HOME WRITINGS ORGANIZATIONS Q & A NEWSLETTER FAQS CONTACT ABOUT BELIEFS LINKS ARCHIVE FREE BIBLE STORE
CONVERSATIONS WITH A LEGALIST
Keeping The Law And The 10 Commandments
 
The Legalist Challenge
Saturday, January 17

What you have written about a Mr. Garner Armstrong, I wouldn't know for sure, but thousands of Christians around the world keep the seventh day Sabbath and Holy days! It is neither here nor there if the Armstrongs kept it or not, these are God's days not man's.

You are one of the reform Catholics, otherwise (Protestants) from your writings. You have never left Rome! And please don't' come back with 1500 year old excuse of Paul. This man was known to keep all of God's laws and commandments. The gentiles were taught the same and kept them until the so-called (holy fathers) started to bring in pagan doctrines to enable them to keep hold of the masses such as yourself! Evil people will never destroy the truth by using the name of Christ to deceive naive people with no understanding of the Scriptures!

This is why Peter wrote of people such as yourself who could not fully understand the writing of Paul, 1 Peter 3:15-17. Peter was mostly talking to pagan gentiles, and newly converted Jews who would not let go of the old way. The Gentiles very often slipped back into their old habits. This is what Paul is referring to, not breaking the Ten Commandments or nailing them to the cross.
D —

On Doctrine Reply
Hello D— and welcome to On Doctrine.

Thank you for your visit and your contact message.

I am very much aware that many Christians around the world keep the Sabbath as a Saturday observance and many who are Reformed, and otherwise, keep what they claim is the Christian Sabbath as observed on Sunday. I consider the Old Testament Sabbath of the Law to have been abolished and the New Testament teaches nothing about the Sabbath being changed to the Christian Sabbath on Sunday, so I worship on Sunday as the Lord's Day, however it makes no difference to me what day a person chooses to worship or whether a person chooses to observe every day of the year as a holy day, Romans 14:5-8. What I note in relation to Garner Ted Armstrong and his father, Herbert W. Armstrong, is the fact that they claimed that it is necessary to worship on the Sabbath only, which is Saturday, and also keep some of the Old Testament Holy Days, in order to obtain salvation. That is the heretical error of their teaching, because it makes duties and works the criteria by which salvation is granted by God. Nowhere in the Scripture did Jesus Christ or the apostles teach that salvation is based on Sabbath or Holy Day observance.

The Catholic church has been involved in introducing many heretical teachings throughout its history, but the introduction of Sunday worship into the church is not one of the practices that they introduced. History, the writings of the early church fathers and the biblical record does not support that view, because Sunday worship by the early church was established long before the appearance of the Catholic church.

Since you did not explain what the "1500 year old excuse of Paul" is said to be, I cannot make any comment.

It is interesting that all of the commandments in the Old Testament are repeated in the New Testament except the fourth and the admonition to keep the other Sabbaths and feast days that were observed. But there are a number of references to the first day of the week:

Jesus Christ rose on the first day of the week, Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1, John 20:1.
Jesus Christ taught the disciples on the road to Emmaus on the first day of the week, Luke 24:13-35.
Jesus Christ appeared to all the disciples on the first day of the week, Luke 24:36, John 20:19, John 20:26, Luke 24:36.
Pentecost occurred and the 3,000 were added to the church on the first day of the week, Acts 2:1.
Paul and the church at Troas met on the first day of the week for communion, Acts 20:7.
Paul told the churches in Galatia and Corinth to set aside money on the first day, 1 Corinthians 16:2.
The book of the Revelation was given to the apostle John on the first day of the week which was the Lord's Day, Revelation 1:10.

It is not entirely clear in your note as to how you view Colossians 2:14, and the statement by the apostle Paul, "having nailed it to the cross." You seem to assume its application to some type of "backsliding" or returning to what a person previously believed prior to becoming a Christian. (If I am not incorrect in this assumption, then forgive me for the error.) The reference, "having nailed it to the cross," has nothing to do with backsliding, which is a concept not mentioned in chapter 2. The subject of the introduction of legalist teaching into the church is a difficulty with which Paul deals, vs. 16-23. "(H)aving nailed it to the cross," is a metaphor- a symbolic reference to salvation. At crucifixion, a list of the criminal's crimes, for which he was being crucified, was nailed to the cross with him (as was done by Pilate, to mock the Jews, when he placed the inscription of the cross of Jesus Christ, his crime being noted as - "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews" John 19,19), so the list of crimes against us, being our sins, is cancelled by the death and resurrection of Christ as payment to God for those sins:
"When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having cancelled out the certificate of debt (our list of sins against God) consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it (the decrees) out of the way, having nailed it (the decrees) to the cross," Colossians 2:13-14
I am not sure to what specific passage you refer to in relation to Paul's teaching about not breaking the Ten Commandments, but he does mention them in Ephesians 2:11-22, in which he states that Christ "broke down the barrier of the dividing wall [the wall in the temple that separated Jews from Gentiles], by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by having put to death the enmity [the Law of commandments]." vs. 14-16.

What he stated was that the performance of Law of the Ten Commandments, listed in Exodus 20, was fulfilled through the perfect performance of it by Jesus Christ and was abolished by His death.

I do not deny the commandments of God, and to the extent that they are revealed in the New Testament, they are part of Christian doctrine which I accept, with the exception of the Sabbath day worship and Old Testament Feast Days of the Law which are not taught or commanded to be observed in the New Testament in any verse.
"But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, 'Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.' But He said to them, 'Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent? But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, ""I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,"" you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath,"' Matthew 12-2-7
"Jesus said to them, 'The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath,"' Mark 2:27-28
"Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it. For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard. For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, 'As I swore in My wrath, they shall not enter My rest,' although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day, 'And God rested on the seventh day from all His works'-, and again in this passage, 'They shall not enter My rest.'Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, He again fixes a certain day, 'Today,' saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, 'Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts.' For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience," Hebrews 4:1-11
The Sabbath for the Christian is not a day, it is a position in relation to God, a state of being at rest in the salvation provided by God through Jesus Christ, "not as a result of works, so that no one may boast," Ephesians 2:9. That is the Sabbath to which I hold and which I observe.

I would not claim that I understand everything in the Scripture and that includes the application of all the writings of Paul, but I think you believe that you do understand everything that he wrote, excluding yourself from 2 Peter 3:15-16, not realizing that you have a considerable distance to go before you can make that claim.

Sincerely in Christ,

Gary A. Hand
On Doctrine webmaster
contact@ondoctrine.com

The Legalist Challenge
Tuesday, January 20

Now where do we find that the Sabbath and holy days are done away with? Paul talked of them being a shadow of things to come and so they are. The Holy days show the plan of God. Paul's writings have always been lifted out of the text. If one goes back and reads the chapters completely, it is very clear as to who he is speaking to, and what particular problems he had to deal with at that particular time, be it newly converted gentiles who had just come out of pagan and idol worship, or newly converted Jews, who were trying to hold on to the separation of Jew and Gentile, also the circumcision was a problem for the Jewish converts!

Paul was talking of the new covenant, a higher binding to keep the commandments in the spirit, not just in the old letter of the law, the curtain was torn in two so we could now have direct contact with God through Jesus Christ no longer having to go through a earthly priest (as some well known religions do today), Christ is our High priest! Christ said if you love me keep my commandments, quite a simple thing to understand I would say. Since Christ is the member of the God family who gave the ten commandments. John 1:1-3.

Paul mostly refers to the old laws of the gentiles, times, Deuteronomy 18:10, seasons, not the Holy days which he kept himself, Romans 3:31. All Paul is saying is that we know that no laws of any kind be it pagan laws which the newly converted gentiles once kept Galatians 1:6-8, or laws of God alone can save you, only the blood of Christ can do that! But when one becomes converted in truth, the longing to live the way Christ and the apostles lived should be followed, Christ said Matthew 7:12, Matthew 8.20-23 INIQUITY simply means LAWLESSNESS or breakers of the law! Look it up! 1 John.2:3-4 another easy verse to understand!

The reason they met so much on the Sunday is because they rested on the Sabbath and started work on the first day which is Sunday, no great mystery in that. Pentecost always falls on Sunday, because we count 50 from the wheat sheaf Sunday in Unleavened bread time, as I said before this shows the first of the first fruits which is Christ, before the rest of us make [it] to the resurrection Revelation 20:5-7, to become spirit beings, also quite simple to understand. It is men who always make things so difficult to understand, the Catholics started this, mystery thing to keep control over the masses, and yes, the founding fathers of the Catholic church kept Sunday, they broke almost all of God's commandments in one way or another!!

Paul told Timothy to take heed to all scripture. At that time there was only the Old Testament and maybe a bit of Matthew. A rather strange thing to say to someone if you were trying to teach destruction of the laws and commandments!!! Many places state where Paul rushed back to Jerusalem to keep the Holy days. The Sabbath was made for man's rest, not man made for the Sabbath. The pharisees always added their own oral laws just as many in Judaism do today. They add to, just as the Catholics have change times and days, Christ said, Matthew 5:16-20. He also hated , them putting their traditions in place of the original laws and kept them only in letter, Matthew15: 8-9, Mark7:5-9, this is what Christ hated, not the keeping of the laws and commandments that He gave to mankind in the first place.

We must keep HIS LAWS AND COMMANDMENTS IN LETTER AND SPIRIT, THIS IS WHAT THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES, IT GUIDES AND GIVES US HELP, AND WHEN WE FAIL AS ALL HUMANS DO WE ARE FORGIVEN THROUGH THE GRACE OF CHRIST, THE PASSOVER LAMB SLAIN ONCE FOR ALL. Christ said if you look on a woman to lust after her you have already committed adultery with her in your heart. The whole New Testament is speaking of being saved through Christ and keeping the laws and commandments in the higher form of the spirit!! I certainly do not know everything,! But I do know that the Bible is not a difficult book to read with the help of the Holy Spirit.! The scriptures are clear and true, only men are untrue!!!
D —

On Doctrine Reply
Hello D —,
Welcome back to On Doctrine.
Thank you for your response.

