Law and commandments. Reconciling a contradiction. Needing truthful input.

[KohenMatt]

The fleshy outward circumcision in the letter of the law was for a sign (token) type and shadow of the true spiritual circumcision of the heart when a person is made a new creature in Christ.

Galatians 6:15
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Galatians 3:3
Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Excellent stuff!

And at the same time, the important distinction between the physical and the spiritual does not negate the instruction to physically circumcise (or your commandment of choice.)
Do the physical while recognizing the more important spiritual application.

 

[KohenMatt]

just me,

IMO, we must start with the premise that Salvation, in OT times, as now, was by faith in God's provision for our sin(s); and not by works.

Under that premise, we may view the Law as a set of precepts for successful living.

What was grievious and burdensome, was Rabbinic interpretation of the Law; which attempted to change the Law from a set of precepts for successful living to a pathway to righteousness.

What is neither grievious nor burdensome is Rom 8:2
the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus
KJV

Excellent insight, and one that would benefit more people on both sides of the Law argument to understand!

 

[sparkman]

Galatians 5 would indicate otherwise if I understand what you are saying.

5 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. [SUP]3 [/SUP]I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. [SUP]4 [/SUP]You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified[SUP][a][/SUP] by the law; you have fallen away from grace. [SUP]5 [/SUP]For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. [SUP]6 [/SUP]For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

Excellent stuff!

And at the same time, the important distinction between the physical and the spiritual does not negate the instruction to physically circumcise (or your commandment of choice.)
Do the physical while recognizing the more important spiritual application.

 

[KohenMatt]

Galatians 5 would indicate otherwise if I understand what you are saying.

5 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. [SUP]3 [/SUP]I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. [SUP]4 [/SUP]You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified[SUP][a][/SUP] by the law; you have fallen away from grace. [SUP]5 [/SUP]For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. [SUP]6 [/SUP]For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

As always, the context of Galatians is key.

Paul is saying that if you are doing these things for the sake of salvation of standing before God, it won't work. But Paul is not speaking against the physical commands themselves, just the misuse of them.

 

[sparkman]

He clearly says don't do it for religious purposes. Judaizers knew that the Galatians were saved, and were trying to press these things as an additional burden. Christianity is not Jesus "plus". It is Jesus, period.

Acts 15 addresses this clearly as well. Gentiles were not to be burdened with keeping elements of the Old Covenant.

As always, the context of Galatians is key.

Paul is saying that if you are doing these things for the sake of salvation of standing before God, it won't work. But Paul is not speaking against the physical commands themselves, just the misuse of them.

 

[sparkman]

Now, if you want to say that you think it has a health benefit, so do it..fine..but if you think it makes you more pleasing to God, no...absolutely not.

As always, the context of Galatians is key.

Paul is saying that if you are doing these things for the sake of salvation of standing before God, it won't work. But Paul is not speaking against the physical commands themselves, just the misuse of them.

 

[KohenMatt]

He clearly says don't do it for religious purposes. Judaizers knew that the Galatians were saved, and were trying to press these things as an additional burden. Christianity is not Jesus "plus". It is Jesus, period.

Acts 15 addresses this clearly as well. Gentiles were not to be burdened with keeping elements of the Old Covenant.

There is a difference between "religious purposes" and honoring God. I do not see the Law as burdensome in any way. IF I were doing it for salvation or approval's sake, that's a different story. As one who is redeemed and saved solely by the grace of God, I am free to follow the Law joyfully.

Now, if you want to say that you think it has a health benefit, so do it..fine..but if you think it makes you more pleasing to God, no...absolutely not.

It doesn't make you more pleasing to God. But it does matter to God when you obey the things He told you to obey.

 

[sparkman]

There is a difference between "religious purposes" and honoring God. I do not see the Law as burdensome in any way. IF I were doing it for salvation or approval's sake, that's a different story. As one who is redeemed and saved solely by the grace of God, I am free to follow the Law joyfully.



It doesn't make you more pleasing to God. But it does matter to God when you obey the things He told you to obey.

