THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT - My Personal Testimony

For a long time, I knew that my church didn't worship on the Biblical sabbath. I was told, that, the New Testament christians "changed" the day to Sunday - the day of the resurrection.Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law and sabbaths, but The Ten Commandments were written by God, Himself, with his own finger. They reveal His character. Jesus, not only didn't do away with the Ten Commandments, He amplified them (if any look on a woman to lust, he has committed adultery with her in his heart).This justification for the change cannot, possibly, be true. It is not possible for any man or institution to change God's law. Let's be honest...christians don't even sanctify Sunday. Why is this the only commandment that christians try to excuse themselves from?Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments."(John 14:15) John said, "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (1 Jhn 2:4)When we keep the Ten Commandments, by the power of the Holy Spirit, we give evidence that we belong to Him.Rome says, "It's (Sunday's change for Saturday) the MARK (emphasis added) of our authority to over-rule God's law." Father Enright, C.S.S.R., President of Redemptorist College, Kansas City, Mo., History of the Sabbath, page 802.There are several other direct quotes from the Catholic church referring to the sabbath change (at The council of Laodicea) as her "mark". God instituted the sabbath at Creation. It is the day to celebrate Him as our Creator and Lord. Do we love Him that much?

Col 2:16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.Galatians 4:9 But now that you have come to known God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn your back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.Romans 14:5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.If we are going to be Biblical about Sabbath keeping, let's be Biblical. Biblically speaking, the Sabbath day observance has been done away with entirely, it has not been changed to Sunday. The notion that the Scriptures changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday is simply bad theology that has no basis whatsoever Scripturally. That is not to say one cannot still keep the Sabbath (be it a Saturday or Sunday) if they so feel compelled to do so- but if you are going to do it, do it fully (so turn off your power, phones, air conditioner, don't drive anywhere, etc).Christ is my Sabbath however, I do not need any days to observe Him as such. I enjoy the Sabbath that God entered into, and never left from, since the beginning of creation so long as I rest in Him. This is the true Sabbath, and is what Hebrews 4 speaks of in detail. The Sabbath as an ordinance though was never observed or handed down to be observed until it was given to Moses. Christ has freed us from having to observe the shadows of the Law. The Law was but a mere treasure mapfull of various symbols to point us to where the cross marked the spot. Now that we have found the treasure, we no longer need that map. Thus, we are no longer obligated to "keep the Sabbath holy" or to observe Sabbaticals and the like. It matters not if the commandment was one of the ten. Technically speaking, there was nothing special in then ten than the other 613, the ten simply served as the intro to the rest of the Law.

King Jimmy, I would like to ask you a question: since you do not literally observe a sabbath, what do you do with your week of 7 days? work? ginnyrose

I can't speak for Jimmy but I agree with him, and I worship God every single one of the seven days of the week. On Sunday I listen to the pastor's sermon and congregate with the Body of Christ. I do not work seven days out of the week and that day happens to be Sunday. Not because I am "keeping" the Sabbath, but because it is when my prefered local congregation gets together to listen to our pastor and chat our week and relationship with God.Peace and God Bless!

If you worship on Saturday, keep on!If you worship on Sunday, keep on!"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."If Christ was crucified on Friday, He slept through the Jewish Sabbath, and rose on Sunday. If one chooses the Saturday Sabbath, and keeps all the OT laws, ie: jubilee, passover, etc, let him do it to the Lord. I clearly read, "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, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?"But if somebody doesn't believe that and loves Jesus I'm for them. Let's just make sure we are loving everbody Jesus loves. John R Rice said, "I'm going to get to heaven one day...I don't want to have to apologize to anybody when I get to heaven because I wouldn't talk to 'em down here."Good link on the subject:http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/freedomfromsabbathkeeping.shtml

ginny,Until this weekend, I worked 14 days in a row at work, due to the fact that I am only one of two people able to fulfill my position (book keeper), and now since the other person has quit, I am the only one until somebody else is hired, and trained (which may take several more weeks). Besides that, even if I only went into work 5-6 days a week, a Biblical Sabbath would require me to do no household chores, nor do anything whatsoever that caused another human being to work. I was reading in Nehemiah recently how zealous he was for the sabbath that as governor, he would not allow anybody into Jerusalem on the sabbath, and forbade tradesman to even so much as setup camp outside the vacinity of the city. So, for people who are going to talk about keeping the Sabbath, by all means, keep the Sabbath. Prepare all your meals the day before, shut off all your electricity, don't drive anywhere, don't eat anywhere else, do no household chores, etc. Or as Abraham Heschel (a jewish scholar) once told a story of a man who was so zealous for the Sabbath that he thought should he see that his fence needed fixing while on Sabbath, that he would NEVER fix the fence. Sabbath observation is not simply choosing to hold public worship days on a Saturday instead of Sunday.

"So, for people who are going to talk about keeping the Sabbath"I don't believe it's about what we want to do,It's about "if ye love me keep my commandments."I believe we are using the triditions of man to move aside the laws of God. Jesus said pray that you don't have to flee on the sabbath.hmmm sounds like he ment us to keep it.It all comes down to am I going to keep his word. if not why am I calling my self a christain?I just pray to keep his word right and to walk as he wants me too.