We find in the New Testament that the Sabbath and holy days have been abolished and a good place to begin is the verse that you noted, regarding the shadow of things to come.
"Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect of a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day - things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ," Colossians 2:16-17

I do not find the explanation of the meaning of this passage as, "Paul mostly refers to the old laws of the gentiles," to have any application at all. What the apostle Paul notes are Jewish festivals, new moons and Sabbaths, not those of the gentiles. Those festivals, new moons and Sabbath days "are a mere shadow of what is to come," which identifies them as being part of the Jewish Law and not gentile belief which had no connection with the things to come. The salvation and freedom of the salvation represented is in the Sabbath rest of God, Hebrews 4:1-11, to which no Gentile law or religious observance has any connection. It is only the Law of Moses that is the shadow of things to come and the only reference as a comparison to those things to come. The only way that pagan Gentile laws and observances could have any relation to things to come would be in the manner of judgment by God for false belief, which is not the manner in which Paul states the case. The Law of the Old Testament is the shadow, and the things to come refer to those associated with Jesus Christ, as they apply to the Law, cf. Hebrews 8:5, 9:23, 10:1.

If the Sabbath Law is still in effect, then all of the Law should be in effect, including Temple worship, the priesthood, animal sacrifices, circumcision and every dietary law, yet the command and teaching to keep the Sabbath or any of those Levitical laws is never mentioned in the New Testament. The claim that a person should keep the 10 Commandments, a few Old Testament Holy days and the Sabbath, does not fill the requirements of Old Testament Law. A person must keep all of the Law, or keep none of it, because failure to keep it all is the same as failure to keep any of it, James 2:10. The dietary laws were abolished, Acts 10:9-16, 1 Corinthians 10:25-31, so if the Law was a permanent fixture, how is some of it abolished by Peter and Paul when it was all equally commanded by God, and why is only some of it kept today and not all of it?

As long as the Law, as the ceremonial system, remains as a standard of performance, standing before God in any capacity through it's observance remains an impossibility.
"The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle [the ceremonial system of Law] is still standing, which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation. But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come [that have come], He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption," Hebrews 9:8-12.
Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the total Law, not just that of obeying the Ten Commandments. He was the real sacrifice of which the old sacrificial system was just a shadow (Hebrews 9:12, 14; 13:12); He was the real bread of life of which the old showbread in the Holy Place was just a shadow (John 6:23-35); He was the real light of life which the old lamp stand in the Holy Place was just a shadow (John 1:6-9; 8:12); He was the water of purification which the old laver of bronze was just a shadow (1 Corinthians 6:11, Ephesians 5:26, Titus 3:5); He was the altar of sacrifice which the old altar of the Tabernacle was just a shadow (Hebrews 13:10-15); He was the true Sabbath rest of which the old Sabbath day was just a shadow (Hebrews 4:1-11, Matthew 12:6-8). Everything pertaining to the old Law and Levitical system of sacrifice was a shadow of the reality of Jesus Christ, whose coming as Messiah brought His reality into view as the replacement for the shadow.

The words of Jesus Christ, as the Messiah, notes that He removed the old sacrificial system, by which He established the new sacrifice of Christ, the benefits of salvation granted to the believer by faith.
"After saying above, 'Sacrifice and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them' (which are offered according to the Law), then he said, 'Behold, I have come to do Your will.' He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Hebrews 10:8-10.
The Law, as given in the Scripture, was a unique ordinance, given to Israel as a specific people for a specific purpose and not to any other ethnic group. Included in the Law was the command to observe the Sabbath, not as a means to gain standing with God or to obtain salvation, but as a sign of the Mosaic Covenant between Israel and God:
1. Exodus 31:16-17, "It [the Sabbath] is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever. . ."
2. Ezekiel 20:12, "Also I gave them My Sabbaths to be a sign between Me and them . . ."
3. Nehemiah 9:14, "So You made known to them Your holy Sabbath, and laid down for them commandments, statutes and law . . ."

There is no teaching or doctrine in the Old Testament that indicated any person or group kept the Sabbath prior to the Law being given to Moses and no gentile is ever instructed to keep the Sabbath or condemned for not doing so. The pre-flood world (which was entirely non-ethnic) was condemned by its rejection of God, Job 22:15-18, and by its wickedness, evil heart, violence and corruption, Genesis 6:5, 11, 12, not by a condemnation for failure to observe the Sabbath, which the Scripture never mentions had been given as a command to observe.

All of the individuals mentioned in Hebrews chapter 11 were commended and justified by their faith, not by observing the Sabbath. Rahab, who was a gentile, was also commended and justified by her faith, never having had an interest in the Law of Moses or the observing of the Sabbath. As a gentile, she was justified outside the Law and the covenant, but in reality all who were true Israel were also justified outside the Law and the covenant, because being in the covenant did not grant salvation and the Law condemned but could not save, Romans 3:19-20, Galatians 2:15-16, Hebrews 7:18-19.

Hebrews, chapters 7-10 deals with the very subject in question and is the definitive explanation of why the Old Testament Law and the Old Covenant no longer applies.

It was Christ who fulfilled the Law, Matthew 5:17, by keeping every command perfectly, which no human being could do prior to His coming and no human being can do after His coming. By fulfilling the Law as being the reality of what it was given to represent, the Law no longer had the purpose for which it was established, which was the condemnation of human conduct designed to bring Israel to a place where they would appeal for mercy to the Messiah, and it was brought to its conclusion when the Messiah came. By His fulfillment of the Law, it is the life of Jesus Christ that becomes the new standard which condemns or saves, and the means by which reconciliation to God and salvation is obtained. The priesthood of Jesus Christ was after the order of Melchizedek, which was a priesthood that existed prior to the Law of Moses and prior to the Levitical priesthood, was superior to and beyond the Law and the Levitical priesthood which it replaced. That replacement was complete and total, because it was a new priesthood which was perfect, not like the imperfect Levitical priesthood and the Law.
"Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. For He testifies, 'You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.' For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God," Hebrews 7:11-19.
The better hope was the establishment of the priesthood of Jesus Christ by which His death and resurrection actually provided the means of salvation, whereas the old Levitical priesthood could not. The old priesthood was a hope that God would honor His promise by a means that was unclear, but the new priesthood of Jesus Christ provided a hope that was the reality and had already been accomplished. The change of the priesthood was radical, because the Levitical line of priests was abolished and a priest from the non-priestly line of Judah, Jesus Christ, was established in its place. Whatever laws were in effect as a result of the Levitical priesthood became null and void with the establishment of the priesthood of Jesus Christ. If the priesthood changes, from the Levitical to the Melchizedek of Jesus Christ, then the Law under the old priesthood changes also. The old Law is abolished at the point of the change and does not apply to the new priesthood or the new Law unless it is specifically stated that certain particular elements of the old Law are to be incorporated into that new priesthood and the Law associated with it. That is the specific point of the following:

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second . . . In that He says, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away," Hebrews 8:7, 13.
In the New Testament, all of the commandments of the Law, found in Exodus 20, are repeated as part of the moral law of the gospel of Jesus Christ except one, and that is the Sabbath.
1. No other gods, 1 Corinthians 8:4-6
2. No idols, Ephesians, 5:5, Galatians 520, Colossians 3:5
3. Do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, 1 Corinthians 12:3
4. Remember the Sabbath(?) - I can't find it in the New Testament
5. Honor your father and mother, Ephesians 6:1, Colossians 3:20
6. You shall not murder, 1 John 3:15, 1 Peter 4:15
7. You shall not commit adultery, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Hebrews 13:4, 2 Peter 2:14
8. You shall not steal, Ephesians 4:28, Titus 2:10, 1 Peter 4:15
9. You shall not bear false witness, Ephesians 4:25, Colossians 3:8-9
10.You shall not covet, Ephesians 5:5, Colossians 3:5

There is no teaching or command in the New Testament stating that the Sabbath is to be observed and there is no statement of condemnation to any person who does not observe the Sabbath.

The Law of Moses (all of it, including sacrifices, temple worship, holy days, dietary laws, circumcision and the Sabbath) was abolished by the fulfillment of that Law by Jesus Christ and the establishment of His priesthood, and the old Law was replaced by a new law, the Law of Faith, Romans 4:21-31. In fact, the apostle Paul corrects those who attempted to impose Sabbath regulations on others:

"One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 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 eat not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God," Romans 14:5-6.
At the Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15, the apostles rejected the doctrine and teaching of those who attempted to once again impose the Old Testament Law on the Christian church:
"Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke [circumcision and the Law] which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" Acts 15:10.
Why did the apostles not give instruction regarding the continuation of Sabbath observance, since they rejected the imposition of Old Testament Law on the church? Would they not expect the church to believe that all of the law was abolished unless they specifically stated that the Sabbath law was not? Yet, they gave no indication that Sabbath observance was to be retained.

The fault in the covenant of Law was not with God who established it or even in the Law itself, but with man who claimed that performance of duties justified a person before God, rather than faith. The Law was weak, because it could not provide salvation for human beings who presumed that their performance was sufficient to commend them to the presence of God. But the Law was strong for the reason that it was given, not that a person could be justified by performance, but that they would be condemned by their total inability to keep the Law, requiring that a plea for mercy be directed to God:
"Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit," Romans 8:1-4.
The Law never justified, but only condemned. The requirements for salvation were the condition of the heart in relation to God, 1 Samuel 15:22, Psalm 40:6-8, Psalm 51:16-17, Isaiah 1:11-20, Micah 6:6-8.

Yet, Israel twisted the Law to mean that a person could keep the legal aspects to the exclusion of the spiritual, and could be justified before God by claiming that they had fulfilled the Law when, in reality, they had failed in their performance and were condemned before God. They did the same in relation to the Sabbath. The Sabbath was a gift from God as a day of rest, which Israel had done nothing to deserve. It was an object lesson for them in relation to the other aspects of the Law by which they placed themselves under the bondage of performance and duty, which they could not accomplish, and instead of being justified, they were condemned, never able to enjoy the spiritual Sabbath rest which the Sabbath law represented. Had they understood their position in regards to their performance, as it related to the demands of the Law, they could have gone to God for mercy and received His Sabbath rest of salvation, yet they twisted the free gift of the Sabbath itself into a duty of performance and added regulations so onerous that instead of a day of rest, the Sabbath became a day of unbearable bondage.

