUPERIOR rest noted in Hebrews 4 of Christ resting after the work of the superior NEW CREATION by going to his throne where He rested instead of continuing in our own works of law.

Therefore the new covenant work of the Spirit is to write God's laws in the heart, producing the actual performance of the commandments of God.

Not in the way you think, though. When those aspects of law fall under the ceremonial and religious rites and observances that were shadows of Christ and His work or rest, the superior fulfillments being kept discount the need for the keeping of the inferior shadows.

Nothing Paul says is contrary to that, he repeatedly affirmed it. He further declared he was NOT without law, but under the law to Christ.

You mistake what LAW he meant here. He said that IN CONTEXT of saying he is not under law as a Jew. But just because he is not under OLD COVENANT LAW, that does not mean he is not under ANY LAW AT ALL.

1Co 9:20.. 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;..

He acted AS under Mosaic law, when in reality he was not.

He did not keep that law because God wanted him to. He did it TO WIN THOSE UNDER LAW. So as not to offend them, in the same way he said eating meats offered to idols is not to be done ONLY if it offends someone whose weak conscience demands the refraining.

And then he said...

1 Corinthians 9:21.. 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.

...because he is under A GREATER LAW.

He spoke of three laws in Romans 7. Mosaic law, law of sin and death, and LAW OF THE SPIRIT OF LIFE IN CHRIST JESUS, and none of each is a synonym for the other. THIS is the Law of 1 Cor 9:21 that he said he was under. Not Mosaic law.

Being "of the law" or "of the works of the law" means to seek justification through the old covenant. It does NOT mean just to obey the commandments of God.

Incorrect. To be under law is to keep it, and that is in regard to the ordinances and ceremonial OBSERVANCES like sabbath, which IS a ceremonial issue since it is observing the day God rested from His Genesis work.

Being "of faith" means to seek justification by Christ, through faith in God's provisions of mercy. It does NOT mean to NOT be obedient to the commandments of God. Genuine faith results in actual obedience to the commandments of God.

No need to continue under ceremonial observances.

All the arguments used against Sabbath keeping - if correct - would dissolve all ten commandments, and even apostolic practices like the Lord's Supper, baptism, laying on of hands, etc, as I already proved.

Again I said this in this post, as well as MANY previous posts to you, and I say it again, but you continue to write as though I did not: WE KEEP TRUE SABBATH, of which the seventh day was only a shadow, when rest in the rest wherewith Christ rested after He finished His work of atonement through the cross. There is no such similar fulfillment in the command against murder or adultery like there is in this with sabbath. But you'll keep on repeating that inapplicable argument even though I've stated the difference many times now.

The commandment is to sanctify the DAY, the seventh day of the week. You most certainly are violating that commandment if you choose not to sanctify the DAY as God commanded.

Not when we know it's a shadow of the superior REST that Christ rested with after He finished his work of NEW creation on the cross, as much as refraining from animal sacrifices, but honouring Christ's sacrifice as the final one seeing as it fulfilled its TYPE in the animal sacrifices.

You spiritualize JERUSALEM by your refusal to go to natural Jerusalem to keep the feasts when you claim the Church is New Jerusalem in the Spirit, but you do not see the contradiction in the keeping of the very feasts you keep which also were fulfilled with the superior events involving Christ. You are not consistent.

The commands to offer animal sacrifices are NOT obeyed by believing in Jesus, they are SUPERCEDED by the new covenant,

Your reasoning here would demand you continue offering animal sacrifices, despite the fact that Christ's was SUPERCEDING THEM, since you demand we keep sabbath day since even though Christ's rest after NEW CREATION SUPERCEDES the rest after old creation but you think we must still keep old creation sabbath rests!

which the old testament plainly anticipates concerning burnt offerings and the Levitical priesthood, and which since 70 AD you couldn't offer anyway no matter how much you wanted to.

I don't claim ad70 offered any of that, but rather the CROSS offered it!

But the same old testament not only does NOT teach the fourth commandment would be altered, superceded, and done away with, but in fact teaches the opposite. And Jesus and the apostles confirmed that as well.