The 'sabbaths' were a unique sign between God and his ancient people of Israel. This is not just the weekly Sabbath but all the 'sabbaths' which included the seventh year Sabbaths and the year of Jubilee which was two Sabbath years back to back. These 'sabbaths' were the outward expression of Israel's faith and obedience.Ex. 31:13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. Ezek. 20:12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them. Ezek. 20:20 And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the LORD your God. The personal sign of faith and obedience was circumcision.Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: If you insist upon the one you should also insist upon the other. This was not so 'visible' in ordinary life but was a lasting brand that the man belonged to God.The distinguishing mark of old Israel was its 'sabbaths'. Coming under the law did not only necessitate keeping the 'sabbaths' but keeping the whole of the law. This will be found in Exodus 20-24. The breaking of these laws could only be mitigated by the sacrificial system and Levitical priesthood. They have to go together; it is not possible to separate one from the other;Heb. 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. ... and as that priesthood is no longer available there is no possibility of sin being mitigated.It is a package deal. You cannot commit yourself to a single law of your choice; it is all or nothing. James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Heb 4:1-11 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. (2) For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. (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. (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.*(Exodus 20:11) (5) And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. (6) Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: (7) Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, Today, after so long a time; as it is said, Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. (8) For if Joshua had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. (9) There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. (10) For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. (11) Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.The rest that a Christian is commanded to enter into is his faith in Christ according to Hebrews Ch.4 which equates the "rest" of faith with ceasing from work on a Sabbath day (sabbath means rest from labor according to Barnes notes). Matt. 12:8 declares that Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath. What could be more hallowed than resting from trying to acheive righteousness on our own and trusting in the completed work of God? The Sabbath is no longer a day then but a person and that is Jesus Christ the author and FINISHER of our faith.

Lahry,I think you mistakingly confuse keeping the Sabbath as part of God's moral law. Such never was the case though. Just because it is in the 10 commandments doesn't make it moral law. Sabbath observance was part of the Old Covenant, which has been fulfilled by Christ. The command to observe the Sabbath cannot be divorced (as a previous post showed) apart from the other Sabbaths. It, like circumcision, served as a sign of the covenant for the Jew. I need no more keep the Sabbath than to circumcise any future male descendants of mine on the 8th day. For the realization of circumcision was made manifest in Christ. So was the realization of the Sabbath. I find it interesting that all these arguments for Sabbath observation have yet to deal with anything Paul actually said about observing days, seasons, and years, etc. Let's please deal with what says the Scripture first. God bless

....discussions, I tell myself it is the last time. Yet here I am again, reading your posts and groaning in my spirit. Oh how I pray for revelation of the Holy Spirit to decend upon each of you about this matter of the Sabbath. Lahryhave you given thought to the context of the 10 commandments? Ex. 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying, Ex. 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. It was to Israel uniquely that God revealed Himself as Jehovah (LORD). This was how He introduced Himself and His will to Moses in Exodus 6 “And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Jehovah: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them. And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their sojournings, wherein they sojourned. And moreover I have heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am Jehovah, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments: and I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God; and ye shall know that I am Jehovah your God, who bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. And I will bring you in unto the land which I sware to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for a heritage: I am Jehovah.” (Ex. 6:2-8, ASV)Jehovah was uniquely the God who delivered them from Egyptian bondage and undertook to bring them into their own land. The commandments themselves reinforce the them of tenancy in the promised land; “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.” (Ex. 20:12, KJVS) The 10 commandments (or Words) were the basis of a covenant between Jehovah and Israel and between the Israelites themselves. It is not insignificant that the name Jehovah never made it into the New Testament; it was uniquely the name by which God enjoined Himself to the people of Israel.The commandments and the judgements are a local application of universal law. The exercise for us is to identify the universal law; the work of the law written in hearts of non-Israelites. I am sure that Hulsey is right in his identification of the universal truth which lay behind the covenant conditions given by Jehovah to Israel.

Here are just some thoughts:God worked six days then rested on the seventh. That was way before Moses, the Law, and even Abraham.The Sabbath commandment is the ONLY commandment that says: "REMEMBER"!The Sabbath was made for us, not us for the Sabbath. God made it for us! Just like he made many other rules for us.The apostles did not ignore the Sabbath day either. All throughout Acts they meet together on the Sabbath. That's another reason we keep it, a day to fellowship with the body of Christ. If we all worked on and on, when could we assemble like this?John had his vision on the Lord's day, didn't he?

have you given thought to the context of the 10 commandments? Ex. 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying, Ex. 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Indeed, many constantly forget this context. Paul clearly identifies the Old Covenant Law as including the Ten Commandments in Romans 7:7. Many mistake the ten commandments as universal law (though I don't deny there are universal laws in them), when in fact, they are simply part of the rest of the Mosaic legislation.

God worked six days then rested on the seventh. That was way before Moses, the Law, and even Abraham.Indeed, but God never commanded the observation of the Sabbath until the Exodus. The apostles did not ignore the Sabbath day either. All throughout Acts they meet together on the Sabbath. That's another reason we keep it, a day to fellowship with the body of Christ. This is totally false. In Acts the only time the Scriptures mention the apostles doing anything on the Sabbath is going to the synagogue to evangelize, not to fellowship. Instead, the early church met "day by day" (Acts 2:46). Indeed, they seem to have had used "the first day of the week" (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor 16:2) as a special gathering. If we all worked on and on, when could we assemble like this?The early church met every day in the Jerusalem Church, and they had to work- probably much more than we do even today. The apostle Paul had time to break away from his trade to teach day by day in the Synagogue's (when gathered) as well as daily in the market-place (Acts 17:17)John had his vision on the Lord's day, didn't he?The Scriptures never use the term, "the Lord's day" save in Rev 1:10. Being that John's Revelation is highly submerged with Old Testament terminology, it seems likely he would have simply said "the Sabbath" instead of using an ambigous term. It's possible that John had in mind the Sabbath, but it is as equally as likely he had in mind the first day of the week. Either way, it cannot be proven.Even so, does it matter what day of the week John had his vision on? It would seem that whenever John had his visions and recorded Revelation, he was alone.