Performance is a means of justification before God, but no human being can accomplish the task as a result of being a descendant of Adam. It is only through the perfect performance of Jesus Christ in keeping the Law by which we are justified through faith in Him, just as His payment for our sins removes them from being accounted to us. Jesus Christ kept the Law perfectly, so that His performance would be credited to us through faith in Him, just as His death for our sins was credited to us so that we do not pay the penalty of an eternal death, also through faith in Him. If Jesus Christ died for our sins which were the result of failure to obey the commands of God, then did He not live to perform the demands of the Law so that His life and performance could be applied as a credit to our failure to perform them perfectly? How much more clear can the gospel be?

In a section above, I noted that when the priesthood changed, the Law changed also; in fact the law was abolished at the point of the change, and the elements of that Law would not appear under the new priesthood and Law of Faith unless specifically noted as being included. All of the 10 Commandments appear under the New Covenant, with the exception of the Sabbath Law and none of the Levitical laws appear. However, as I indicated in my previous note, there is a Sabbath for the Christian, but it is not a day and it is not a duty of observance, but it is a place, position and state of being in relation to Jesus Christ, who is the reality of the Sabbath. It is the Sabbath rest of Jesus Christ, whereby the Christian can rest in the salvation of Jesus Christ granted by God, which is the reality of the shadow of the Old Testament Sabbath. There is a Sabbath rest, it is given freely through the grace of God and it cannot be twisted and corrupted by human beings claiming that it can be found through their performance, because it is obtained only through faith, just as all the other elements of salvation are obtained by faith in Jesus Christ. The Old Testament Sabbath was given as a gift to Israel and was undeserved by them, just as the Sabbath rest of Jesus Christ is given to the believer by the grace of God and is also undeserved. The Old Testament Sabbath was the shadow, while the New Testament Sabbath rest of Jesus Christ is the reality. There is no rest for the legalist who is always attempting to attain a special privilege by the presumed inherent goodness of works, but the Sabbath rest of Christ is found only by faith and trust in Jesus Christ who is the surety of a salvation for the believer by which they are eternally secure.

Hebrews chapter 4 is the description of that rest. God provided a Sabbath rest for Israel, which they did not enter because they thought their standing before God was accomplished by the observance of a day, and they wished to obtain salvation by their works, which they wrongly concluded that the Law of Moses represented the possibility of obtaining. But there were some who did enter the Sabbath rest by faith, which was granted not by observing a day, but a place of justification in relation to God which was obtained by faith, Hebrews chapter 11, and every believer in Jesus Christ enters that rest in which duties and works have no part.
"Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it. For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard. For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, 'As I swore in My wrath, they shall not enter My rest,' although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day 'and God rested on the seventh day from all His works'; and again in this passage, 'They shall not enter My rest.' Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, He again fixes a certain day, 'Today,' saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, 'Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.' For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken of another day after that. So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of god. For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as god did from His. Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience," Hebrews 4:1-11.
The Sabbath Law was the shadow of a spiritual reality, in which Israel could rest in the Sabbath security of a Messiah to come by which that they could appropriate the Law of God in their heart by faith, which some of them understood, but was missed by most as they assumed their duties were the defining factor in their salvation. They continued in a bondage to the performance of the Law, and when the Messiah came, they chose the yoke of their duties and obligation to observe a specific day, in place of His salvation and missed the real Sabbath rest of the Messiah in the process.
"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light," Matthew 11:28-30.
It is a misapplication 1 John 2:3-4, to equate the commandments as being the commandments of the Law of Moses, because they are the commandments placed in the heart as a result of salvation and the work of the Holy Spirit. It is a mistake to jump over the fact that the Law of Moses was abrogated by the Law of Christ, because all of the Law of Moses was not observed by the apostles and is not observed today, even by those who adopt a Sabbatarian theology. It is easy to selectively choose which commands and Laws are considered to be important and apply those, ignoring the others as a matter of convenience, because to observe them all as they were given in Scripture is a very difficult duty to perform. In point of fact, unless they are all performed perfectly, it is pointless to perform any of them.

I am not sure of the source of the idea that the early church met on Sunday because they rested on Saturday and on the Sunday that they met, they went to work. That is quite a twist and is not supported in any Scripture. If you find a Scripture to support that idea, please let me know.

Of course Christ noted that those who sinned were lawless, because all sin is the violation of God's law, both literal and moral, however, that description does not apply just to the Law of Moses. If that were the case, then every gentile who had never heard of the Law of Moses would have been innocent of any wrongdoing, Romans 4:15, because the Law of Moses was given to Israel only. But that is not the case, because everyone, gentiles and Jews alike, are condemned by the knowledge of God in their heart, which they ignore and pervert completely outside of the Law of Moses, Romans 1:18-32; 2:12-16. However, it cannot be claimed that knowledge of the Sabbath is part of the knowledge in the heart. That idea has no support in the Scripture at all, so gentiles could not be condemned for not worshipping on the Sabbath and they were not condemned. The apostle Paul states that standing before God is not granted to the legalist,
"For if those who are of the Law (legalists who believe their performance justifies) are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified. . ," Romans 4:14
The assumption that Paul's teaching in Romans 3:31 means that he was commanding the observation of the Holy Days and the Law to be kept as it was in the Old Testament, is something which he is not saying at all. Salvation through Faith upholds the Law as to its original purpose;
1) by providing a payment (death of Jesus Christ) to God for the penalty of death for every human being, which the Law required for failure to keep it, 2) by fulfilling the Law's original purpose as a tutor to show the inability of human beings to perfectly obey the righteous demands of God, and
3) to give believers the capacity to obey the moral foundation of the Law within the heart through the Spirit, Romans 8:3-4.

Romans, chapters 6 and 7, cannot be ignored, which explain exactly what the apostle Paul meant, because it is impossible to take the Old Testament Law of Moses, which was the shadow, and claim that Paul makes it the reality. To do so, redefines the reality of Jesus Christ to again be the shadow of the Old Testament Law and places a person under the bondage of their performance in relation to that Law which they cannot keep. That is the same mistake made by Israel, by believing that duties and works somehow gave them standing before God, which they do not.

That is the same mistake made by the believing Pharisees, who the apostle Peter rebuked for bringing their legalism into the gospel. They were true believers, but their theology regarding the place and nature of works and the meaning of the Law was in error:
"But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up. saying, 'It is necessary to circumcise them [the gentiles] and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.' The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, 'Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke [circumcision and the Law] which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" Acts 15:5-10.
If the Old Testament fathers and the apostles could not bear or fulfill the letter of the Law, by what means can it be assumed that any other person can accomplish the task, and to what purpose? How is it that the yoke of the Law can be placed on another person, when the apostle Peter would not condone it? To keep the law perfectly, which is the standard, is to be sinless, so a person places them self on the same level of performance as Jesus Christ, who is the only sinless One.
"For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be," Romans 6:14-15.
When a person places them self under the conditions of the Law, then sin will be the revelation, because the Law reveals sin and not righteousness, because we are not justified by the law, but by faith, which the Law revealed was necessary to obtain:
"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." Galatians 3:23-25
The ultimate definition of the Law is defined by Jesus Christ, Matthew 5, goes far beyond even what is noted in the Old Testament because it has a moral application that profoundly places it out of the reach of accomplishment by any human being. One cannot accomplish the demands of the Law, which is absolute perfection of performance in every detail, deed and thought. The question is, why would any believer wish to subject them self to the demands of the Law when Jesus Christ has already performed those demands on their behalf by His perfect life, just as He has taken away the penalty for their sins by His substitutionary death?

If the death of Jesus Christ was sufficient to take away our sins, why is His life not seen to be sufficient as a substitute for our performance?

Believers keep the law of God as placed in the heart, which expresses itself in the conduct of everyday life. The problem occurs where there is a difficulty seeing the difference between the law placed in the heart and the Law as given in the Old Testament as a command which had to be obeyed as a duty, regardless of whether a person had a heart for God or not. When it is felt that a command is given to be obeyed as a duty, then obedience is not by faith, not through the Spirit and not through Jesus Christ, but through our carnal nature, by which we believe that our duties please God, rather than what Jesus Christ and the Spirit do through us. There is a great difference.

Even the apostle Peter said that the teachings of Paul were hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16), so do not assume that knowledge comes without effort and diligent study. I believe that most of your theology comes from a source other than yourself, elements of which, such as the godhead being a family, reflect the teachings of individuals of whom I am aware.

Sincerely,

Gary A. Hand
On Doctrine webmaster
contact@ondoctrine.com

The Legalist Challenge
Wednesday, February 25

Once again you take scriptures out of context! Colossians 2:16-17. Paul was talking to newly converted gentiles, with little knowledge of the scriptures, the new converted Jews, were telling them they still had to be circumcised, etc. We are circumcised in the heart now, both male and female. The newly converted Jews were critical of the way the gentiles were keeping the Holy Days, they still wanted all the added laws of Judaism still which are not needed! As you said temple worship, etc.

We enter into the rest the God brought into being at creation, God sanctioned that day for ever! Genesis 26:5, Abraham kept God's laws commandments long before Moses, who had to regive the laws and commandments because they Israelites had lost knowledge of them whilst in Egypt. They were used to keeping sun worship and the rest of the old Babylonian pagan religion. Now do you really think this is talking about clean and unclean food? By the way many doctors and people in the know, say that the health food laws were before their time in knowledge. Shell fish are scavengers, hence many people are poisoned from the filth these sea creature draw into themselves, but this is what they were intended to do clean up the water. I saw a programme on the TV. The scientist, put huge dirty lot of water into a glass tank, it was thick with dirt, he dropped the mussels and cockles into the water, one hour later the water was spotless, where do you think the dirt went? Mmm. Pigs , as dogs, cats ravens crows, are all the cleaners of the world this is what God created them for. So for our own good we do not eat what God says not to, common sense really! Acts10:9-16. Do you really think that Peter stated eating pork after he said this? This was talking of the Jews idea of the Gentiles, when a gentile was converted to Judaism, he was considered common by the Jews, not as bad as unclean gentiles who continued in idol worship, this was the term commonly used in their society, we did a sturdy on this matter! 1 Corinthians 10, again has nothing to do with clean and unclean foods, the newly converted Christians not to eat food that had been sacrificed to idols. As Peter said 2 Peter 3:15-16, so people do today. Revelation 22:14 says Blessed are they that keep the commandments. Revelation 22:18-19 is a warning given to those who twist the scriptures and change the truth. Christ showed us how to live as He did, by every word of the law and commandments in spirit in our lives, yes the ten commandments are still in effect today, do you murder, steal, cheat, commit adultery, break the SABBATH, etc. I hope not!!
D —

On Doctrine Reply
Hello D —,

Welcome back to On Doctrine.
Thank you for your reply.