Wrong wrong wrong. As I proved above.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias View Post
Paul said they are shadows of things to come. Did those things come? What were those things, and when did they come?

Yes they came.

The thing that sabbath day was a shadow of was Christ's rest after the work of NEW CREATION when he sat down on the right hand throne after the work of the cross and atonement THAT is the reason we read what we do in Hebrews 4 when we see that the sabbath day as well as the entrance into Canaan were SHADOWS of the rest that remains long after the sabbath day was kept by people, and long after Joshua led Israel into the rest of Canaan, seeing as David spoke of this superior rest centuries after those facts, indicating there was something apart from them that God wants us to enter.

THAT is also why the end of Hebrews 4 tells us to boldly go to the throne of Grace where CHRIST SAT DOWN AND RESTED after His work of new creation, which is raised again in Hebrews 10 where he actually compares Christ's seating in rest, on that same right hand throne, with the non-resting and -non-seated old covenant priests whose work of sacrifices never ceased since they could never actually remit sins.

When Paul said they are shadows of things to come, the body/Body of Christ had already come.

Paul was writing from the perspective of time when they were commanded BEFORE Christ came. I say this over and over again and you write as though I did not.

Thus, they are not shadows pointing to either the church or Christ (since Christ had already come and been exalted, and His church was in full operation, WHEN Paul affirmed the new moons and Sabbath days were still shadows of things yet to come).

The days of shadows are COMPLETELY over. NOTHING today is a shadow in the new covenant. There is nothing we lack except a changed and made-immortal body, and that has nothing to do with a shadow of something, anyway.

Quote:

Jeremiah 31:31-34 speaks of the new covenant. This new covenant would include God writing His law in the heart. The new covenant is not about God's commandments going away or somehow becoming non-obligatory. Paul says the law written on the heart produces the effect of DOING THE THINGS WRITTEN IN THE LAW (like remembering the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, among other things).

And AGAIN, we keep the sabbath command by resting in the new creation rest after CHRIST SAT DOWN following his work on the cross.

You continue to use the term "law" out of proper context. Heb 7 has to do with the priesthood being changed from Levi to Melchizedek.

And priesthood is part and parcel of the ENTIRE LAW. It is not a reference to a specific law under the entirety of the law, as if priestly law alone was the point. Priestly issues are related to the entire overall law, itself. It would be redundant to say a change of priesthood demands a change of priesthood law! Change of priesthood is obviously a change of priestly law, but to say a change of priesthood marks indication of the change of the entire law altogether is the point.

If, as you seem to be insisting, the COMMANDMENTS have "faded away" in such a manner that you therefore need not remember to keep the seventh day (the Sabbath of the LORD) holy, then you need not honour your parents nor abstain from idolatry, either. That is the necessary and logical conclusion from your lines of argumentation.

Ad nauseum references I ALREADY dealt with.

The law was not nailed to the cross. There is no verse that says that. Brother, your doctrine and belief has you repeatedly saying things that the Bible does not actually say.

You have the same type of EXACT WORD doctrine that dispensationalists have when they say Jesus is not called the holiest of holies in the bible, although it says his body is the NAHOS. SAME THING.

Col 2:14.. Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;..

The handwriting of ordinances was AGAINST US, just as the overall law itself was called the ENMITY...

Eph 2:15.. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;..

Do you demand circumcision of male children today? I fear you must, since you do not realize the fulfillment in baptism into Christ's death to remove the body of sins of the flesh FULFILLS circumcision rendering in unnecessary today, because you keep sabbath day even though it was a shadow of Christ's rest after new creation work and you demand we still keep the seventh day.

Blotting of handwriting of ordinances was against as as much as Law was an enmity. It does not have to use the exact words you demand, when it says the same thing in synonyms elsewhere!

Is sabbath day an ORDINANCE? Show me how Sabbath day is not one of the ordinances of the handwriting of ordinances nailed to the cross.

Just like trinitarians and their trinity, Baptists and their "saved first, then baptized" teachings, etc. You should notice that, and ask "Why?" Colossians 2:14 says "the handwriting of ordinances, which was contrary to us, which was against us" was "blotted out", " taken out of the way", and nailed to the cross.