Since one told their personal testimony regarding the Sabbath, I'll tell mine.Shortly after I became a Christian, I became persuaded by some to keep the Sabbath and other Old Testament days. But, for some reason, it just never felt right. No matter how much I was persuaded and determined, I could just not find myself to be motivated to keep them from the heart. Then the Lord showed me through personal revelation as well as the Scriptures that He has not called me to observe such days, which is why it was not upon my heart to observe them. Ever since then, I have walked in freedom from such ordinances. God did not write it upon my heart to keep the Sabbaths, tithe, and all the rest. Instead, He has written the New Covenant on my heart to observe all my days, and I do so with great zeal, motivated from a transformed heart which God has touched. Amen!

Where on earth do carnal minded people get us such rediculous arguments?At least us carnally minded people are using Scriptures to defend our position, and not long-winded rants that don't deal with the aforementioned Scriptures. I thought we were a people of the Book, right? I've yet to see any serious discussion regarding anything Paul said on the subject thus far, and I quoted more than enough verses for what Paul says about the Sabbath.There are no laws or rules for Christian living, right?Contrary to popular anti-nomian teaching, there are many laws for Christian living. However, we are not under the Old Covenant, but the New Covenant. 1 Cor 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

Lahry wrote:ICABODCome now, let us be mature.

Where on earth do carnal minded people get us such rediculous arguments?Why do carnally minded people judge people who disagree with them as being 'carnally minded'? and 'why do carnally minded people who accuse people for being carnally minded because they have judged others to be carnally minded get such ridiculous questions? ;-) and why...“And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?”(1Cor. 3:1-4, KJVS)

The LORD blessed only the seventh day of the week (Saturday). He set it apart from the other six days as a day of rest from labor. The only person that has the authority to change one of the Ten Commandments, written on tables of stone as a sign of their immutability, is the writer himself, the LORD. No such command from the Father, His Son, or the Apostles, exists in the Old or New Testament to either change the Sabbath to Sunday (the first day of the week) or to abolish the Sabbath altogether.Galatians 4:10:Here Paul was writing to the Galatians who had been heathen worshipers of pagan deities before their conversion to Yeshua. He says in verse 8," . . .when you knew not God, you did service unto them which by nature are no gods." In other words they were idolaters who neither served God nor walked in His laws. They knew nothing of His commandments and laws except what they had heard from Israelites living in their city. Verse 9 states that after they were converted they began to be known of the God of Israel, which prompted Paul's question,"Why do you want to return to the way you were before you were converted? Why do you continue to observe days, months, times, and years that were ordained by pagans? Why do you wish to be slaves to the weak and beggarly elements of pagan so-called holy days?It would be equivalent to a Muslim converting to Christianity and yet, continuing to observe Rammadan or make pilgrimages to Mecca. The holy days that the Galatians were returning to are comparable to the false holy days we have today such as Sunday, Easter, Lent, Christmas, Goods Friday, Holy Thursday, Ash Wednesday, all of which were declared holy by the "mother church" in Rome and not by YHWH. YHWH declared in Lev 23 which days were His holy days.The Sabbaths of the LORD were given as a perpetual covenant and are a sign between Him and His people so that they will know who it is that sanctifies them (Ex.31:13-17). They will continue to be observed after the new heavens and the new earth are created (Is.66:22,23), so why not begin now?PS> Galatians 4.8-10:Here Paul is addressing former pagans, NOT those who had any understanding of the perfect law of the LORD (PSalm 19, 119 etc). Read these Psalms, understand them, and then try and call the laws of the LORD 'weak and beggarly elements'!! Paul was addressing those who had formerly kept PAGAN days and observances, who were starting to want to go back to these weak and beggarly elements e.g Saturnalia Dec 25th - Feast of the Unconquered SUN.

Hi wildbranch,PS> Galatians 4.8-10:Here Paul is addressing former pagans, NOT those who had any understanding of the perfect law of the LORD (PSalm 19, 119 etc). Read these Psalms, understand them, and then try and call the laws of the LORD 'weak and beggarly elements'!! Paul was addressing those who had formerly kept PAGAN days and observances, who were starting to want to go back to these weak and beggarly elements e.g Saturnalia Dec 25th - Feast of the Unconquered SUN.The problem with your logic here is that the context doesn't support your conclusions. The Galations were not being tempted by their former pagan ways according to Paul. Rather, they were being enslaved to the Old Covenant by Judiazers. This is self-evident throughout the context of the book of Galations.

hi there!It looks like the Galatians were confused altogether - they were being indoctrinated by Judaizers, and in the confusion were even returning to their heathen worship, which also had a system of observances. The Judaizers had come among them teaching physical circumcision and other rituals of the law, which Paul had said are not necessary for salvation.Notice that Paul’s comment in verse 10 refers back to verse 8: "Howbeit when you knew not God, you did service unto them which by nature are no gods". They could not have been God's holy days, because they never kept them in the first place, before their conversion.I understand your concern over context in this issue - I feel that the issue is not whether or not to obey the commandments of God, but was it right to demand such obedience (e.g. circumcision) as a pre-requisite for salvation, thereby nullifying the sacrifice of our Saviour? Also context should be weighed with the evidence of scripture as a whole - the Almighty God gave us instructions on how to live- no one can lightly announce that these are now 'weak and beggarly elements'. The commandments are always upheld in scripture - even in the New Testament by the Messiah himself, and of course the apostles.Keeping the commandments does not get us into the kingdom, it is rather a sign that we ARE in the kingdom. Also, will we be 'turning back to the weak and beggarly elements' in the coming Kingdom of Messiah? Zech 14. 16-17 and Isaiah 66. 22-23also Isaiah 66.17 (concerning swine's flesh etc).I appreciate Lahry's thoughts on the matter!Peace

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me. Do you think these verses refer to the Words and Judgements that God gave to Israel at Sinai?