You place quite a twist on Colossians 2:16-17, which is not supported by the text. I understand you to be saying, that the gentiles were observing the Law of Moses, but the problem was actually that the Judaizers wished to impose those laws that had been added to the Law of Moses by the religious leaders outside of the Scripture. That view is not proper, because Paul makes no reference to the Law of Moses being observed and gives no instruction to the Colossians regarding the observance of the Law of Moses. You state that I have taken the passage out of context, but you have placed it in a context that does not exist within the entire book of Colossians or within the entire teaching of the apostle Paul. Where does the book of Colossians indicate that the Colossians were keeping the Law of Moses?

Paul states his case in two ways, by which he makes one conclusion:
1. "He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having cancelled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross," Colossians 2:14.

The certificate of debt was the Law of Moses, to which I know you do not agree. The Law was hostile, because it revealed sin by the inability to keep it perfectly by which it condemned instead of provided salvation. Paul deals with the same concept in Ephesians 2:15-16, where the Law of Moses is noted as the enmity which has been put to death by Jesus Christ. He notes the same concept in his application to the those who teach a false legalism, Colossians 2:20-23.

2. "...things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ," Colossians 2:17.

Paul brackets his conclusion by his two reasons, (1) The Law of Moses was removed at the cross and, (2) those elements of the Law were only shadows, "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 . . ," Colossians 2:16.

Both of his reasons involve the application of the Law of Moses by those who were claiming that it had to be observed, and not the laws added later by the religious leaders. The apostle Paul speaks of feast days (Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacle, etc.), new moon (first day of the month sacrifice, Numbers 10:10; 28:11-14; Psalm 81:3), and the Sabbath, which were all Jewish observances.

How could the Colossians be spoken of as not being physically circumcised, and how could they be said to have had transgressions unless the apostle Paul was speaking about the Law of Moses which commanded circumcision and revealed transgressions? There is only one decree that brings a person into debt before God, from which they must be freed and that is the Law of Moses, which is hostile to us and reveals sin which must be forgiven, but the Law of Moses cannot accomplish that reality, because it is from the condemnation of Law of Moses that we must be freed, Galatians 5:1-3, Romans 8:1-17. You seem to have missed the reality of the extent of the Law. If you believe the Law of Moses was just the 10 Commandments and a few other amenities of observance, then you are greatly in error, because the Levitical priesthood, animal sacrifices, holy days, Sabbath and dietary laws were all a part of the Law given by God. That is why I noted that unless you keep all of the Law perfectly as given, it is pointless to keep any of it. You cannot pick and choose which commandments you wish to include in your belief system or which holy days you wish to observe and then ignore the rest of the Law as given. If you wish to worship as a legalist, then you must be a legalist to perfection, and hope that you have not missed or forgotten a single element of the Law and you have applied and performed every moral application of the Law to perfection and that you have never had a sinful thought or performed even one sinful deed from your birth. Then, if you believe that you have accomplished the perfection of the Law as did Jesus Christ, you must hope that God will also agree that you have performed perfectly, by which you hope to be justified in some manner, but those are works that He has already said He will reject, Romans 3:20, Romans 4:14-15. Apparently you would believe that salvation is by grace through faith, but then you separate sanctification from grace and faith, assuming it is accomplished by works through the keeping of the law.

I am interested to know what those "things which are a mere shadow of what is to come," are considered to be, according to your belief, and how they are applied to gentile belief as things to come. Apparently you define them in a different manner from that found in the Scripture, Hebrews 8:5, 9:23, 10:1. Your idea that the gentile Colossians were observing holy days (as part of their keeping the Law of Moses), but doing it improperly according to the legalistic Jews, is not supported in the text. You admit that the Jews were telling gentiles that they had to be circumcised, which was established as a perpetual identification of the descendants of Abraham, Genesis 17:10-14, Leviticus 12:3, but you seem to identify it with a non-essential law which no longer applies because we are circumcised in the heart today. Now, the reality of the shadow of circumcision is that true circumcision is of the heart which was also noted in the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 10:16, Deuteronomy 30:6, and in the New Testament, Romans 2:29. Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:11. That is all very good, and you seem to believe that. However, whether you believe that physical circumcision is still the Law or has been replaced by a circumcision of the heart, the reality is that circumcision was a command of God in the Old Testament, Leviticus 12:3, and was part of the Law of Moses, so, how was it not practiced as a part of the Law of Moses by the Colossians (since you say they were keeping the Law of Moses), how is it not practiced today and how is it said by the apostle Paul that its practice is of no benefit and that its practice, even as a command of God, is a yoke of slavery from which the believer is to be free?
"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law," Galatians 51-3.
The apostle Paul tells the Galatians that to accept circumcision is to place a person under obligation to keep the whole Law of Moses, which would not be the case if they did not accept circumcision. To accept circumcision is to place a person under the Law of Moses which the apostle Paul defines as "a yoke of slavery". So what is wrong with this picture? If you say the Colossians and Galatians were already keeping the Law of Moses, of which circumcision was a part as a command of God, then how could the apostle Paul say that to accept circumcision, as a future event, would bring a person under an obligation to keep the Law of Moses, which you say they were already doing? How does the apostle Paul say that to accept circumcision brings a person under obligation to the whole Law of Moses and will make Jesus Christ of no benefit if they were already keeping that Law? If that were the case, then Jesus Christ was already of no benefit to them, and Paul was speaking double talk You back yourself into a corner by claiming that the Colossians were keeping the Law of Moses, because the apostle Paul was explaining just the opposite; that they were not keeping the Law of Moses, but to accept circumcision as a requirement of works would place them under obligation to keep the Law of Moses, which they could not keep, Romans 4:13-17. They would remove themselves from salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, because they would choose the attempt to accomplish salvation through keeping the Law of Moses by their own works, rather than by faith in the work of Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul was telling the Colossians, "Don't do that. Don't accept circumcision as an addition to faith, because you place yourself under the Law of Moses, which you are not under at the present time." It is the same issue found in Acts 15, and Peter said that the gentiles were not to be bound by circumcision or the Law of Moses.

The legalistic Jews, in Colossians 2:16, were claiming that the Law of Moses was to be observed in relation to food, drink, holy days and the Sabbath, and by implication, in Colossians 2:11, advocating circumcision also. They were stated to be specifically advocating circumcision in Acts 15. The legalist who demands that circumcision is to be practiced, places them self in the position whereby they become subject to the whole Law of Moses and must keep all of it perfectly, because they assume that their duties and works are the means of justification. Whether that justification is said to be in relation to salvation, which some would claim, or in relation to some other standing before God, makes no difference in regards to the fact that the claim is made, but in relation to the Law of Moses, no one can be justified in any manner by the attempt to keep it.
". . . because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin," Romans 3:20.
There were the Judaizers (legalists) who were teaching that salvation was through a system of works, of which faith might be a part, but was the minor element. They were saying that salvation by faith was all fine and good, but to make it effective, what a person actually had to do was keep the Old Testament Law of Moses. That is the reason Paul makes his point, because legalistic Jews were imposing those elements on the gentiles, which is the specific issue dealt with by Peter at the Council at Jerusalem in Acts 15. The conclusion by Peter, in which he states that circumcision and the imposition of the Law of Moses, which includes the Sabbath command, on gentiles was not to be allowed, was quite simple, because the Law could not be kept by the Old Testament followers or by the apostles themselves and would lead to condemnation and not salvation. You are ignoring Peter's direct command and clear statement, because to accept it removes the foundation of your premise. But your comment begs the question, because whether they were Jews or gentiles or both together, the issue is that the shadows define the elements of the Old Testament Law and the things to come define those things that are the reality in relation to Jesus Christ. You cannot perceive that issue in any other manner.

I cannot understand how you claim that we are in a rest established at creation, when in fact we are under the condemnation, judgment and wrath of God as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve which violated any presumed rest, by which we escape only by the salvation of Jesus Christ and enter into the Sabbath rest of God, established through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If you wish to believe in a Sabbath rest established at creation given to Adam and Eve, then you must provide the explanation of what it is and how it works, which Genesis 2:1-3 does not teach. The Scripture says God rested after creation, but says nothing about Adam and Eve. Just how does worshipping on the seventh day place a person in the Sabbath rest of creation?

Abraham was justified by faith, because he believed God and did what God told him, but there is no Scriptural basis for a claim that Abraham received the elements of the commandments found in the Law of Moses, that were then forgotten by Israel and later "restored" by a giving again of the Law to Moses. Genesis 26:5 provides no such teaching, because the laws and commandments are not specified.

Jacob was the first person to be called Israel and it was he and his sons and their families who first went to Egypt, as a result of their encounter with Joseph, and who began the nation of Israel while they lived in Egypt. Israel were the people of God, because of the covenant and promise given to Abraham, but there is no Scriptural reference to a law being given to Abraham, Isaac or Jacob, as being the same as the Law of Moses.

In order to support your position, that the Law of Moses must always be observed, you must claim that the Law, identical to that found in the Law of Moses, was given to Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and is a perpetual obligation of all human beings to observe, just as those claim that the Sabbath was established as a perpetual obligation in Genesis 2:1-3. The difficulty is that those claims are by assumptions only, and no biblical evidence is found as support. The Law of Moses was given to Israel at Mt. Sinai and was not a giving again of any Law given to Adam and Eve or Noah or Abraham or Isaac or Jacob, because the Scripture provides no teaching regarding that claim. Without specific biblical teaching regarding a subject, no assumption has the force of doctrine.