Yes, and he didn't tell Christians to be circumcised. In fact, he told them not to. Circumcision is the entry sign into the Old Covenant, which has been done away with in Christ.

 

[KohenMatt]

Yes, and he didn't tell Christians to be circumcised. In fact, he told them not to. Circumcision is the entry sign into the Old Covenant, which has been done away with in Christ.

Again, I would say that Paul is saying to not be circumcised in order to be justified. He doesn't negate it altogether.
If my child comes to me and says they want to have sex, I'm going to tell them no. But I won't be negating it completely. It has its place at it's appropriate time for its appropriate reason.

Besides, Jesus was circumcised.

 

[sparkman]

Again, I would say that Paul is saying to not be circumcised in order to be justified. He doesn't negate it altogether.
If my child comes to me and says they want to have sex, I'm going to tell them no. But I won't be negating it completely. It has its place at it's appropriate time for its appropriate reason.

Besides, Jesus was circumcised.

So what? Jesus was a Jew under the law.

No, his issue was not justification at all. It was adding additional burdens to the Gentiles.

You cannot support your case based on Acts 15. You guys who teach this sort of thing simply ignore Scripture. Gentiles were NOT required to be circumcised or keep the Mosaic Covenant, for justification OR as a necessary or even desirable fruit of salvation.

 

[sparkman]

Again, I would say that Paul is saying to not be circumcised in order to be justified. He doesn't negate it altogether.
If my child comes to me and says they want to have sex, I'm going to tell them no. But I won't be negating it completely. It has its place at it's appropriate time for its appropriate reason.

Besides, Jesus was circumcised.

By the way, if you want to claim that the Old Covenant applies to New Covenant Christians, perhaps you can answer for me why Colossians 2:16-17 uses the exact same language regarding the Sabbath and festivals being shadows that Hebrews 10:1-2 uses, in regards to animal sacrifices. That places them on the same relative level of importance.

So far no Torah observer or Sabbath/festival observer has been able to answer that question.

 

[sparkman]

I have a whole list of questions that I'd love for Sabbath/festival keepers or Torah observers to answer for me:

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...questions-sabbath-festival-torah-keepers.html

 

[KohenMatt]

So what? Jesus was a Jew under the law.

No, his issue was not justification at all. It was adding additional burdens to the Gentiles.

Acts 15:1 "Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

You cannot support your case based on Acts 15. You guys who teach this sort of thing simply ignore Scripture. Gentiles were NOT required to be circumcised or keep the Mosaic Covenant, for justification OR as a necessary or even desirable fruit of salvation.

What do you mean by "required"? Required for what purpose?

By the way, if you want to claim that the Old Covenant applies to New Covenant Christians, perhaps you can answer for me why Colossians 2:16-17 uses the exact same language regarding the Sabbath and festivals being shadows that Hebrews 10:1-2 uses, in regards to animal sacrifices. That places them on the same relative level of importance.

So far no Torah observer or Sabbath/festival observer has been able to answer that question.

The "exact same language" is a bit of a loose interpretation, but that's OK.

Hebrews 10 is dealing with sacrifices for the sake of perfection . The Sabbath was never intended for that.
Throughout the NT, Jesus is seen as the fulfillment of the sacrifices; He is THE sacrifice. He never professes to be THE Sabbath.
If you look at the length and details of instructions for the sacrifices in the Law, compared to the Sabbath, it's easy to tell which ultimately carries more weight. Besides, the observance of the Sabbath or other laws is meaningless if the atonement isn't made first through the sacrifices and God's grace.

A distinction always needs to be made of what it means to be "under" the Old Covenant, and "under" the New Covenant. We need to clarify what the purpose or goal of being "under" these covenants is for.

 

[royalscot]

answered by paul. who was also, at the meeting of acts 15.

Galatians 5

: Christ Has Set Us Free
1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
7 You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?8 This persuasion is not from him who calls you.9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump.10 I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is.11 But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed.12 I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!
13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.


who save you from the punishment of the law.. you never saved your self by following the law. with grace was give as a free gift to all.

Romans 8: Life in the Spirit
1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.

 

[sparkman]

The "exact same language" is a bit of a loose interpretation, but that's OK.

