Sabbath Observance: 3 Views

[Guest]

Sean, I don't think I'm just trying to be obstinate here. I do confess to not understanding the council at jerusalem's decision, because I believe that male children of eight days old should be circumcised yet. The point that Paul made in his letters, though, was that obedience to the commandments was what was important, and even the "uncircumised", by their obedience, were testifying of their righteousness, to those who, even though circumcised, were disobedient to the Laws.

Do you think we should teach "Moses" to gentiles so that thier eight-day old males get circumcised?

peace, dmatic

[Guest]

Sean, I don't think I'm just trying to be obstinate here. I do confess to not understanding the council at jerusalem's decision, because I believe that male children of eight days old should be circumcised yet. The point that Paul made in his letters, though, was that obedience to the commandments was what was important, and even the "uncircumised", by their obedience, were testifying of their righteousness, to those who, even though circumcised, were disobedient to the Laws.

Do you think we should teach "Moses" to gentiles so that thier eight-day old males get circumcised?

peace, dmatic

I haven't read this long thread fro a while, but a thought came to me concerning circumcision is how could it be done under the law when there is no priesthood to oversee these things? I understand that it does not require a priest to preform circumcision but the command is given in leviticus and no observance of the Law can be properly accomplished without the priesthood.

Another thing is that just being circumcised as a child is not necessarily the levitical circumcision. For any male gentile to be circumcised it must be donewith the proper ceremonial observance. Dmatic, have you been circumcised correctly since you are a Law observer?

[Guest]

I'll try to recheck the greek, to see if that pesky "and" is in there, regarding the believers that thought the gentile adults should be circucised "to keep the law of Moses".

Well, the pesky "and" (Gk kai)is not there.

However, the even peskier Gk te is there.

According to Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament,
this word denotes "a closer affinity than kai between words and sentences it connects." The translation "as well as" has been suggested.
If this is correct, then those Pharisees said, "It is necessary to circumcise them, as well as command them to keep the law of Moses."

[Guest]

Thank you Sean.

The law of Moses states to circumcise male children at eight days old.
The council was meeting to discuss whether or not, Gentiles adults should be circumcised.

I don't know what this has to do with anything. There are several examples from the law of Moses that require adult circumcision. Are you saying that those are now void? The "problem" still remains even if you only rule out adult circumcision. They ruled that keeping the law of Moses is not required.

how you reconcile Jesus' statement at Mt 5:19, with what you believe?

dmatic

I posted my explanation for this passage already, just a few posts back. Feel free to read it if you like.

Are you trying to make the point that the Jerusalem Council WAS in error, for ruling that adult circumcision was not neccessary?

No, they were not in error. Their ruling is that the Gentiles do not need to keep the law of Moses.

Also, you menitoned the "Noahide" laws. Which ones are you speaking about regarding the commandments that Council did direct the Gentiles to start keeping? Are you saying that those four laws are not from "Moses"

All I can say is to do a search for Noahide laws. These existed before the law of Moses. This is usually the point people make since it's obvious they didn't order Gentiles to keep "the Law of Moses". So people then try and state that Gentiles are under the Noahide laws.

Do you think we should teach "Moses" to gentiles so that thier eight-day old males get circumcised?

No I don't, nor did the council think so, nor did they mention this as a requirement.

Paul said:
Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

If the works of the law don't justify you in God's eyes, then why try to earn God's favor by attempting to keep it?

[Guest]

Someday, Lord willing, I'll have time to get back to some comments about Mr. Gregg's article, but this is interesting!

Thank you Paidion for following this discussion. As I was looking, this morning and last night, as the Greek Interlinear I have, of this passage, I did notice that the "and" was translated from a different word than the other times the word 'and' was used.

my copy reads thusly for Acts 15:5: "But some of those from the sect of the Pharisees having believed, saying, 'It is right to circumcise them, to command andto keep the law of Moses'."

I had reasoned that this "and" had some special meaning, so I'm glad you confirmed that thought, friend. I'm not yet sure what that special meaning is however, because i am not a Greek student.

So, I first looked at the word translated "to command" and found it also interesting. It's number 3853 in Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance and has the meaning of to transmit a message. This word means to "announce beside", to pass on an announcement. Further along in the definition given the word is contrasted with entellomai (#1781) saying that paragegella (#3853) is denoting fixed and abiding obligations rather than specific or occasional instructions, duties arising from the office rather than coming from the personal will of a superior.

After looking at the defintion of the word translated into "right" or "needful" (KJV) I don't think I'm off to suggest that those believers that had come from the sect of the Pharisees, gave their opinion that the Council should transmit to the New gentile converts the message that, in order to keep the Law of Moses, they needed to become circumcised!