Recall from the Acts of the Apostles what happened when the gentiles came into the church? There was an element in the Jewish church that wanted the Gentiles to keep the commandments given to Moses in order to become Christians. The debate especially centered on circumcision. The Apostolic church (that is, the one at Jerusalem wherein the Apostles themselves fellowshipped) delivered this letter by Paul's hand to the Gentile churches who were being harrassed by these same Jews and told to keep the law:They wrote this letter by them: [From:] The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, [To:]To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings,Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law" --to whom we gave no such commandment-- it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell. (Acts 15:23-29)Had the "keeping of the Sabbath" been something that needed to be observed, Don't you think it would have found its way into the "here is what you Gentiles must observe" letter?!??Dan/\\/\\/\\

Col 2:16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.Paul says in this passage that observing the various rituals, including Sabbath, are now entirely optional, because they were but a mere foreshadow of what was to come in Christ.---Galatians 4:9 But now that you have come to known God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn your back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.Technically, Paul is writing to converted pagans, however, the context of Galatians is chiefly interested in the Judiazing factor that is dominating this Church. Paul is not talking about them getting caught up in the old pagan holidays, for such even the Judiazers would have condemned them. Rather, the problem has to do with them getting caught up in observing Jewish ritual. ---Romans 14:5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.Paul says some people regard one day (a Sabbath) above another, but other people regard every day as being the same. Paul says, let every person follow their own convictions regarding this. If you observe a Sabbath, do it unto the Lord. But if you don't observe it, no big deal. ---So, after looking at these verses, and honestly dealing with them, how can one believe that we are obligated to keep the Sabbath day observance?

Yes those scriptures refer to what God gave Israel. Israel is a "type" of the church. We gentiles have been grafted in. Into what? Not the Sinaitic covenant for sure.

I believe that Lahry is correct, why delete the fourth commandment and not the other nine. It's all or nothing. However...clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart...But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? I don't keep the sabbath commandment anymore than I keep any of the ten commandments. I don't believe that I have been asked to keep them.

Chidding me in such a discussion as passionate as this one is to me is well below your reputation as a scholar and man of God. LahryI assure you that I am not 'chidding' you at all in my posts. I am genuinely trying to understand why you think the way you do. I am not very concerned with my reputation but you misjudge me.

Do not boast over the branches and pride yourself at their expense. If you do boast and feel superior, remember it is not you that support the root, but the root [that supports] you. Hi Lahry,Who in your estimation is 'the root'?

I just cannot reconcile deleting the 7th day rest from the life of a believer any more than one would justify deleting the commandment against adultery.Paul deals extensively with these topics and they are not easy to grapple with. We are told not to allow anyone to judge us in meat, dring, new moon, and Sabbath days... One man esteems one day above another and one man esteems every day alike. Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind. Yet, if we keep the 10 Commandments in a rigid legalistic way we must remember that the Jews codified the whole law into 613 Commandments. On top of that they built 'fences' around those laws until there are literally volumes and volumes of commentary on those laws. I think it is a misunderstanding to believe that if we come more under the Law we will be more 'spiritual'. Paul asked the church at Galatia... "Having begun in the Spirit are you now made perfect in the flesh..." Can God accept anything that 'the flesh' has handled? They that are in the flesh cannot please God no matter if they are in gross sin or self-righteousness. Flesh, is flesh, is flesh, is flesh. "...after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain." (Galatians 4)Notice that Paul seems to be limiting how far the law can take a person in "knowing God". This is vitally important. Rules do not equate a relationship with God. I am not promoting antinomianism at all; but what would happen if when you were asked what marriage was like you would hand out a list:1) You can't...2) You can't...3) You can't...And when you get ready to improve the relationship you add to this list? Laws do not do justice to the dynamic of our relationship with God. Granted our relationship is goverened by 'laws' we must not get confused and become legalists who "having begun in the Spirit" are now so far from God through legalistic laws that the Gospel we heard was in vain and Christ needs to be formed in us again.Was it in vain? They did run well, what happened? More importantly what needs to be done now? "...my little children, of whom again I travail in birth, till Christ may be formed in you,..."What caused the regression? They tried to go back under the law.To give you an idea how serious Paul was in this letter, in case the anathemas leveled in Chapter 1 were not enough, it was written with His own hand. "You see with what 'large letters' I have written unto you..." In his own handwriting he penned these excessively large letters (probably due to his eye condition). What did they think when they saw HIS personal handwriting- knowing that they would have plucked out their own eyes and given to them if possible? They knew that he went to great trouble to write that and when they saw the 'bold' letters they knew there was trouble. That is how serious it is to introduce 'law' into our relationship with God once we have begun in the Spirit.God Bless,-Robert

Interesting note: The aposlte Paul never gives thanks for the Galatians in his letter to them... such he does in every other letter he writes to every other church (even in Corinth!) Serious stuff!

King Jimmy, the jews observed many sabbaths and holidays outside the 7th day rest. To say that Col 2:6 counsels against 7th day sabbath keeping is to interpret scripture to suit yourself.Indeed, they did observe many Sabbaths. These other Sabbaths were much like branches that came forth from the stump, based entirely upon the original Sabbath commandment. Col 2:16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.Paul talks about Sabbath day observance in general. He says all these things, festivals, food and drink regulations, Sabbaths, etc., were all but mere shadows which anticipated Christ. He groups Sabbath observance in with the the other ceremonial and dietary laws, and says of it: "it is a mere shadow" which has given way to the substance, in Christ. I'm not interpreting Scripture to suit my fancy. I used to truly believe we as Christians were required to keep the Sabbath. However, Christ has since opened my eyes to what the Scriptures say requiring it, and now I understand I'm under no obligation to keep such, nor is to any act as my judge regarding it!Also, instead of simply saying I am interpreting Col 2:16-17 wrongly, please show me what the correct interpretation of it is. I am all for right living, and keeping the commandments of the Lord, and if I am in error regarding them, I desire greatly to know it. I love the Lord with all my heart, and want nothing more than His will.