Hebrews 10 is dealing with sacrifices for the sake of perfection . The Sabbath was never intended for that.
Throughout the NT, Jesus is seen as the fulfillment of the sacrifices; He is THE sacrifice. He never professes to be THE Sabbath.
If you look at the length and details of instructions for the sacrifices in the Law, compared to the Sabbath, it's easy to tell which ultimately carries more weight. Besides, the observance of the Sabbath or other laws is meaningless if the atonement isn't made first through the sacrifices and God's grace.

A distinction always needs to be made of what it means to be "under" the Old Covenant, and "under" the New Covenant. We need to clarify what the purpose or goal of being "under" these covenants is for.

Incorrect. Jesus was in fact the fulfillment of the Sabbath, and placing our faith in him causes us to enter a spiritual rest from works. He claimed to be the Sabbath below. Placing one's faith in Him and not in our own works is what causes one to enter into the true rest of God, which the Sabbath pictured.

Matthew 11:28-30
[SUP]28 [/SUP]Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. [SUP]29 [/SUP]Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. [SUP]30 [/SUP]For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

Hebrews 4:1-3 [SUP]3 [/SUP]For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest,’”

Hebrews 4:9-10

[SUP]9 [/SUP]So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, [SUP]10 [/SUP]for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.

The language of shadows used in Colossians 2:16-17 definitely proves the insignificance of the Sabbaths and festivals as far as applicability to a New Covenant believer. Coupling this with the language of shadows used in Hebrews 10:1-2 with regards to animal sacrifices solidifies the point. No one in their right mind would claim that Christians must do animal sacrifices. But, then, few try to claim that Christians should be physically circumcised either.

Further exegesis on Hebrews 4:

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/115326-hebrews-4-9-real-sabbath-jesus.html

Further exegesis on Colossians 2:

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...-17-sabbath-festival-new-moon-observance.html

 

[KohenMatt]

I have a whole list of questions that I'd love for Sabbath/festival keepers or Torah observers to answer for me:

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...questions-sabbath-festival-torah-keepers.html

Why not, I'll given 'em a shot. Keep in mind that a lot of these questions and their answers need to be prefaced with what "under" a particular covenant means. Is it for salvation, righteousness, daily living, what? Unless that question is answered, a lot of answers won't make much sense.

I have a few questions for Sabbath/Festival/Torah Keepers to mull over while I'm on my Sabbatical from here

Here are my questions:
1.Colossians 2:16-17 says that the Sabbaths and annual festivals are shadows.Hebrews 10:1-2 uses similar language with regards to animal sacrifices, calling them mere shadows whose reality is Christ.If Hebrews 10:1-2 clearly identifies animal sacrifices as mere shadows, implying relative insignificance to the Reality, which is Christ, why do you think that they apply to New Covenant Christians?

Addressed in my previous post.

2.A typical claim is that the Sabbath was observed prior to Moses by faithful individuals.Can you demonstrate one case where any human being observed the Sabbath prior to Exodus 16?

Does it matter? I'm not interested in what people say. I'm interested in what God says.

3.Often, the claim is made that the Sabbath was a perpetual covenant.The implication is that because the word “perpetual” is used, the Sabbath is required today.However, the same Hebrew word, olam, translated “everlasting”, is used with regards to physical circumcision in Genesis 17:3.There are an abundance of Scriptures in the New Testament that state that physical circumcision is no longer required of New Covenant Christians.So, is it reasonable to use the argument that the Sabbath is still binding on New Covenant Christians due to the use of the word “perpetual” or “everlasting” , when we see that the same language is used in regards to physical circumcision (note the words “in the flesh” precludes any possibility of spiritualizing the meaning)?

I addressed this in my previous post as well, but what do the New Testament scriptures say that circumcision is or isn't "required for?" In addition, how you compare the word "eternal" to other scriptures isn't as important as the fact that God says that the Sabbath is "everlasting." Why did God mean when he said the Sabbath is everlasting

4.The Old Covenant was made between God and Israel.Why do Sabbathkeepers and Torah observers insist that its terms, including the Sabbaths, festivals, clean and unclean meat laws, and triple tithing, apply to New Covenant Christians? New Covenant Christians were never part of this covenant to begin with.See Exodus 31:12-17 to confirm that the Old Covenant was made between God and Israelites.