This was the issue they were debating! This single issue. Not, whether or not they should be taught the law of Moses! They all realized that the Gentiles would be learning the Law of Moses as they attended the meetings where the Law of Moses was being read every sabbath!

Thus, it seems to me, that the "yoke" that neither they nor their fathers were able to bear had to do with circumcision is some way.

If they were implying that God Himself, was a cruel taskmaster Who had "burdened" them with laws they could not keep, then i do think they were wrong! His commandments are not "burdensome" nor "grievous".

Anyway, this is where I am, yet, with this study, and trying to rightly discern truth.

I'm sorry Sean, but I don't remember what you wrote, concerning Mt. 5:19, and I have read all of your posts, even more than once. And I don't remember your satisfactory comments relating to Matthew 5:19, but I will go back and try to find them. Thank you for participating. it has been nice talking with you.

Paidion, If I have incorrectly looked at these Greek words, I would appreciate your input. thank you

peace, dmatic

[Guest]

Sean asked:

If the works of the law don't justify you in God's eyes, then why try to earn God's favor by attempting to keep it?

Before I answer, may I ask you what you think the phrase "works of the law" means?

Thanks, dmatic

[Guest]

Homer wrote:

You have totally missed the point of the sermon. The question is whether a person must be shown, by The Law, that they are a sinner preparatory to preaching the gospel to them. Can you show from the book of Acts, not prophecy about Jesus, or historical events such as the story of Joseph in Egypt, etc., but preaching of The Law as binding upon man? Can you show where, as they went to the Gentiles, they ever accused them of not keeping The Law? Better yet, can you show where anyone, other than a Jew, was ever accused of not keeping the Sabbath?

As I admitted, I'd only read through page seven of ten, of his "sermon". The point he seemed to be making through those pages was his disparagement of the commandments of God. Of course, this didn't 'sit well' with me, but I tried to get through it anyway. When "teachers" or "preachers of sermons" show disdain for the Word of God, their fruit stinks upon examination, and I am learning not to eat it, as it is unclean.

This doesn't mean that I'd die if I "ate" it, as it is prophesied that beleivers can eat/drink poison and not be hurt by it. Mk. 16:18)

My initial thought concerning your challenge Homer, was to recall Isaiah 56, which shows there to be a blessing for those who keep God's Sabbath day/s holy and refrain from polluting it. Please read the whole chapter 56, but I will quote specifically verses 6 and 7 which say: "Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to be His servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; Even them will I bring to My holy mountian, and make them joyful in My house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be acceptable upon mine altar; for My house shall be called an house of prayer for ALL people."

Surely you have also read Is. 65 and 66 speaking of the New heavens and new earth, God says: "And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD." Is 66:23Do you suppose that God was even referring to Gentiles in His inclusion of "all flesh"?

So, we see, as in keeping with God's promises, He promises to bless those who keep His commandments, and take hold of His covenant.

As for your challenge to show from the book of Acts where anyone was accused of not keeping the sabbath, I may not be able to do so, but even if I could not, what would that prove, other than the possibility that most were keeping it! Just because there, to my knowledge, is no mention of anyone being convicted of violating the laws against beastiality, in the book of Acts, you wouldn't suggest that these violations of God's commandments are now acceptable, would you? Which could lead me to a question for you: "Since, in your view, the Law has passed away, do you teach "believers" in your gospel, that they need not keep the commandment prohibiting beastiality any longer?" If not, why not? Do you suggest they are free to imbibe in the practice if they are so led? Or if their conscience doesn't convict them?

Peace, dmatic

[Guest]

Allyn wrote and asked:

I haven't read this long thread fro a while, but a thought came to me concerning circumcision is how could it be done under the law when there is no priesthood to oversee these things? I understand that it does not require a priest to preform circumcision but the command is given in leviticus and no observance of the Law can be properly accomplished without the priesthood.

Another thing is that just being circumcised as a child is not necessarily the levitical circumcision. For any male gentile to be circumcised it must be donewith the proper ceremonial observance. Dmatic, have you been circumcised correctly since you are a Law observer?

I don't know whether you are sincere in your question or not, but I will answer that I don't remember, whether or not, the "Dr>" that performed my circumcision was a priest or not.

I will discuss this matter of "priesthood" with you, however. Some of us are called to be kings and priests with Y'Shua when he comes to set up His kingdom among men. The priests will most likely be of the Melchizedek "order", like He Himself is. he, being our high priest, is not of the tribe of Levi. He was, physically, from the tribe of Judah. Though, upon His return, He may be manifesting as "Joseph" or "Ephraim" so as to re-unite the birthrights, that were split, as 2 Chronicles 5 declares.