I was talking to my father about this thread. He raised a really good point.The Sabbath is to be enjoyed, not kept.It's not so much a law or a rule, but a gift from God. A day when we can rest and enjoy Him and one another.The Holy Spirit in me bears witness with this. I know that God is pleased when we rest on the Sabbath.In Christ,-Eli

The Sabbath is to be enjoyed, not kept.It's not so much a law or a rule, but a gift from God. A day when we can rest and enjoy Him and one another.The same goes for any of the Jewish holy days, or likewise, any commandment under the Old Covenant, it was to be done out of the overflow of the heart. No day or commandment was simply to be one of "duty." One commentator noted how the commandment to love God with all one's heart was a very unique idea. No matter how devot one might have been to an idol or god, the idea of loving it surely sounded absurd to pagan ears. Such was a rather unique feature of the faith of our fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

I don't believe that every rule in the Old Covenant was to be enjoyed, KJ... that's obvious.Example: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors donkey." What's so enjoyable about that? That is a moral rule laid down by God. There is a big difference between that and a day of rest.What do you think?-Eli

I don't believe that every rule in the Old Covenant was to be enjoyed, KJ... that's obvious.If it was not, then David who wrote the longest psalm in the Bible (119) was a total nut. He delighted in all the commandments of God, and wrote a hymn with every letter of the Hebrew alphabet to celebrate God's law. Psalm 119:16 I will delight in your statues; I will not forget your commandments.Psalm 119:77 May Your compassion come to me that I may live, for Your law is my delightDeut 30:14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.Deut 32:46 he said to them, "Take to your heart all the words with which I am warning you today, which you shall command your sons to observe carefully, even all the words of this lawHow can one take to heart the law of God (to make the law one's passion), and not delight in it?

How can one take to heart the law of God (to make the law one's passion), and not delight in it?For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: and I behold another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of the sin that 'is' in my members. (Romans 7:22 (KJV) 23 (YLT))Thanks for bringing this up. It goes along with all the studies on 'the soul' and 'the flesh'. Here we have not the "old man" or "new man" but 'inward man.' Though 'old' and 'new' are corporate- inward seems to be personal. He said that there is a 'law in his members' that was warring against his mind and bringing him into captivity to the law of Sin. This 'another' law seems to be distinct from 'the law of Sin.' So we see here (it seems) that there is some type of law or protocol in place that is trying to fulfill the delight of the non-outward man. The delight of the one is "the law of God" and the delight of the other is "the law of sin." Any thoughts?

You're right, KingJimmy, about delighting in God's Law, my mistake.I'll stick to my post right before it. That the difference between the Sabbath (which is only the name given it) and the other laws, is that the day of rest did not originate with the Mosaic Law. God rested on after 6 days of working, and so he has granted that we do likewise. That, to me, is a gift, and I personally LOVE the day of rest and look forward to it all week! A day I can spend enjoying God and not concern myself with the work of my hands.Do remember... the ground is cursed, and man must work for his food. The day of rest is a blessing.In Christ,-Eli

Indeed Robert, the law of sin (the principle of sin) within our flesh does not like the holy law of God that the inward man rejoices over. For if one is set on keeping the commandments of God, then one is going to have to crucify the flesh. Crucifying the flesh is always a painful thing.

That the difference between the Sabbath (which is only the name given it) and the other laws, is that the day of rest did not originate with the Mosaic Law.The command to observe the Sabbath did not come until the Mosaic law. There is in no way, shape, or form of any hint of man observing the Sabbath prior to Siani. One can quote the creation account all they want about how God sanctified the Sabbath day, but, that is not evidence of it being ordained for men to observe before Moses. And even if God did command man to observe the Sabbath prior to Moses, He also commanded Abraham and his children (which all believers are by faith), to observe circumcision. Yet it is more than clear that under the New Covenant, we are not in any way obligated to observe even that. If we were, I might agree with you that we are obligated to observe the Sabbath. But we aren't, as Col 2:16 and other such verses makes abundantly clear.

i work 6 days, then go to church sunday morning and night, but thats a matter of convenience, i could go to church on saturday night, either way, noone's told me yet anything other than, we dont work on sundays, and if we do its double time on the payslip! and you get that in all sorts of stores, simply because its convenient for the public. but that comes back to obeying God over the authority in your life, and where some just cant understand that one, you might actually stand to loose your job... but then, i havent heard a message on the sabbath yet in our church...