Who is Israel? A physical nation, or simply God's people? I say it's God's people, regardless of nationality or time frame.

5.God liberated ancient Israel from captivity to the Egyptians then marched them for over a month to the Wilderness of Sin.He then gave them the Sabbath command in the Wilderness of Sin.Assuming you claim keeping the Sabbath-breaking is a moral absolute and is inherently sinful, why do you think God would allow them to continue in sin during that period of time?

Honestly, I don't understand what you're asking here. Can you clarify please?

6.None of the sin lists in the epistles to the Gentiles mention Sabbath-breaking as a sin.If Sabbath-breaking is inherently a sin, why is Sabbath-breaking never mentioned as a sin in any of the sin lists to the Gentiles?

Because He had already listed what was a sin or not. Did He need to repeat everything from the OT for it to be valid to NT Christians? If the Sabbath is no longer a sin and is OK to break, why didn't God say that?

7.No instructions are recorded in the Gentile churches regarding how to keep the Sabbath. How do you account for this absence if the Sabbath applies to New Covenant believers?If the Sabbath was applicable, such instruction would have inevitably been a part of the apostolic teachings.

There weren't a lot of instructions regarding the Sabbath in the OT to begin with. Again, are the only things applicable from the OT those which are said in the NT? If so, there is a lot of stuff in the OT that gets dismissed.

8.It is reasonable to assume that slaves with unbelieving Gentile masters were saved in the early Church.It is also reasonable to assume that some of their masters would not give them the freedom to take a day off from their normal labors.How do you reconcile this reasonable assumption with the idea that a believer must keep the Sabbath as a condition, requirement or necessary fruit of salvation?

Sabbath isn't a requirement of salvation. Never was.

9.Often the example of the Apostle Paul is used as a proof that Sabbathkeeping must be observed.The reasoning is this: Paul observed the Sabbath, so I must observe the Sabbath too.Since Paul’s primary mission was to preach the Gospel, wouldn’t it be natural for him to go to synagogues on Saturday, where people would be gathered together at one time in one public place?All of the of the references to the Sabbath after the birth of the Church in Acts are incidences where Paul was attending the synagogue on the Sabbath where people were gathered so he could reach them with the Gospel, except for one which was a prayer meeting of Jewish believers alongside the river.

You're assuming what Paul's sole motivation for going into the synagogues was. Yes, he probably went there to preach. Did he go for other reasons? Maybe. Scripture doesn't specify. Nor does it contain Paul's instructions to not observe the Sabbath.

10.Why is the word “custom” used in Acts 17:2 to refer to Paul’s visits to the Synagogue on the Sabbath if it was a requirement?The word “custom” doesn’t infer a mandatory observance; it infers an optional observance.

Who says going to the synagogue is a requirement? Again, it doesn't matter what people say. What does Scripture say?
You're right, going to the synagogue on the Sabbath is an optional observance.

11.Why does John refer to the Passover as the Jews’ Feast of the Passover in John 6:4, and the Feast of Tabernacles as the Jews’ Feast of Tabernacles in John 7:2, if they apply to everyone?

Is every mention of Passover and Tabernacles prefaced with "The Feast of the Jews?" If not, then we can't infer from these 2 passages that they were ONLY for the Jews.

12.Colossians 2:16-17 states the following:[SUP]16 [/SUP]Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.[SUP]17 [/SUP]These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.The Seventh Day Adventist church claims that Sabbath in this verse doesn’t refer to the weekly Sabbath, but to annual Sabbaths.Annual Sabbaths are called festivals, and festivals are already mentioned. For Seventh Day Adventists, how do you account for this inconsistency?

I'm not SDA. I keep a 7th day Sabbath and the other feasts.

13.Seventh Day Adventists admit that the word “Sabbath”applies to the weekly Sabbath, the Greek word sabbaton,the other 59 times that it is employed in the New Testament, but not in Colossians 2:16-17.Is this employment of consistent reasoning?