This is the cheirographon, the certificate of debt. It's a technical, legal term in 1st century jurisprudence. It is the formal accusation of wrongdoing brought before a court against a defendant. It is NOT the commandments of God.

They are the ORDINANCES OF LAW used in type of the legalities and terms used in the first century. Why do you think it said that before listing sabbaths?

EVERY ARGUMENT YOU USE AGAINST THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT APPLIES TO ALL TEN OF THEM. How it is you cannot recognize that is beyond me.

What I cannot understand is how you faithfully reject and forget every statement I make, and I've made it often enough, that says we KEEP the REAL SABBATH that the OLD foreshadowed.

If it's not dishonesty of you, and I do not, see you're dishonest, then it can only be enemy robbing you of this understanding. For that, I'll pray for you.


Please tell me what the ordinances refer to in the handwriting of ordinances against us, noted in Colossians 2, if they're not the list of items Paul quoted right after that, that were ordinances of old covenant law!

[mfblume]

Historicists agree:


Adam Clarke:

Which are a shadow - All these things were types, and must continue in force till the Christ, whom they represented, came; the apostle therefore says that the body - the substance or design of them was of Christ - pointed him out, and the excellent blessings which he has procured. The word σκια, shadow, is often used to express any thing imperfect or unsubstantial; while the term σωμα, body, was used in the opposite sense, and expressed any thing substantial, solid, and firm. The law was but the shadow or representation of good things to come; none should rest in it; all that it pointed out is to be sought and obtained in Christ.

Albert Barnes:

But the body is of Christ - The reality, the substance. All that they signified is of or in Christ. Between those things themselves which are in Christ, and those which only represented or prefigured them, there is as much difference as there is between a body and a shadow; a solid substance and a mere outline. Having now, therefore, the thing itself the shadow can be to us of no value; and that having come which was prefigured, that which was designed merely to represent it, is no longer binding.

And others:

BW JOHNSON:

Or of the Sabbath day. The Jewish Sabbath had passed away with the law.

Which are a shadow of things to come. The body, or substance, which casts the shadow is Christ. We are to pay no attention to the shadows since Christ has come, but to observe what we find in him and the gospel.

[mfblume]

Israel alone was meant to keep sabbath since no one kept it until Moses and Israel. Not Abraham. Not, Isaac, not in Jacob's living days.

And in northern Canada, in my country, the seventh sundown does not occur every so many 24-hour periods like it does in Israel. It was not to be clocked on watches, but by sundowns.

Y'all need to hear SUNDOWN by Canadian singer Gordon Lightfoot.

[mfblume]

The truth of the fulfillment of Sabbath, indicating it was indeed a shadow of the body of Christ, Himself, points to the finished work of NEW CREATION that Jesus caused by the cross.

The seventh day was made holy and called sabbath rest because God worked 6 days in old creation and rested the seventh day after.

The New covenant is a NEW creation. Jesus did the work on the cross to bring about this new creation. And after He did that work, He ascended into haven and sat down RESTING.

Hebrews chapters 3 through 4 lays out the two foreshadowing elements of this NEW creation sabbath in the form of entrance into Canaan's rest under Joshua, and the seventh day after creation when God rested. Hebrews 4 pulls both these pictures together to explain the rest in CHRIST.


The DAY in the Psalm is the DAY in question in Hebrews 4, and it’s not the seventh day Sabbath. Again, that is because the context of using Canaan’s “rest“ was by saying long after Joshua led them into Canaan, which was finally experienced, there was yet another day not yet experienced.

Sabbath day was the second type of the rest Paul spoke of, here:

Heb 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

He simply stated the works and preparation for man to be able to enter the rest God had in mind were actually completed in Genesis’ first week, because we read God rested form all his works.


Hebrews 4:5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.

Heb 4:5 then quotes this verse:

Psa 95:11 Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.

The rest is not a Sabbath day as Paul finally concludes the point at hand by writing these words:

Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

We are told to labour by mixing the word with faith because that word cuts unbelief from our hearts like a sword that cuts marrow from bone. Therefore, let us come to the throne of God when we have a need, and do so in faith that GOD WILL ANSWER and help. THAT is the rest we are reading about.