If you are not under one commandment, you are not under any commandment, much the same as breaking one is to break them all. Fair? As I understand such a position, you are saying that the disciple does not have any commandments to model after and that as Jesus' disciple, you are free by grace to live as you choose and re-present His kingdom as you please. I know in your heart that is not what you are trying to communicate, but that is what is being received by me.LahryLet me assure you again that I am not scolding you. From the time that Jesus was manifested to Israel at Jordan, and publically acknowledged to be the Son of God, there is a change in his relationship with His past. From this time he never again 'submitted himself to Mary and Joseph' but was 'led by the Spirit'. John 8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.From this time onwards His life was marked by what Oswald Chambers called 'spontaneous moral action'; He was not living His life to a formula but in direct obedience to the leading of the Spirit. “And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.” (Matt. 3:17-4:1)This is the characteristic feature of 'sons'; Rom. 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. and distinguishes them from 'children' in Paul's letter to the Galatians.In that letter he identifies the Israel-under-the-Law as the 'childhood' of the people. “Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:”(Gal. 4:1-3) You will notice the tenses he is using, 'we were' ie the imperfect tense which could equally be translated 'we used to'.In the earlier verses he has explained the position of Israel-under-the-Law “But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.”(Gal. 3:23-26, NKJV) I have gone for the NKJV because it corrects the KJV in verse 26 altering the KJV's 'children' to 'sons'. Notice the switch too in personal pronouns; from verse 23 he used 'we' (Israel-under-the-Law) but in verse 26 switches to 'ye' (Gentiles). If you read these few verses you will see that Paul describes the childhood of Israel as a time when they were 'under a paidogogos' (a paidogogos was not a schoolmaster but was the slave who superintended the child and ensured that he behaved himself). The law, says Paul, was our paidogogos... but we are no longer under a paidogogos.How do you understand this statement? It seems to me that iflaw = paidogogosand we are no longer under a paidogogos, it must be true thatwe are no longer under a paidogogs = we are no longer under the lawI can't see any other way of interpreting this passage. How do you understand this?The change from 'child' to 'son' takes place as the Father sends forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts (Gal 4:6). The Jews moves from child to son, and the Gentile moves from slave to son in this change. As 'sons' we are 'no longer under the law' but, as the proclaimed Son, are now 'Spirit-led'.

Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.The New American Standard Bible1 John 3:4 - Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.The King James Version.The Greek word translated "lawlessness" in the NASB and "transgression of the law" in the KJV is one and the same word - anomia - and is shown from Strong's lexicon to be: 458 anomia - iniquity 12, unrighteousness 1, transgress the law + 4160 1, transgression of the law 1; 151) the condition of without law1a) because ignorant of it1b) because of violating it2) contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickednessThis is precisely the same Greek word used in Matthew 7:23 where we hear Yeshua (Jesus) say, "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness (anomia)." In fact, most cases of the word "iniquity" in the KJV are the same Greek word.Some show open contempt of the Law by brazenly teaching against it! Yes, the Law was a 'tutor', to teach us how to live and please our Father - now, being filled with the Spirit, we don't have to refer back to the law all the time, we walk having internalised the law and are free to run in it. Psalm 110.32: I will RUN in the way of thy commandments when thou enlargest my understanding! (RSV)Psalm 119.44-45: I will keep thy law continually, for ever and ever; and I shall walk at LIBERTY , for I have sought thy precepts.Now that I have my driver's license, I cannot say that I now reject the laws of the road that I had to learn from a book and through experience - now I embrace them automatically. They are not abolished, just because I have moved on and can drive without constantly thinking of the traffic rules as set out in the instruction manual.We should not be "UNDER the law", as a slave would be under a master - no, on the contrary, we embrace and magnify the law with the power of the Holy Spirit within us, who writes onto our hearts the things that have been formerly commanded on stone, and then ENABLES us to joyfully obey with such freedom , loving to please our heavenly Father! If this is a burdensome 'duty', we need to ask ourselves if we are truly filled with the Spirit.Peace to all!

Hello again!Lahry said: "I'm sick and tired, fed up to the max with anything that has to do with catholic liturgy and traditions of men. If it has been added in, it needs to be stripped off. If I am the only one who feels this way, then so be it. I've had my say."You are not the only one Lahry! And the Sabbath issue is a good starting point. The Roman Church hi-jacked the original church, introducing all sorts of error. Praise our merciful God that he is calling many out of that system.NO SCRIPTURE concerning the first day of the week gives authority to replace the Sabbath of the Almighty God with Sunday observance. From the Anglican/Episcopal Church: "The Catholics changed it""We have made the change from the seventh day to the first day, from Saturday to Sunday, on the authority of the one holy Catholic Church" Bishop Seymour- "Why We Keep Sunday" :-(

wildbranch1Cor. 9:21 to them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law. (ASV) In the final analysis no man is 'without law' of one kind or another, but our question has to do with 'the law' ie the Sinai Law/Covenant.I am not pleading for antinomianism nor for license but simply wanting to draw attention to the fact that the New Covenant is not concerned with 'keeping the law' but with 'fulfilling it'. The righteous requirement of the law is now 'fulfilled' by those who walk in the Spirit. “[There is] then now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and of death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin, and for sin, has condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law should be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to flesh but according to Spirit.”(Rom. 8:1-4, DRBY)

Amen, thank you Lahry.-Eli

May I humbly ask you, was the obedience of Jesus within the framework or boundry of moral law? Are we talking about moral law or the Sinaitic law? There is an interesting encounter between Paul and the Athenians is which he tells them that God has regarded their idol worship as ignorance (not sin) and has overlooked it. (Acts 17:30) and yet he plainly warns them of an appointed day in which the 'world' will be judged in righteousness by Christ. The Athenians were without the Sinaitic Law and God did not hold them responsible for it, but they were not without moral law and God most certainly would hold them responsible for that. Needless to say, God would not have held them responsible for not keeping Israel's Sabbaths either.It's time to spend time with God and let Him tell us what to do and say. I believe that within the framework of such a lifestyle, we will find the Holy Spirit admonishing us to remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy. Do you not think that those who have a different view would not say that we seek God to do His will. Of course you wouldn't. This is a question of interpretation.I am strongly in favour of the preaching of sanctification but not as an exercise in the keeping of Sinaitic law. Your illustration is interesting. It some ways it is what the Jews did. They created a second barrier of their own laws so that people would not even get as far as breaking God's laws. It only had the effect of obscuring the revealed law. Neither am I against the change in the change of rhythm which a weekly Sabbath brought. I am against the idea that it is necessary and that keeping it somehow is more 'sanctified'.It is what God expects and how His Spirit leads us as He takes up residence within us. If this is not so, then we are pitifully confused and misled. What does this mean? Does it mean that only those who keep a weekly Sabbath are rightly hearing the voice of God? Am I pitifully confused and misled because I don't keep such a Sabbath?