I'm not SDA. I keep a 7th day Sabbath and the other feasts.

14.Are you aware that the Apostle Paul was a Jewish Christian and as such, it would be nothing unusual for him to keep the Sabbath and the Holy Days?Acts 21 clearly indicates that Jewish Christians continued to observe elements of the Old Covenant, including circumcision, even though they were not required.Gentile believers were not required to observe the Old Covenant, except for four elements, as per Acts 15.The same state of affairs was in effect when Acts 21 was written years later.

Was it nothing unusual for him to keep the Sabbath because it was tradition or because He was obeying God? But again, the word "required" needs to be clarified.

15.Are you aware that copies of the Scriptures were not readily available to the vast majority of people in the apostolic Church, except in the synagogues, and that is why both Jewish and Gentile believers went to the synagogue on Sabbath?Copies of the Scriptures were housed in the synagogues and were read on Sabbath.Therefore, it is nothing unusual to see New Covenant Christians, particularly Jewish ones, going to the synagogue on the Sabbath to hear the Scriptures read.

This perk of going to the Synagogues doesn't negate all other motivations for going. Are you assuming that the ONLY reason they went to the synagogue was to hear the Scriptures?

16.Are you aware that Jewish believers continued to keep elements of the Old Covenant, including circumcision, even though they were not required (Acts 21:20ff)? They did this to remain viable witnesses to their community, just like some Messianic Jews do today.Therefore, any mention of Jewish Christians observing elements of the Old Covenant is not surprising and does not support Sabbath or festival observance for everyone.

Nor does your insinuation that the ONLY reason they did these things was "to remain viable witnesses to their community" support the idea that Sabbath or festival observance ISN'T for everyone.

17.God gave Noah every moving thing that lives for food in Genesis 9:3.Last time I knew, pigs live and move.Assuming you think these prohibitions were not established the Old Covenant and have always been followed by God’s people, how do you rationalize this statement?By the way, I know that the clean/unclean designation for animals with regards to sacrificial purposes was mentioned in the post- Flood account, but there’s no indication that this affected diet at all.

God had already established what was clean and unclean prior to this instruction

18.Jesus clearly stated that there is nothing eaten which defiles a person, but that evil attitudes and thoughts are what defiles a person (Mark 7:14-23). He declared all foods clean implicitly through these remarks.Luke recognized this in verse 19 when he said Thus he declared all foods clean.If you claim the clean/unclean meat laws still apply, how do you rationalize Mark’s clear statement?By the way, Mark was writing retrospectively after the Cross so his parenthetical statement must be considered in that light.Jesus was making a declaration here, and it could not apply to something that was previously clean…that would be nonsense.

I disagree that he "declared all foods clean implicitly through these remarks." What is classified as "food" is ambiguous as well. Up to and including this point, pork was never considered "food" because God had deemed it unclean. If you follow your belief that God really made all things clean to eat, that also includes human feces, if everything truly is clean.

19.The Apostle Paul said he was convinced that nothing was unclean in itself in Romans 14:14-17 and that the kingdom of God wasn’t about food and drinking.If this is so, why do you claim that clean and unclean meat laws must be observed by New Covenant Christians?Do you have a better understanding of righteousness than the Apostle Paul?

What is the purpose of the passage? To talk about what is really clean or unclean, or relationships with others? Is the passage about eating clean vs. unclean, or judging people because of their views of it? And what is more important: clean vs. unclean, or unity within the Body? Obviously the latter. That's why I'm never going to forsake love or fellowship with anyone, even Christians, who eat pork. That doesn't mean that I'm going to throw the whole standard out altogether because of this caveat.

20.A common claim with those who claim that Old Covenant laws still apply to New Covenant Christians is that God’s laws never change because God never changes.If it is true that God’s laws never change and that he always works the same way throughout time with mankind, why do most individuals acknowledge that physical circumcision and animal sacrifices no longer apply to New Covenant Christians?

I believe that physical circumcision still applies, albeit with the understanding of what is the more important "circumcision." I do not believe animal sacrifices apply because the perfect sacrifice has already been made.