There was no priesthood in the Old Testament prior to the Levitical priesthood established under the Law of Moses, except for the priesthood of Melchizedek, which is the priesthood of Jesus Christ, and is of the Law of Faith and transcends the Law of Moses and the Levitical priesthood.

Yes, the Scripture is teaching about clean and unclean food. That is quite clear in Acts 10, where the apostle Peter was commanded three times to "kill and eat." The claim that God commanded Peter to "kill and eat", but what He was actually saying was "Don't eat the unclean animals but just the ones that are not as unclean as the others," makes the vision ludicrous with no meaning, which is the application that you make by your definition of gentile converts not being as bad as unclean gentiles. Whether Peter did eat those specific animals later, is not the issue, but the fact is, God declared the animals to be ceremonially clean and therefore touchable and edible. That is the point of the comparison as applied to the gentiles who were considered ceremonially unclean and therefore untouchable. It did not matter whether a gentile was an idol worshipper, an atheist or just a good person, they were all considered to be unclean. However, within the church this uncleanness has no place and has been abolished, Galatians 3:28. That is the specific point of the vision. The vision makes no sense if the animals were not actually declared clean, because they are representative of the gentiles who are declared clean and to which the gospel applies just as it does to Jews.

I do not know how the study of the passage, which you were a part, concluded that the gentiles referred to were converts to Judaism to which some other definition of uncleanness was applied. If this is what you are implying, then you create great difficulties for yourself, because you limit the apostle Peter's understanding of just which gentiles should receive the gospel to only those who were converts to Judaism, while the rest of the gentile world remained unclean. That is not the comparison made in the vision, nor does it represent the conclusion made by the apostle Peter. Nowhere in Acts is that interpretation of the vision presented, so it is not an acceptable teaching. The gospel was presented to all gentiles, not just those who might have been converts to Judaism. How could the vision apply to a lesser definition of gentile uncleanness when the gospel was preached to all gentiles, and how do you say that the apostles would accept such a definition when the gospel was to be preached to the entire world? Were gentile converts to Judaism to be the only gentiles to which the gospel was to be preached? If a person adopts your definition of uncleanness, then you must conclude that the only way for a gentile to become a Christian would be for them to first convert to Judaism and then the gospel message could be given to them. You must think again about that definition of just who was considered to be unclean, because when you accept a certain belief, you must also consider the logical consequences and conclusion of that belief. In this case, the conclusion is a place you do not wish to go, because you make Jesus Christ speak falsely in relation to the great commission,
"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations . . ," Matthew 28:19a.
I don't see any restriction on the gospel being preached only to nations that had converted to Judaism. In addition, you make the apostle Paul speak falsely in relation to his commission,
"I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek," Romans 1:14-16.
Did he speak about Greeks (I realize that in certain beliefs, Greeks are erroneously considered to be true Jews) converted to Judaism being the only ones receiving the gospel? Which is the greater uncleanness, a gentile convert to Judaism or a gentile pagan? So, if Jesus Christ commanded that the gospel be preached to all gentile nations of the world, the apostle Paul and Peter and all the other apostles were preaching to all the gentile pagans, then the vision of Peter was in relation to the Law regarding the abolition of the dietary laws, and the inclusion of all gentiles as recipients of the message of the gospel.

The entire idea of a ceremonial uncleanness (which was the point in regards to the unclean designation of certain animals) was abolished in the instructions given to Peter, which also applied to gentiles in relation to Israel. If the reason for an animal to be declared unclean no longer applies, how is it that it could not be eaten just the same as any other animal that was also considered to be clean?

The example of the contaminated mussels and cockles is all quite nice, but the same problem of contamination applies to those foods that are noted in the law as being clean. Any sea creature with fins was considered to be clean, however fish are contaminated by mercury and pesticides. The fact that the contamination may not have been as great a problem in the Old Testament does not change the fact that the problem exists today, so if the Law was given as a practical solution to a contamination problem, God must have forgotten to apply the prohibition against what were then clean animals, but would someday become unclean as a result of pollution in the environment. Yes, many of the dietary laws have a practical application, but were not based on that reasoning. All prohibitions were based on the idea of a ceremonial uncleanness which was also a shadow of the nature of sin impressed on the nation from outside influences.

The apostle Paul made no distinction between pork or any other unclean food in relation to Colossians 21:6, which was a part of the Old Testament Law of Moses as the "mere shadow of what is to come," verse 17, so any claim that he was not speaking of the abolishment of that aspect of the Law, but was in fact upholding it, makes no sense. Just as in relation to the Sabbath day, vs. 16, he was noting the passing away of the Law of Moses which was not to be imposed on those believing Christians. If, by your example, you are claiming that the dietary prohibitions were strictly for health reasons, then you weaken your position, because in the absence of those health concerns those laws have no reason to exist. If they should be observed for health reasons today, that ignores the fact that in most developed countries those health concerns have no basis in fact, because clean food is readily available, so the prohibition has no practical benefit under those circumstances. However, health concerns are not the primary reason for the prohibitions being given. How can Paul say, "no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink..," (including himself as part of the "no one"), and then is claimed to have meant, "Unless you observe the dietary Laws of Moses, you are sinful, carnal, lawless, followers of anti-Christ...., etc." Under those circumstances the definition of "no one" becomes "some one" or "any one" which is just the opposite of what he said.

The entire issue of the dietary laws in regards to the question is resolved by a real and practical application regarding the question of the meat offered to idols, 1 Corinthians 10:25-31. If the dietary laws were still in effect, then the answer to the question given by the apostle Paul was a violation of the Law of Moses and he was advocating that a person could sin with impunity by eating that which was forbidden. But, since the Law did not apply, a person could eat what was offered, regardless of the type of meat, with a clear conscience and with perfect liberty to do so. In relation to the meat that had been offered to idols, the apostle Paul states,
"Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience' sake," 1 Corinthians 10:25.
Not only could the person purchase and eat what the Jews would have considered to have been ceremonially unclean, they could eat the same food when they were the guest in the home of another person, including the homes of gentiles, 1 Corinthians 10:32.

The apostle Paul makes no exception in regards to the type of meat consumed. Whatever was found in the meat market could be purchased and whatever was offered by a host could be eaten. He makes no statement that a person could eat any meat that had been offered to an idol, except pork or any other unclean animal. The same teaching of Paul is found in 1 Timothy 4:1-5. He does not state that all foods should be received and then say there are exceptions that apply to those that are unclean.

The entrance of meat into the diet was by authority from God and was not through the Levitical law, but is found in the covenant with Noah, Genesis 9:3-4. God stated that every moving creature was given to him for food, the only prohibition was to not eat the blood of any animal. So, in relation to Noah, all animals were considered to be clean regardless of type. In relation to Israel, a new covenant superseded that of Noah and the law was changed in which the Law of Moses replaced the law commanded to Noah. No one could then claim that they could eat the unclean animals because they were observing the perpetual law given to Noah and then ignore the new law given to Moses. In the same manner, a person cannot claim to observe the law of Moses and then ignore the provisions of the New Covenant of grace which replaced the Old Law of Moses.

Something fundamental changed when the covenant with Noah was replaced by the Law of Moses. The eating of an entire group of foods which had previously been approved and practiced under Noah, suddenly became prohibited, bound by a new Law which changed and abolished the old, and redefined what was acceptable. In the same manner, there is a change in relation to the law of Moses by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the establishment of His priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, which replaced the old Levitical priesthood, which also brought about an abolishment of the old Law of Moses.

All of the teaching in the New Testament about the dietary laws is from the standpoint of the negative in relation to their application, just like the Sabbath Law of Moses. There is no text in which observance of dietary laws, as found in the Law of Moses, are affirmed to be in effect. In 1 Corinthians 10:28-29, the apostle Paul does not forbid the eating of meat offered to idols because of the Law of Moses, but because of the conscience of another person who thinks the action is wrong due to their previous association with idol worship, "do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you" [that the meat had been offered to idols], vs. 28. Even in that instance, the other person did not think it was wrong because it violated the Law of Moses, but because the meat had been offered to idols. The person was still weak in the faith and did not understand the freedom that came in the Christian life, which views an offering to an idol as nothing, in which the offering does nothing to change the nature or character of the meat being eaten. The person eating was not the one whose conscience was offended, but another at the dinner who knew the meat had been offered to idols and found it to be troubling, "'Conscience,' I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience?" vs. 29. So, Paul says not to eat, not because to do so would be a violation of the Law of Moses, but out of respect for the feelings of a weaker fellow Christian brother, who would condemn a person for eating the meat, even though they were perfectly at liberty to partake. There are two issues involved, (1) refusing the meat will offend the host, (2) eating the meat will offend the weaker Christian brother. In that instance, the apostle Paul says it is better to offend the unbelieving host rather than the weaker Christian brother, "do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you," vs. 28.

The apostle Paul deals previously with the same issue in chapter 8,
"Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world . . . However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse," 1 Corinthians 84, 7-8.
There is to be no judgment as to what a person eats or does not eat in relation to the gospel or a believer's personal belief. That is what the apostle Paul said, and since that is the case, the dietary laws of the Law of Moses are abolished by reality. A person can only be judged if there is a law to apply in relation to guilt that requires a judgment. So, if a person is not to be judged, then there is no law to apply. Those dietary prohibitions were a part of the Law of Moses, so my question still stands, "If the Law was a permanent fixture, how is some of it abolished by Peter and Paul when it was all equally commanded by God, and why is only some of it kept today and not all of it?"

One of the greatest difficulties you must overcome is the reality that the dietary laws were part of the Law of Moses and commands of God in the Old Testament, but Jesus Christ states that eating of foods does not defile a person, and the apostle Mark states that by His statement, Jesus Christ declared all foods to be clean, which is the very issue presented in Acts 10,
"And He said to them, 'Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into he heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?' (Thus He declared all foods clean.) And He was saying, 'That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man,'" Mark 7:18-20.
There are additional issues about which you must consider,
"But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself he might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by having put to death the enmity," Ephesians 213-16.
I know that you would like to believe that the Law referred to by Paul is the addition of the laws of the Jews to the Law of Moses, but the verse makes no statement to that effect and that definition and subject is not introduced by the apostle Paul. The enmity was the Law of Moses and the Law of Moses died, put to death by Jesus Christ because the Law of duties and works has no claim on the believer. If you wish to perform its precepts by duties and works, then you perform dead ordinances of a dead law and not ordinances of God established in the heart by faith.