Entering the holiest is actually the ENTIRE POINT of the book of Hebrews, and it is noted again in Chapter 10 . And Paul is showing all the various angles of what coming to throne affords us. One of which is help in times of need. And that is a rest we experience when we do not fret, worry or become frantic in unbelief, but calmly know God will help and we go to him in faith.

It’s exponentially beyond the keeping of a day of the week.

Christ is at the throne to whom we need to come boldly when we have need. This is contrasted from OUR OWN WORKS, which is clearly a reference to the works of the law for justification.

Heb 4:10.. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his...

Cessation from works is what Law is all about. And to say that one can keep law elements while not believing they're justifying us is to defeat the purpose of Law which was TO MAKE US RIGHTEOUS. The idea that law is to be kept without the thought of using it to become righteous is not ever mentioned in the Bible anywhere. Lawkeepers today claim Paul referred only to a distortion of the law's purpose in the minds of pharisees when they make that claim. That is not true. Law was meant to bring us life according to Paul's reference to Leviticus 18:5. Paul did not refer to a pharisees' book of distorted purposes for law, but to MOSES. He said MOSES demanded people keep law to be made righteous and gain eternal life. He used Lev 18:5 in contrast to the truth of how we're made righteous by comparing it to Habakkuk 2:4 where we read the just shall come to LIFE by FAITH! We LIVE by faith, not by law. We come to eternal life that gives us righteousness BY FAITH, not the law keeping that Moses stated would give life in Lev 18:5. He was not comparing a pharisee's means to get life with Habakkuk 2:4, but MOSES' WORDS in Lev 18:5!!

I cannot emphasize that enough.


Act 13:39.. And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Paul was not referring to pharisaical interpretations that were wrong about Law, even though certain Pharisees were being addressed. Like Gal 3:12, he was referring to the actuality of law.

So, people ask why Law came, then, if law was meant to make us just and righteous, while all the while God knew man could not keep it successfully. Paul explains why in Galatians 3:21-25.

Galatians 3:21-25.. 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. ..(23).. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. ..(24).. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. ..(25).. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.


It came as a temporary thing after Moses until Jesus came, just as Gal 3 goes on to say that it was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.

And Paul said it's no more meant to be kept now since Christ than days, months and years are in the same context in chapter 4 of being kept from the law of Moses.

JESUS RESTED after his work of New creation on the cross. He sat down at the very throne to which we're supposed to come according to Hebrews 4:14-16. Since we cease from the works of law to be righteous, and rest in Christ's finished work, indicated by his seating after his ascension, we come to that THRONE for help in time of need... to live righteously and live holy.

Paul carries this thought of the throne on in Hebrews 10 where we read Jesus sat down after his sacrifice which made new creation, as opposed to the priest of Moses who never sat down since their work to purge sin was never fulfilled through animal blood. So, we enter the holiest where the throne of Christ is, and where He sits, as Israel was meant to enter Canaan and as Adam was supposed to enter God's rest of the seventh day.

[Steven Avery]

I've long found the position in favor of the seventh day sabbath to be very simple, resting on the Decalogue.

And the arguments against the keeping of the creation 7th-day sabbath I have found to be quite convoluted, tortuous and even at times headache-inducing. (No aspersion meant on the thread here.)

There is a maxim I came up with some years ago:

You can tell that a belief is foundational and significant by how convoluted and illogical are the arguments made it against the belief.

The first place I thought about this was the harmony of the baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Over the years I have seen additional applications.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

I've long found the position in favor of the seventh day sabbath to be very simple, resting on the Decalogue.

And the arguments against the keeping of the creation 7th-day sabbath I have found to be quite convoluted, tortuous and even at times headache-inducing. (No aspersion meant on the thread here.)

There is a maxim I came up with some years ago:

The first place I thought about this was the harmony of the baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Over the years I have seen additional applications.

You did not address the greater point I noted speaking of new creation. Far from convoluted, it simply teaches that Christ did the written for new crayon on the cross and rested in the right hand throne, to which Hebrews 4 tells us to come after speaking of the shadow in the sabbath. Check out also Hebrews 10. I'm only repeating what Hebrews stated.