There you go: one man's thoughts on the matter. Feel free to critique away. I've found most people (perhaps you're the exception) who go into debates like this with an antagonistic perspective are more prone to nit-pick arguments. If that is your desire, go right ahead, but I won't engage in that. If it is your desire to have a legitimate and sincere conversation about it, I'm all in.

 

[just-me]

Is not circumcision of the heart both in the law of the Old and New Covenants? The physical thing was a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham's seed.

"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Galatians 3:29

Let's all think Spiritually for once, instead of seeing certain parts of scripture as spiritual and other parts only physical as the carnal fleshly mind operates.
Does not circumcision relate to the conception of a baby and the sowing of the sperm seed?
What about the phrase used "children of God?"
What about the marriage supper and the promise of betrothal?
What about being born of the Spirit?

The disagreements about this subject clearly show the ignorance that the carnal mind propagates. It's the same today as it was then. The carnal mind demanded circumcision back then in Acts 15, and the carnal mind today doesn't comprehend the spiritual truth concerning circumcision written in the law. All a carnal mind can do is describe the physical aspects of the law because it's impossible for that type of mind to be subject to the Spiritual reality of the matter. The carnal mind cannot comprehend the spirit of the law that was given to Moses for the nation of Israel same as a Pharisaical mind during Jesus' day. There's no difference, just a different wrinkle of deception.

Leviticus 12:1-3
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, [SUP]2 [/SUP]Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
[SUP]3[/SUP]And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

So let's get over it. Circumcision would still be on the table for conversation even if the law had never been administered, or even if Moses would never have existed. It was carried over to the next generation during and after the 40 years Israel wandered in the wilderness. "At that time the Lord said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time." Joshua 5:2

"Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man." John 7:22

These scripture references are not a contradiction to each other.

 

[KohenMatt]

Incorrect. Jesus was in fact the fulfillment of the Sabbath, and placing our faith in him causes us to enter a spiritual rest from works. He claimed to be the Sabbath below. Placing one's faith in Him and not in our own works is what causes one to enter into the true rest of God, which the Sabbath pictured.

Matthew 11:28-30
[SUP]28 [/SUP]Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. [SUP]29 [/SUP]Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. [SUP]30 [/SUP]For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

Hebrews 4:1-3 [SUP]3 [/SUP]For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest,’”

Hebrews 4:9-10

[SUP]9 [/SUP]So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, [SUP]10 [/SUP]for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.

The language of shadows used in Colossians 2:16-17 definitely proves the insignificance of the Sabbaths and festivals as far as applicability to a New Covenant believer. Coupling this with the language of shadows used in Hebrews 10:1-2 with regards to animal sacrifices solidifies the point. No one in their right mind would claim that Christians must do animal sacrifices. But, then, few try to claim that Christians should be physically circumcised either.

Further exegesis on Hebrews 4:

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/115326-hebrews-4-9-real-sabbath-jesus.html

Further exegesis on Colossians 2:

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...-17-sabbath-festival-new-moon-observance.html

Some good thoughts in there, but I disagree that Jesus says He IS the Sabbath to the point of negating a physical observance of the Sabbath. Yes, He is our ultimate rest, and no physical observance of it can come close to Him. But despite this, He doesn't say, "So go ahead, you don't have to keep the 7th day anymore."

 

[just-me]

Some good thoughts in there, but I disagree that Jesus says He IS the Sabbath to the point of negating a physical observance of the Sabbath. Yes, He is our ultimate rest, and no physical observance of it can come close to Him. But despite this, He doesn't say, "So go ahead, you don't have to keep the 7th day anymore."

"The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: (and) Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Mark 2:27b and James 1:17

 

[Brother_Don]

Speaking on the physical side of the Law, God gave us the laws as a benefit to us, not a burden. A uncle of mine wasn't circumcised, and in his 40's it started giving him problems, and he had to have it done. Following eating laws will give less Dr. visits. So it looks to me that God wasn't being mean when He gave us Laws He was trying to help us have better lives. Like Heaven on Earth.