Just a quick (and I hope respectable) question to Lahry:If the sabbath were part of God's "moral law" (allowing the presumption that such a thing exists) why didn't God instruct anyone to keep the sabbath holy until Moses? I ask because curiously (perhaps significantly is a better word) murder is the only sin mentioned in every book of the torah. It was a rule for all mankind, given to all descendants of Adam, and given immediately, as it were, in the second generation of mankind. It predates Abraham, Moses, and certainly the laws given to Moses. The "sabbath rest" however, isn't binding upon man until Sinai - and even at that time it is only binding upon the Jews.It seems reasonable to me, that while one could make a somewhat convincing case ( assuming that there is such a thing as "God's moral law") to include murder in "God's moral law" - but I see no grounds to include a Sabbath rest into that moral standard.I am curious (and open of course) to learn how you come up with a moral law, and after having come up with it, how you include the sabbath rest in it? I feel that either I am missing something, or that we are operating under different presumptions.Thanks,Dan/\\/\\/\\

Just a thought, but I keep seeing this line of thought running through here that seems to be thinking people are advocating an anti-nomianism of some sort. I've yet to see anybody even remotely advocate some sort of once-saved-always-saved, or Christians are without law type of view. So, I don't know why some are speaking as if people are.I see nobody here advocating living a loose life style in disregard for God's holy law. I would safely say everybody here believes firmly we must keep God's commandments, and that grace does not give us a license to sin. The issue at hand that we seem to be tap dancing around and only occasionally flirting with ultimately comes down to this: Does the New Covenant require Sabbath keeping? The question is not of moral law. The question is regarding the New Covenant.Once we understand that, we must understand the New Covenant does not require Sabbath keeping. Now, I'm not advocating that the New Covenant is somehow deleting any of the Old Testament commandments in suggesting such. Rather, what I am saying is that the New Covenant fulfills the Old Covenant established through Moses. Not only does it fulfill it, but it supercedes it, for it is a greater more glorious covenant. Think of the New Covenant in relation to the Old like this. In the night sky there are stars which you can see. But when the sun comes up, you can no longer see the stars. Now, the stars are not done away with when the sun rises. However, the sun's rays when it shines are so much brigther and glorious than the stars that are still in the sky, you no longer see them. In fact, you can no longer observe them.So it is with the Sabbath. The Sabbath is one of the stars in the night sky. But when the sun rises, you can not OBSERVE it because of the brigthness of the sun.

Where is the standard? The Standard is Christ and His Law is the New Covenant, not the Old.

Just one more thing. Anyone here celebrate Christmas and Easter?When I was at the Jewish Roots Institute I endured much chiding over the whole Christmas and Easter thing. They were dead set bent on getting back to early 1st century Judaism (as well as they could reconstruct it) and build a Christian framework into it. My answer to the question would be that I recognize those days, but I would not see it a sin 'not' to honor them. Again, what does the scripture say:Romans 14:5-6 “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth everyday, alike. Let everyman be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he dot not regard it.” Colossians 2:16 “Let no man therefore judge you to meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” The distinction between us and other people must extend beyond mere outward observances of days and foods. These things are dead religion in of themselves. We are to be walking tabernacles filled with the Holy Spirit. That is why we are holy; we are holy because of the indwelling presence of God. Please read Galatians and see how important this is. On the one hand I sense a real desire to honor God in keeping Sabbath; on the other hand when we try to keep laws in the sense that we are gaining favor with God it is no different than circumcision or tithe. It would make us a debtor to the whole law. We are obligated to walk in the Spirit. That is our requirement. We cannot expect to come under the Mosiac law at all. Moreover, Christ is our Sabbath. He is our 'rest' that we enter into at salvation. One of the points of Christ coming was that we could 'rest' from our works as God did from His. We have entered into a 'rest' from works. We have in Christ a rest that mere 'ceasation' on Saturday could never rival. The most Sabbath could be was a 'shadow' of things to come. And if you worry that Sabbath breaking was punishable by death- so too was failure to circumcize. Yet Paul says that if we be circumcized (for the purpose of keeping law) Christ shall profit us nothing. God Bless,-Robert

You can't have it both ways, beloved. If you are not going to live "loose", then what criteria will you judge living conservative? Where is the standard? Do you attempt to drive with a blind fold on? Lets change the metaphor into one of walking. Would you prefer to have a detailed map or a personal guide?