Anyway, God set apart the tribe of Levi to be priests in the "Old" covenant. But, they were actually a substitute, for the "first-born" males of all the tribes. Instead of requiring all the first-born sons of Israel (all twelve tribes) to be priests, and set-apart, God instructed that "Levi" would serve in their stead, being redeemed, for this purpose.

Ex. 13 describes this law, saying: in verses 11-13 that when the children of Israel were entered into the Land Promised, they were to set apart all the first-born males for service to the LORD. Even the first -born donkeys, were to be redeemed, by a lamb. Even the first-born of men.

This law shows many things about God's purposes and methods. Being redeemed by a lamb, speaks of being redeemed by the Passover Lamb of God. This happened before they entered the Promised Land. They needed their "characters" changed before entering, because they had the characters of wild asses, so they needed to be sanctfied and set-apart by learning obedience to the Law of God. They needed to be "broken" and re-trained, like a wild horse, is broken and trained to become useful to the master. But, as history showed, most of them refused to hear God's Laws for themselves and stiffneckedly refused to be brought under His rule, but insisted on their own ways...thus they didn't enter in because of disobedience and unbelief.

I had pondered this command for many years, until just this morning, i believe that God revealed to me, part of His meaning! my wife and I raise Foundation-Bred American Quarter Horses, and I really didn't know what God wanted me to do with the babies that were males, that had broken the womb. What was I to do with these stud-colts that were the first-born babies of their mothers? Was I to redeem them with a lamb, or should I "break their necks?"

I couldn't discern how to obey God in this matter for the longest time. The first baby we had from a new mare that was a male, I just gave away! Not knowing how to redeem it? Just this morning, I was thinking about the alternative and decided to look up the word translated into "break its neck". I believe that God wants these first-borns to be "broken" at the neck, meaning they should undergo training....they should learn to "give thier necks" to yield to the will of a trainer> it makes a lot of sense to me, now. God wants the characters of these first-born's changed from wild to "disciplined". He doesn't want me to kill them!

I don't think.

Just like me. I am a first-born male, that was a "wild ass" of a donkey type in my "old days". He is training me now. I hope to be useful to Him someday. thank you for giving me the opprotunity to discuss these things here with you....

Peace, dmatic

[Guest]

I've read almost all of this book and very highly recommend it to those of you who have been posting on this thread:

The Spirit of the Law:
Should Christians
Reject God's Law?
by Ron Moseley

Overall, I feel Moseley does an excellent job by explaining things simply as well as separating out the issues in a way you can understand. There might be some fine points where I disagree, I'm not sure yet. However, this book is just too good to miss, imo!!!

"Many Christians appear to choke when they hear the word "Law"; to them it essentially represents some type of dead, legalistic biblical strait jacket of another age. Unfortunately, the above is a distortion or caricature of the very biblical material deemed so precious and authoritative in the life and teachings of Jesus and in the earliest Church. Ron Moseley has provided Christians of all backgrounds a great service by addressing with clarity and true biblical insight the thorny problem of the Church and the Law. The Spirit of the Law deserves to be read and reread by every thinking Church-goer."

Marvin Wilson, Ph.D.

Ockenga Professor of Biblical Studies
Chairman of the Department of Biblical Studies at Gordon College, Wenham, Massachusetts
Dr. Wilson was a translator of the New International Version of the Bible

As I mentioned before, I've seen many internet discussion/debates on this topic. And I don't mean any offense at all, but, this thread is just about the most confusing I've EVER seen!!! Well, um, actually it is!

I sincerely hope you (all) have time to read the book!
I really do think it will help y'all clear things up, at least some!
Rick

[Guest]

I'm sorry Sean, but I don't remember what you wrote, concerning Mt. 5:19, and I have read all of your posts, even more than once. And I don't remember your satisfactory comments relating to Matthew 5:19, but I will go back and try to find them. Thank you for participating. it has been nice talking with you.

This is all I had said:

Matt 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Maybe all is fulfilled. Jesus said he had done everything His Father sent Him to do:

John 17:4 I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do.

And on the Cross Jesus said "It is finished". The new covenant was confirmed with the shedding of His blood, not long after he made the verbal declaration of the new covenant. The "old" covenant was thus fulfilled as the new one took it's place. Jesus said He did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. When He fulfilled it, He said "It is done".

Anyway, Peace bro! 8)