Sabbath day saturday or sunday?

DamianWarS said:

How do you reconcile circumcision within this system? If physical circumcision is not required then why is the sabbath more special? Did everlasting meaning something else to Abraham than it did to Moses?

Click to expand...

Ken Rank said:

If I said you a smoker... "Why do you want lung cancer?" Does that mean they have lung cancer or desire it? No... but when you smoke a pack a day for 40 years you're probably going to get it.

Paul helped these people find freedom in Christ, become a people to God. Then, some started going back to their old ways... and Paul simply asked, "Why do you want lung cancer?"

Click to expand...

Saint Steven said:

That's not what this is about in context. It really is about the law. And the Galatians were being influenced by the Circumcision Group. As is most evident in the Apostle's famous question: "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?" - Gal.3:1

But more to the point, Galatians chapter four, verses 21-31 is about Hagar and Sarah. Here are a few verses to confirm what I am saying.

Galatians 4:24-26, 28-31
These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. …
28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” 31 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Therefore, "Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?" - verse 21, means what it says, but not according to your definition that "under the law" means under the condemnation of the law. Again, who would want to be under the condemnation of the law?

Click to expand...

Saint Steven said:

Here's another example @Ken Rank -- scripture below.
Why would not being under the condemnation of the law be seen as a license to sin?
"Shall we sin because we are not under the condemnation of the law but under grace?"
That doesn't make sense, does it?

No, being under the law is seen (by those under the law) as a constraint to sin. We hear this argument all the time today. If I say I am not under the Ten Commandments, what will they ask me? "Does that give you a license to sin?"

Romans 6:14-15
For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!

Click to expand...

Saint Steven said:

No use beating my head against a wall. I'll let the readers decide. Is this about paganism or the law God gave to the Israelites through Moses? (the whole chapter, really)

Galatians 3:10-11
For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”

Click to expand...

Ken Rank said:

There is no reason to take that attitude. We don't agree... so what? Does this mean that you and I see different paths to the Kingdom? No... we see one path... through the God of Israel via the works of His messiah. We come in faith, He extends grace based on nothing but the fact that He extends grace, and that's it... a free gift. But, our walk does not end there, we don't camp out at the cross... we pick it up and begin a life long journey that includes discerning the will of our Father and walking in it as best we can. Should be falter, and we will... we have an advocate in the form of said same messiah. Any problems with that, Steve? No? Then no need to even consider banging your head on the wall anyway. The rest is details.... fun to talk about, grow from, gain correction from... but NOT divide over.

The works of the law are any path of works or effort that one walks on outside of that which is the free gift through Christ in order to obtain salvation. The Galatians were pagans... if I had more time I can prove it without question... and some of them were falling away from the faith and back to those practices they had left for said free gift of life through messiah. This isn't difficult... there is no conflict here at all.

HERE is an article by a dear friend, a mentor, and a co-elder at the congregation I belong to. He is a scholar, and this like all his works are well thought out. That doesn't mean he is correct, it doesn't mean you have to agree... but you might consider reading this and considering some points he has come up with that add to the context of Galatians. I would love to hear your feed back on it.

Click to expand...

Saint Steven said:

I have never questioned that the Galatians were formerly pagans. I knew that, and I agree. It is however clear to me that someone was trying/succeeding to bring them under the law (define it as you will) and the Apostle sought to correct this behavior.

Galatians 3:1-5
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? 4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?

Galatians 2:16
know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

Click to expand...

Ken Rank said:

We're agreed... the only thing that keeps us apart is it "seems like" you think following the commandments of God is coming under the law. Again, we don't steal because that is against God's will, we honor our parents because it is His will. Having a desire to do (or don't do) commandments isn't coming under the law, returning to the life we led before we knew Christ is. The Galatians didn't know God, weren't known by God... but came to know Him, became part of the family, but at least some desired to return to the weak and beggarly elements from their past and this was bringing them under the law again...bringing them to a point before they knew Christ, which was when they were still guilty according to the law... without Christ, like a dog returning to his vomit.

That is why the definition of "under the law" matters Steve. If it means "returning to the law of God" it makes no sense because the Galatians didn't know God and weren't known by God, they had never kept the law before. They were pagans who couldn't be "returning to the law" because, again, they never walked in it in the first place.

Click to expand...

Saint Steven said:

We agree that the definition of "under the law" matters. I have shared two or three scriptures in which your definition simply does not work. IMHO

Click to expand...

Ken Rank said:

Well, I covered the one extensively... if you want to re-share the other 2, even in private, I am happy to look at them again.

Click to expand...

Saint Steven said:

Thanks for the offer. But it seems we are both convinced in our own minds. We disagree, that's all, and that's fine. Further discussion will only lead to a dispute. A dispute leads to the temptation to say something we may regret afterwards. So, let's not even go there. The best wounds are those never delivered.

Click to expand...

Ken Rank said:

I asked for the verses for me. I am always open to correction.... but that's fine, I will respect your wishes.

Click to expand...

curious mike said:

I had discussed this with someone yesterday and this is what he had said:

"But here is the thing: God did not say those commandments were just for the Jews. In fact, since Shabbat was established at creation, there were no Jews, nor would there be for something like the next 3500 years! Shabbat was given for all men of all times and places and races. Shabbat worship is not copying anyone, it is obeying God."

For me personally, it is this line from that article which is throwing me:

The Sabbath Commandment itself also states it is for the “stranger” and hence Gentiles also. (Exodus 20:10) In “the new earth … from one Sabbath to another, shall ALL FLESH come to worship before me, saith the Lord.”

Click to expand...