Sacrifice and offering did not begin with the Sinaitic Law. It was made obligatory by the Sinaitic Law but there is clear evidence of its existence long before this. The examples of Cain, Noah, Abraham show quite plainly that their way of worship predated that of the Sinai Church.If you want some almost unnoticed evidence I would draw you to Ex. 19:22 And let the priests also, which come near to the LORD, sanctify themselves, lest the LORD break forth upon them. Ex. 19:24 And the LORD said unto him, Away, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee: but let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the LORD, lest he break forth upon them. The significant fact here is that the Levitical priesthood was not established until Leviticus 8 which is over a year later than this reference. There was plainly some kind of priesthood operating before that of Aaron and his sons; before Sinai.Ex. 24:4 And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. Ex. 24:5 And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD. This passage again is a full year earlier than Leviticus where the offereings of 'the burnt offering' and 'the peace offering' are instituted within an Aaronic/Levitical framework. It is plain that the people of Israel were already familiar with some kinds of 'burnt offering' and 'peace offering'. Again this is 'before Sinai'.Unless I am much mistaken, if you examine the words used for 'offerings' in Genesis it will always be in the terms of 'the burnt offering'. It seems to me that the main emphasis of the 'whole burnt offering' (haulocaust) was the image of a life wholly given up to God with nothing left behind. The 'peace offering' as we find it in Leviticus is almost an equivalent of 'holy communion'. Before Sinai these offerings were not obligatory to the people of Israel or to anyone else. They were used by people earlier but not imposed upon them. Similarly the tithe was given by Abraham and promised by Jacob but no obligation is evident; these are voluntary offerings. The word for 'sin offering' only becomes part of the language of the Bible when Sinai has been enacted and the Covenant brought into being. Only after God had given the Law could transgression be 'reckoned'; before that there was no 'sin reckoned' and no insistence upon 'sin offering'.Burnt offering, peace offerings, tithes and sabbaths were made obligatory upon the Covenant people of Israel at Sinai. To fail to keep these commands was sin, but none of these are obligatory under the New Covenant. The Sinai covenant with its obligations and mitigating sacrifices was always intended to be a temporary expedient; Gal. 3:19 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. We should carefully note the words 'added' and 'until'; these words put the Covenant at Sinai into a clear context. The Seed has come, the 'first' has been taken away that He might establish the 'second'.

Lets change the metaphor into one of walking. Would you prefer to have a detailed map or a personal guide?This is a good metaphor I think. It reminded me of this verse..."Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God."I don't think it too far a stretch to say that the only way to fulfill the law is to be unhitched from it so that we can abide in Christ. After thinking about Ron's "walking" metaphor, another one involving flying occurred to me.The first time I was asked to fly out of the country was for a trip to Sri Lanka.. I remember looking it up on the map and seeing how far it was from Ohio...literally on the other side of the world! For several weeks I was anxious because I could never imagine traveling so far. It wasn't untill the day of my flight that I finally appreciated an obvious truth: it wasn't my job to travel thousands of miles to Sri lanka...my job was to get to the airplane and then enter in. Even if someone is afraid of flying, as long as they abide in the plane they will fulfill the flight plan and wind up in Colombo! (Your personal luggage however is another story...)Of course this is not to slight anyones convictions. I just struggle to keep the language of following the law, (which is a good thing), separate from the language of fulfilling the law.MC

Quote: Just one more thing. Anyone here celebrate Christmas and Easter?I don't Lahry (for the past 5 or 6 years). When one comes to understand the roots of these things and how they came to be incorporated into the church, one cannot in good conscience embrace them.The feasts of the LORD are so meaningful and wonderful, why have we abandoned them (called them 'weak and beggarly' elements), in favor of the feasts of man (pagan in root, and 'weak and beggarly' in manifestation)?Sunday Sabbath, no Sabbath, Christmas, Easter etc. have all replaced the days of the LORD. Follow the trail and one can see that they are all roots of another tree, not the 'holy stump' that we are supposed to be grafted in to.Peace

Quote: Lets change the metaphor into one of walking. Would you prefer to have a detailed map or a personal guide?A detailed map."Personal guides" come in all flavors, shapes and sizes. They have led many astray.Peace

A detailed map."Personal guides" come in all flavors, shapes and sizes. They have led many astray.I believe the personal guide that philo is referring to here is God. ;-)

I believe the personal guide that philo is referring to here is God. With all respect Hulsey, I realise that ;-) It's just that so many claim to be following God, but there are so many different directions 'He' seems to be leading us all in. Where is the straight and narrow path? I have seen so many of the "God spoke to me" types, yet none agree, sadly nothing seems to add up to a people manifesting the kingdom of God in unison.The original blue-print seems the only sure way to go.Peace

The original blue-print seems the only sure way to go.Thank God for the New Covenant! :)

Ron wrote:Burnt offering, peace offerings, tithes and sabbaths were made obligatory upon the Covenant people of Israel at Sinai. To fail to keep these commands was sin, but none of these are obligatory under the New Covenant. The Sinai covenant with its obligations and mitigating sacrifices was always intended to be a temporary expedient; Gal. 3:19 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. We should carefully note the words 'added' and 'until'; these words put the Covenant at Sinai into a clear context. I highly enjoyed your insight here, and in this post in general. Very very good.

I agree with you KJimmy, this is a good thread.Lets change the metaphor into one of walking. Would you prefer to have a detailed map or a personal guide?A detailed map."Personal guides" come in all flavors, shapes and sizes. They have led many astray.... I have seen so many of the "God spoke to me" types, yet none agree, sadly nothing seems to add up to a people manifesting the kingdom of God in unison.We may become cynical about the sin we see in others, but following the law (detailed map) does not remove our own inward sin. Others can expound this more clearly then myself. Wanting to follow the detailed map is a fine thing but we have a comforter who teaches us with the mind of Christ. He does not walk with our outer man like the law does...He reveals what's in our hearts. Hypocrisy in the church may tempt us to believe that the law has a power of enforcement that the Spirit does not...as if the Holy Spirit is less "strict" or clear then the law. Yet this implies divergence or disparity of intention between God's holy law and God's Holy Spirit where none exists. If we want to hold one other accountable to the letter of the law, let's all the more hold one other accountable to the heart of the law. Paul challenged those who preached the law to preach all of it, including the promise. The heart of the law is the same for Moses or Jesus, but only Jesus can fulfill the promise to place this heart within each of us. This is first and foremost not the power to "do" but power to "be", which is the difference between following the law and fulfilling the law.I thought this recent Oswald Chambers post from Greg touches on this difference between the "detailed map" and the "personal guide". Disposition and DeedsBlessings,MC