You cannot have it both ways, because if you believe in a legal obligation, then your justification, whether it is salvation or sanctification, is by your own works rather than by faith, of which works and duties have no part.

You do not seem to understand the significance of the abolishment of the Levitical priesthood and the establishment of the priesthood of Jesus Christ after the order of Melchizedek. You miss the explanation about the Law of Moses in relation to that change, Hebrews 7:12. Since there was a change in the priesthood, then by definition, there is an abolishment of the previous law unless the elements of the previous law are specifically stated as being incorporated into the new law. You pass over this explanation of the nature of the priesthood established by Jesus Christ, "who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life," Hebrews 7:16. The priesthood of Jesus Christ is not established by the Law of Moses which mandated a priesthood of duties and obligations by priests who were temporary and could not offer sacrifices that could provide salvation, but it is established by His resurrection from the dead, because "how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" Hebrews 9:14.

If the Law of Moses is to be observed today, how is it that the writer of Hebrews states that it was a symbolic observance only?
". . . the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience - concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation," Hebrews 9:8-10.
The time of reformation has already come in the person and work of Jesus Christ by which salvation is offered through the New Covenant which replaces the Old Covenant of Moses. The symbols of the Old Covenant of Moses are replaced by their reality as found in the person of Jesus Christ by which the law of God is accomplished in us through faith in Jesus Christ.

My question to you is directed to the core of your belief, because if you believe the Law of Moses applies to you today, how is it then that Jesus Christ does not keep the Law today as given in the Law of Moses? cf. Exodus 2:9.
"For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; nor was it that he would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now one at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him," Hebrews 9:24-28.
Now, if the Law of Moses is a perpetual obligation to perform, why did Jesus Christ offer Himself once as a sacrifice and then offer no sacrifices according to the Law of Moses and offers no such sacrifices today? And why does He not have Levitical priests serving in the temple, offering sacrifices every day?

Since Jesus Christ does not offer sacrifices any longer, but has His own priesthood, then you must accept that the Levitical priesthood is abolished and the Law of Moses regarding sacrifices is changed, but if that is the case then why do you claim that the Levitical dietary laws are not abolished also, since there is no longer a Levitical priesthood, and how do you also say that the Law regarding the Sabbath is not changed and cannot be changed, since with the abolishment of the priesthood there is a change of the Law of Moses, Hebrews 7:11-28? If it is said that the Law of Moses does not apply to Jesus Christ, how can it be said that He lived by the commandments and does so today, but at least one of those commandments He does not observe? How is it that there is no record, teaching or command in the New Testament that the sacrifices of the Law of Moses must be observed, and no record is found that the apostles kept such observances or that the early church kept such observances?

It was quite clear in my last note that I affirm nine of the 10 Commandments to be part of the New Testament, as representative of the moral law of God, because they are restated in the Scripture. However, the fourth commandment regarding the Sabbath and other ceremonial aspects of the Law of Moses, are not commanded or taught as an observance anywhere in the New Testament. Again I ask you to provide the Scripture that demands observance of the Sabbath and explains its application to the Christian, when it was given specifically and exclusively to Israel as a sign. Exodus 31:16-17, Ezekiel 20:12, Nehemiah 9:14.

I began my last communication regarding Colossians 2:16-17, a passage that you mentioned, but one in which you stumble in trying to explain. I specifically started with that passage for that very reason, because what you fail to understand is the relationship of the shadow of the Law of Moses with the reality of its fulfillment through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ; and the shadow of the Sabbath Law with the reality of the Sabbath rest of God by salvation through Jesus Christ. You believe that by observing the Sabbath as the only specific and valid day of worship, that you are somehow enjoying the "rest of God brought into being at creation," but you miss the reality that all Christians enter the Sabbath rest of God, not as a day of observance and not as a result of creation, but as a result of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ who is the source of salvation. The true Sabbath rest of God is freedom from the penalty of sin revealed by the Law of Moses, and freedom from the attempt to become righteous before God through works, just as God rested from His works,
"For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His," Hebrews 4:10.
You may choose to observe the Sabbath, but you do not enter the Sabbath rest of God by your observance of a day. You enter the Sabbath rest as a result of salvation through Jesus Christ.

You miss the comparison of the rest of God in Genesis 2:1-3 with Hebrews 4:10. The Scripture says that God rested as a result of a perfect work of creation, not Adam and Eve who had never worked a day prior to God establishing His rest in Genesis 2:1-3, because they had not been created for even a full day. But, Christians rest because of Jesus Christ's perfect work of salvation. You miss the true Sabbath rest because you are not resting from your works but you are resting in your duties, which is not a rest but a perpetual obligation to duty which is a work. You perform your observance because you believe it is obligatory and will bring you recognition before God, however, Christians perform good works not out of obligation but out of love for God, which Jesus Christ defined as the greatest commandment, both in relation to God and to man,
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another," John 14:34.
"'Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?' Jesus said to him, ''You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the Prophets,'" Matthew 22:36-40.
Legalism is based on the belief that we have a goodness, righteousness, value or worth based on who we are or supposedly become as a result of our obedience to duties, and that God has an obligation to recognize, honor or reward that self-defined value, also as a result of our performance. But to rest in duties is to go no farther than yourself, because works before God do not justify as to salvation or as to our presumed possession of some inherent goodness by which our duties commend us before God which results in sanctification. As I noted previously, you separate the method of salvation from that of sanctification, maintaining salvation by grace through faith, but holding on to the shadow of works in order to obtain sanctification by your effort. Salvation is by grace through faith, but sanctification is also by the same means. Jesus Christ died to pay the penalty for our sins, but He lived a perfect life in relation to the Law of Moses, so that He could secure our justification and sanctification by His performance and not ours,
"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit," Romans 8:3-4.
For some reason, yet unexplained, you assume that because I state that the Law of Moses was abolished, that I do not affirm the Commandments of God. Nothing could be farther from the truth, because through faith, the commandments are established (Romans 3:31), "so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." The commandments are fulfilled in us by the life and death of Jesus Christ, through which we appropriate by faith the ability to manifest the fruit of the Holy Spirit, Galatians 5:16-26. In relation to the 10 Commandments, there are nine that are established in the New Testament, which are written for us to observe as the moral law of God, but they do not include sacrifices, holy days, dietary laws and the Sabbath, because those were abolished by the change of the priesthood and were not reestablished as part of the New Covenant, and they were not observed by the early church or the apostles.
"For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit," Romans 8:3-4
The Law of Moses was weak, unable to bring about a righteous state or holy life, because of human flesh which is the mind in opposition to God, "because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God," Romans 8:7. The Law irritated the sinful minds of human beings, that would not and could not subject themselves to a Law of which they were spiritually incapable of keeping. But God's plan was to send His own Son, who had a body of flesh, but with the power to be sinless and fulfilled the requirements of the Law of Moses which no other human being could do. God's plan was apart from the Law of Moses,
"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law," Romans 3:21-28.
"For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace," Romans 6:14.
"For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter," Romans 7:5-6.
Through the life of Jesus Christ, sin in the flesh was condemned and dealt with on the cross. In Romans 8:4, the righteous requirement of the Law of Moses, the ultimate purpose of righteousness that could not be fulfilled in human beings through the Law of Moses, was fulfilled in us through Jesus Christ. Sin is not yet abolished, because we still live in a sinful world and in a body not yet redeemed to its final state, but Christians now have the power to walk in a righteous life (though not perfect) through Jesus Christ, "according to the Spirit."

Sincerely,

Gary A. Hand
On Doctrine webmaster
contact@ondoctrine.com

The Legalist Challenge
Saturday, March 20

This is not your time to understand. I will not argue with a person who does not want to see the truth. The Scriptures are clear! John 1:1-3. Christ gave the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20.

No where can we find in the Bible where the laws and commandments have been done away with. According to you, Paul must have been confused keeping one thing himself and teaching others to break the commandments of God, Acts 18:21, 1 Corinthians 5:8. The rest of the apostles and church were also keeping the Holy Days, Jude 12. There is written evidence of the early church in Britain and the Celts keeping the Holy days. It was Rome who brought the nonsense in about not keeping the Scriptures as they are written! And you have fallen for it. Broad is the way and many there be that enter, but narrow is the way and few there be that find it. I would say sir, you are one of the many, you have tripped over the truth, stood up and brushed it off and walked on. So, God willing, I will see you in the second resurrection, Revelation 20:5-6, although you still believe the Catholic doctrine. This is the truth, the Scriptures do not lie and twist like men! So sleep now, see you later.
— D

On Doctrine Reply
Hello D —,

Thank you for your reply.

I was disappointed that you chose not to deal with the issues that I presented in my last communication. It would be to your benefit to present a biblical defense of those claims, not necessarily to me, but for yourself, because you will find how difficult the task will be.

I never said the 10 Commandments have been done away with. I said the Law of Moses was abolished, of which they were a part, however nine of the Ten Commandments were instituted as part of the moral law of God in the New Testament, the references I noted in my first communication, so they are part of Christian conduct today, but they are kept, not by human effort as the attempt was in the Old Testament, but by means of the Holy Spirit working through the believer. As I mentioned before, you do not understand the significance of the abolishment of the Levitical priesthood and the establishment of the priesthood of Jesus Christ after the order of Melchizedek as noted in Hebrews 7:12, as it relates to the abolishment of the Law of Moses. The fourth commandment regarding Sabbath worship was not a moral law of the same nature as the other nine and remains abolished, because it is not mentioned or reestablished in the New Testament. I have asked that you provide the teaching and doctrine regarding keeping the Sabbath, as found in the New Testament, but you have not been able to do that, because there is no teaching in the New Testament that commands that the Sabbath be kept and there is no teaching explaining how it should be done or why. As I mentioned before, the Sabbath law in the Old Testament was given to Israel only as a sign of the covenant between God and Israel, Exodus 31:16-17, Ezekiel 20:12-32, Nehemiah 9:14. You can read the texts yourself, so what do they mean? According to me, the apostle Paul was not confused in any manner. It is only when you claim that he was observing the feast days, dietary laws and the Sabbath, that what he says becomes hopelessly confusing and contradictory. That was my specific point in relation to 1 Corinthians 8:4, 7-8; 10:25-31. That was also why I pointed out the difficulty that you create when you assume that the vision of Peter applies to gentiles who were converted to Judaism rather than all gentiles, and the difficulty you have when you claim that the gentiles were observing the law of Moses, of which circumcision was a part, but the apostle Paul says that to accept circumcision is to place a person under the authority of the whole law, which he was telling them not to do. That difficulty is not with the apostle Paul but is in relation to what you wish the apostle Paul to have been doing and saying, but what he actually says destroys the foundation of your premise. It is a difficulty that you must resolve, because what the apostle Paul is saying supports my premise but creates problems for yours, as does the apostle Peter in Acts 10 and the Council at Jerusalem in Acts 15.

You mentioned 3 texts in order to support your belief that the church and the apostles were keeping the holy days. So I will respond to them.

Acts 18:21
"But bade them farewell, saying, 'I MUST BY ALL MEANS KEEP THIS FEAST THAT COMETH IN JERUSALEM but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus." (KJV)

That is an impressive verse and it appears to support your claim in a wonderful manner, except, there is a very severe problem. The section in capital letters does not appear in the earliest manuscripts that are available. Those words are a later interpolation; an insertion that was never in the original Scripture. Since they are not Scripture, they cannot be used to support your foundation.

The New American Standard Version renders the verse in a more proper form . . . but taking leave of them and saying, 'I will return to you again if God wills,' he set sail from Ephesus."

The same problem is found in Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 57, which are also later additions and are not Scripture. You do not have to take my word for this, because you can do your own research.

1 Corinthians 5:8
"Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." (KJV)

I am not sure how you conclude that the passage indicates that the Corinthians were observing the Old Testament Passover. The background elements are, (1) the Old Testament Passover as the shadow of the reality of the finished work of Jesus Christ who died for the sins of the world, and, (2) the Feast of Unleavened Bread which is an illustration of the Christian life of holiness as a continuing action. Verses 6-8 explain themselves. "For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us," so the feast being celebrated is not the literal Jewish Old Testament feast of the Passover which was the shadow of the reality that the true Passover is Jesus Christ Himself. It is not an actual feast but a spiritual feast which is the Christian life, because the leaven is symbolic of the unregenerate life of malice and wickedness, but the unleavened bread is symbolic of the regeneration of Christ leading to a life of sincerity and truth. Why would they be keeping the Old Testament feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread, when the actual Passover who is Jesus Christ has already come and replaced the shadow, and the shadow of the unleavened bread has been replaced by the reality that a regenerated life of sanctification is possible in the manner of the purity of unleavened bread replacing the impurity of leavened bread? You continually wish to observe in the shadow and in the process miss the reality.

Jude 12
"These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear; clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots. . ." (KJV)

Charity in the Greek is "agapao" which is properly translated "to love, love, beloved". The feast is correctly named a "love feast", something which is unknown in the Old Testament feasts. Jesus Christ commanded only one feast to be observed, which is a feast of remembrance known as communion or the Lord's Supper. That is the "love feast" being celebrated. It was celebrated at every worship service of the early church and was a complete meal at which the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was remembered. It is this particular element that Jude and Peter, 2 Peter 2:13, find so disturbing, because the churches were being corrupted by conduct in a service celebrating the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that had degenerated into drunken parties and orgies, also noted by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. You wish to observe feasts and holy days, but when the church was actually observing a feast commanded by Jesus Christ, you do not admit to the reality.

This is my last note to you unless you wish to continue the communication. I am always willing to respond to any question or claim, so feel free to send a note if you wish. I would only comment that you should take the various points that I have made, list them on a piece of paper and then, using the Scripture and not what some person says about the Scripture, deal with each point and provide for yourself a proper and complete rebuttal. You should be upset with me because I will not yield to your belief or that I have provided a defense that you may not have encountered before, but you should be able to defend your position by a proper use of Scripture, which you have not adequately been able to do.

Sincerely,

Gary A. Hand
On Doctrine webmaster
contact@ondoctrine.com

The Legalist Challenge
Monday, March 22 - 1 of 2

Dear Gary,

I find it difficult to understand how on earth you cannot read the Bible as it is written. Why you do not trust in the word of God to mean what it says? When God makes promise, or sanctifies anything, be it a day, food or people, that sanctification lasts! You cannot unset what God has made so!

Genesis 2:2-3, tells us of the creation and sanctification of the Sabbath day. This day was in effect long before the first Jew was born! The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. It was crated as a day that man could draw closer to his creator and study of His word. A day to rest from the problems of everyday life, to be refreshed in God's word! When God says that He does not lie, you must believe that, when He says He changes not, Malachi 3:6. This is the word Jesus Christ [was] speaking, John 1:1-3, John 1:18. Christ was the God who gave the Ten Commandments. He did not come to do away with them but to fill them to the top, not only in the letter but in the spirit! Matthew 5:18. You do not seem to believe these Scriptures. Nothing will pass away until heaven and earth no longer remain!

Genesis: Abraham, long before Moses kept the laws and commandments, Genesis 26:5. This is part of the reason he received the blessings! Hebrews 7:12. Yes, Christ was Melchizedek, Abraham also met the same being and tithed to Him. Melchizedek is God, he does not change, Genesis 14:18. This did not do away with the laws or commandments! Exodus 31:16-17. Israel was intended to be an example for the rest of the world, who were at that time keeping the old Babylonian religion, sun worship, sunday keeping, saturnalia, etc. Read ALEXANDER HISLOPS THE TWO BABYLONS. God gave the way of life He expected the whole world to live, but through disobedience Plan two came into play, so that instead of just keeping the letter of [the] law, which cannot save, through Christ we can keep it in the spirit! I will try to show you the difference between the old and new covenant;

OLD
1. Male circumcision
2. Animal sacrifice
3. Command and works of law
4. Justification was to the temple
5. Physical blesings
6. Administration of death
7. Inherit the land of Israel
8. Rule the world if obedient, to be example to rest of world.

NEW
1. Calling of God
2. Repentence
3. Baptism
4. Sacrifice of Christ
5. Holy Spirit
6. Circumcision of both male and female
7. Commandments in higher calling of spirit with good works towards others - James 2:17-26
8. Administration of righteousness - righteousness simply translated means law keeping, iniquity means law breaking. Look it up for yourself.
9. Justification to God in heaven
10. Worship in spirit
11. Spiritual and physical blessings.
12. Resurrection to eternal life
13. Inherit the Kingdom of God, be part of His family
14. Rule the world and universe, be example to all, teach all the truth, be priests and kings in God family, Revelation 20:6.

The Old Covenant stopped when Christ died. Physical Israel disqualified herself through sin. God was married to Israel. Christ will be married to the saints.

1 Corinthians 8:4, nothing to do with unclean food. This refers to idols. Also [1 Corinthians] 10:25-31. You can find book written by scientists today, holding the biblical food laws up as superior and before their time. When you read these passages, understand these apostles did not eat unclean food. Can you imagine how the pharisees would have reacted. They could only accuse Christ of not washing His hands. They would have mentioned the abomination of eating unclean food. Peter said that he had never eaten anything unclean and never would.

The sheet coming down from heaven refers to men, not food. Acts 10:28, simply answers your question, but you do not trust the written word. Your ideas come from men. As to Acts 18:2, the Textus Receptus is correct, and we know here that it is the spring time this was referring to, when Paul wanted to keep the feast, just jump ahead and read Acts 20:16. No, my friend, you are mistaken one. Read ROMES CHALLENGE on line, this directed at the protestants who twist the Scriptures, at least the Catholics admit that they have changed times and season to suit themselves, you are still very much linked to Rome in heart and deed. Nowhere in the bible can we find anything that does away with the truth that Almighty God has given us. Also, read on line THE CELTS SABBATH HOLY DAY KEEPERS. Maybe this will open your misguided mind a little! I have also studied the Bible for over thirty years, from Genesis- Revelation. I will never return to the pagan days I used to keep. I can find no where that tells us to keep Sunday instead of Saturday, Christmas, Easter, Lent, Halloween instead of the Holy Days. I do not follow Babylon. I never will, so pleas don't contact me again with any more of your paganised religion, UNLESS YOU COME TO YOUR SENSES. As I said before, God willing, I will see you in the Second Resurrection. To be a Christian means to follow in His footsteps, live as He lived in all things just as His followers did! Until Rome came along and took the many with it! Remember few there be that find the right way, the many go into the broad gate. Look at the size of Rome and the protestant church. One could never call this the few in a million years!!
D —

The Legalist Challenge
Monday, March 22 - 2 of 2

Gary,

The only things that were done away with was circumcision, we are no to be that way in our hearts. Animal sacrifice, Christ was our Passover lamb. Everything of any great meaning always happens on the Holy days. These days are a shadow of things yet to come, Passover, Unleavened bread, Wheat Sheaf Offering, Pentecost. Al of these have been completed, the rest is yet to come (Trumpets) Christ will return, (Atonement) Satan is put away from mankind, (Tabernacles) the coming world ruled by Christ and His saints, (Last Great Day) when all who have never heard the name of Christ or who have not had a chance to repent will be resurrected for that reason. Then on to God's plan for eternity.

We keep these days because they remind us of God's plan for mankind. One day you too will keep them I hope. Zechariah 14:16-19, yet to happen!!God's word is sure. Who will you trust the word of God or the Catholic church?
D —

On Doctrine Reply
NOTE: Since I will not change my mind in order to adopt a belief system not based on the Scripture, I honored the request of the individual to not reply. However, the statements do require a reply, because they are so far removed from the truth of the Scripture. The following is a reply that answers the issues, but was never sent.
Hello—
Welcome back and thank you for your reply.

I will consider your points as follows.

A. SANCTIFICATION - SABBATH
You wrote:
". . . this day was in effect long before the first Jew was born!"

Genesis 2:2-3
"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." (KJV)

1. Who rested on the seventh day?
(A) God? (B) Adam and Eve? (C) All three?

2. In relation to your answer, what do the two verses say?
(A) God rested? (B) Adam and Eve rested? (C) All three rested?

3. In Genesis 2:2-3, do the verses state that God commanded Adam and Eve to keep the Sabbath?
Where does the Scripture say that God commanded or instructed Adam and Eve to keep the Sabbath?
Where does the Scripture say that Adam and Eve kept the Sabbath?
Where is there an incident in the Scripture which shows that Adam and Eve were observing the Sabbath?

4. From Genesis 2:2-3 until Exodus 20:8-11, where does the Scripture say that God commanded or instructed Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph or anyone to keep the Sabbath and where is there a mention of a Sabbath?

5. In relation to the new civilization after the flood, where does the Scripture say that God commanded Noah or any of his family to keep the Sabbath?

Where does the Scripture say that Noah or any of his family kept the Sabbath?

Where is there an example of an incident in which Noah was shown to be keeping the Sabbath?

6. Where is the first place in the Scripture where God specifically commands human beings to keep the Sabbath? (A) Genesis 2:2-3? (B) Genesis 17:9-14? (C) Exodus 20:8-11? (D) Other verses?

7. In relation to the answer to question #5, what does the Scripture say?

8. In relation to the Scripture you quoted

"And he said unto them, 'The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.'" Mark 2:27

Where is the first mention in the Scripture that the Sabbath was given to man?
To what men was the Sabbath given? Exodus 20:8-11, Exodus 31:13-17.

9. In relation to Mark 2:27, to what Sabbath observance was He referring and where was it established as a command to be observed?

10. In relation to your statement, "It was created as a day that man could draw closer to his creator and study of His word. A day to rest from the problems of everyday life, to be refreshed in God's word!"

Where is that teaching and instruction found in the period between Genesis 2 and Exodus 20?
Where did Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Joseph ever speak of that instruction?

Since the Sabbath observance is said to be of such extreme importance (that failure to observe it is a sin), where is the primary instruction found as to the nature, application and plan of its observance in the Old Testament, and to whom was that instruction given?

B. GOD DOES NOT CHANGE

Numbers 23:19
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."

There are many who appeal to the immutability of God in order to justify a particular theological doctrine. But the unchangeable nature of God says nothing about the changeable nature of His creation or the variations in His commands. Is there some reason why God cannot command at one time and then change or remove that command? Is God sovereign or is He not?

If you say that the fact that God does not lie and that He does not change, also indicates that His commands do not change or are not given and removed at His will, then you have contradicted yourself and believe improperly in a change that you do assert has already occurred.

You wrote:
"You do not seem to believe these scriptures, nothing will pass away until Heaven and earth no longer remain!"
"The only things that were done away with was circumcision, we are now to be that way in our hearts. Animal sacrifice, Christ was our Passover Lamb."

How were those things "done away with" when you say that nothing will pass away until the earth no longer remains?

1. Since God commanded circumcision to Abraham and then to Israel in the Law of Moses, how do you claim it is abolished or changed? According to your theology, God's commands never change because God never changes, but as a convenience to your belief, you deny my claim that the Law of Moses was changed, but maintain your own belief in a change in part of the law of Moses.

2. Please note the following two verses in relation to the fact that you claim God's commands never change:
"And he said, 'Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of,'" Genesis 22:2.

"And he said, 'Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me,'""Genesis 22:12.

How is it that God commands Abraham to kill his son in one verse and then commands Abraham to do his son no harm in another verse?

3. Since God commanded animal sacrifices to Israel in the Law of Moses, how do you claim that they are abolished? According to your theology, God's commands never change because God never changes, so how is it that the sacrifices are abolished by your claim, but you deny my claim that the Law of Moses was abolished by the priesthood of Jesus Christ?

4. Please note the following three events in relation to the fact that you claim God's commands never change:

Adam and Eve
"And God said, 'Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat,'" Genesis 1:29.

Noah
"'Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things,'" Genesis 9:3.

Israel
Leviticus 11:1-47 Clean and unclean animals and dietary laws instituted that were not in effect prior.

The question is, how does God command Adam and Eve to be vegetarians and then say Noah can eat vegetables along with all meat regardless of type, and then say that Israel can eat vegetables and some meat, but certain meats cannot be eaten? Didn't you say that God's commands never change because He never changes?

C. ABRAHAM & THE COMMANDMENTS

You wrote:
"Abraham, long before Moses kept the laws and commandments, Genesis 26:5."

You assume that Abraham kept the 10 Commandments and the feasts and dietary laws exactly like the Law of Moses? I don't find that teaching anywhere mentioned in the Scriptures relating to Abraham. If I have missed them somewhere, please point them out to me. The Scripture notes the following commands given to him by God:

a. "'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from they father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee. . ," Genesis 12:1.
b. "'Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou are northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward. . ,'" Genesis 13:14.
c. "'Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it . ,'" Genesis 13:17.
d. ". . . the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, 'Fear not, Abram . . ,'" Genesis 15:1.
e. "'This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir,'" Genesis 15:4.
f. "'Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them . . ,'" Genesis 15:5.
g. "'Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon,'" Genesis 15:9.
h. "'Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge and afterward shall they come out with great substance. An thou shalt go to they fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full,'" Genesis 15:13-16.
i. ". . . the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, 'I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.'" Genesis 17:1.
j. "'. . . and thou shalt be father of many nations,'" Genesis 17:4.
k. "'Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham. . ,'" Genesis 17:5.
l. "And God said unto Abraham, 'Thou shalt keep my covenant therefor, tho, and thy seed after thee in their generations,'" Genesis 17:9.
m. "'This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house and he that is bought with they money, must needs be circumcised and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant,'" Genesis 17:10-14.
n. "'As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be,'" Genesis 17:15.
o. "And God said, 'Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac; and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.'" Genesis 17:19.
p. "And they said, 'so do, as thou hast said,'" Genesis 18:5.
p. "And they said unto him, 'Where is Sarah your wife?'" Genesis 18:9.
q. "And the Lord said unto Abraham, 'Wherefore did Sarah laugh . . ?'" Genesis 18:13.
r. "And the Lord said, 'Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do . . ?'" Genesis 18:17.
s. "'For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment . . ,'" Genesis 18:19.
t. "And he said, 'Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of,'" Genesis 22:2.
u. "And he said, 'Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me,'"" Genesis 22:12.
v."'Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him,'" Isaiah 51:2.
w. "And said unto him, 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. Then came he out of the land of Charran and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell,'" Acts 7:3-4.
x. "And He gave him the covenant of circumcision; so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day . .," Acts 7:8.
y. "By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, no knowing whither he went," Hebrews 11:8.

I may have missed some references, and if I have, I apologize, but I find no mention that Abraham was commanded to keep the Sabbath, was given dietary laws to observe or was congratulated for his observance of holy days, but I do find that he had standing before God, because ". . . all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect," Hebrews 11:39-40.

Now, if Abraham was given any other commandments or statutes to observe, they are not listed in the Scripture, so you cannot state that he observed any commands or laws of your own choosing. Your assumptions about what you would have wished him to observe have no force of doctrine.

D. JESUS CHRIST, GOD & MELCHIZEDEK

You wrote:
"Yes, Christ was Melchizedek . . . Melchizedek is God."

Melchizedek is mentioned eleven times in the Bible:
Genesis 14:18, Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:1, 10, 11, 15, 17, 21. Which of those verses say that Jesus Christ and God were Melchizedek?

"And it is yet far more evident for that after the similitude of Melchisedek there ariseth another priest . . ." Hebrews 7:15 (KJV)

The word for similitude is "homoiotes", meaning resemblance, like, as, similar in appearance or character, like manner. The word does not mean the same as Melchizedek or is Melchizedek, or was Melchizedek. Again, you adopt a belief not found or supported in the texts, so you have adopted your own doctrine of man.

Why do you say that Melchizedek is God and then quote Genesis 14:18 as your foundation? That verse says Melchizedek was a priest OF the Most High God, not God the priest. Melchizedek was the representative of God and a subordinate, not Deity. If the Melchizedek of Genesis was God and Christ, then he was already a priest, but it is said of Jesus Christ, ". . . having BECOME a high priest forever . . ," (NAS) or, ". . . made an high priest for ever . . ," (KJV) Hebrews 6:20.

E. LAWS & COMMANDMENTS

You wrote:
"This did not do away with the laws of commandments!"

I assume you were referring to Hebrews 7:11-12.
Since this entire passage deals with the abolishment of the Law of Moses, I would like to know just what you think it says, particularly verses 12, 18, 22 and 28. "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear," Hebrews 8:13.

You claim the Old Covenant "stopped" with the death of Jesus Christ, but you are still observing the Law of Moses which was the Old Covenant. How do you explain that in relation to Hebrews 8, 9, 10? If the Old Covenant stopped with the death of Jesus Christ, when did it start again and where do you find that teaching in the Scripture?

F. PLAN 1 & PLAN 2

You wrote:
"God gave the way of life He expected the whole world to live, but through disobedience Plan two came into play, so that instead of just keeping the letter of law which cannot save, through Christ we can keep it in the spirit!"

There was never a Plan 2, only Plan 1. Justification of any type by keeping the Law of Moses was impossible. Salvation has always been through only one means, GRACE through FAITH; never through keeping the Law.

"Therefore the law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus," Galatians 324-26. (NAS)

We are not justified or made sons of God by keeping the Law, but through faith, by which all Christians "have clothed yourselves with Christ," vs. 27, not clothed by your performance.

In your statement, you reveal the foundation of your belief as a legalist. You are claiming that in some manner, a person must keep the Law in order to be justified. You admit that to keep the letter of the Law of Moses in the Old Testament did not save or justify. You say that a person was unable to keep the spirit of the Law, but through Christ, a person is able to keep the spirit of the Law, which does justify. No matter how you approach the matter, you are stating that a person must keep the Law in some manner in order to be justified, and in your belief, you are able through Christ to keep the law in the spirit, by which you believe the keeping of that Law gives standing before God, and you believe that you are doing exactly that. You admit that by your effort you cannot keep the letter of the law, but your effort is still the means by which you claim to keep both the letter and foundation of the law in the spirit. You assume that keeping the Law justifies you before God, but you find tha