Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Are you taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
-
The Sabbath day was made for man, not man for the Sabbath
- Thread starter Humblepie
- Start date
We all see you trying to back peddle.
God ahead and show us where God commanded Adam to observe the Sabbath.
Go ahead and show us where Jesus or Paul commanded us to observe the Sabbath.
So when Paul said we establish the law because of our faith, you don't think the sabbath is in the law?
Paul lived by the law. He was accused of teaching against the law but scripture tells us that the claims were false.
Acts 21:17–26
24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.
1 cor 11:1
1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.
Is the sabbath part of the Mosaic Law?
You know it is....
Here are two scriptures that Jesus himself told us. Why do you press for more?
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven
teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” [d]Amen.
having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
The law had blessings and curses, he removed the curse of the law, Death.
The blessings still stand, unless you can provide scripture that says the blessings are nailed to the cross as well.
You are all over the place trying in desperation to find some little shred of a scripture you can try and turn into a command to observe the Sabbath.
Please be honest with yourself, and me.
Just find where Paul instructed any church he started to observe the Sabbath.
So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. Colossians 2:16-17
If a person wants to observe a day of rest on Saturday then so be it, but it's not a sin if you don't.
5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. Romans 14:5-6
Never the less, the weekly Sabbath under the law was a shadow of something to come.
For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. Hebrews 4:8-9
JLB
Summarizing as I see it, JLB asked to see where God's rest on the 7th Day translates into a biblical command that Christians observe the Sabbath. Answer: there is none.
Humblepie tries to draw upon Jesus' command to observe the complete Law when the OT Law was still in effect, ie before the Cross and before the veil of the Temple was rent. This does *not* prove that Jesus commanded Christians after the Cross must keep the Law of Moses or the Sabbath Law!
Humblepie tries to draw upon the fact Paul and other Christians tried to politely observe the Law, externally but not internally, simply to avoid offending those who believed they were still under the Law. Again, Paul argued in his letters that he was trying to become "like them to win them." In other words, he was observing the Law not because he felt he was under the Law, but only to remove any obstacle to their hearing the Gospel.
Those who want to believe they are still under the Law are under the curse of the Law, proving that under that system, which was without the atonement of Christ, all men were proven to be sinners and disqualified from Eternal Life. But if people apply to live under Christ, as he is after the Cross, there is a New Covenant that fulfills the sacrifices of the Old Covenant, only requiring that we live through the Spirit of Christ, thus obtaining from him the promise of his resurrection.
But in choosing to live by the Sacrifice of Christ it makes living by the animal sacrifices of the Law redundant, disqualified, and insulting to the Spirit of Christ, who has superseded and fulfilled the sacrifices and requirements of the Law. All righteousness is fulfilled in him, and we only need to live by his Spirit in order to be viewed as righteous ourselves and covered by his atonement.
Humblepie tries to draw upon Jesus' command to observe the complete Law when the OT Law was still in effect, ie before the Cross and before the veil of the Temple was rent. This does *not* prove that Jesus commanded Christians after the Cross must keep the Law of Moses or the Sabbath Law!
Humblepie tries to draw upon the fact Paul and other Christians tried to politely observe the Law, externally but not internally, simply to avoid offending those who believed they were still under the Law. Again, Paul argued in his letters that he was trying to become "like them to win them." In other words, he was observing the Law not because he felt he was under the Law, but only to remove any obstacle to their hearing the Gospel.
Those who want to believe they are still under the Law are under the curse of the Law, proving that under that system, which was without the atonement of Christ, all men were proven to be sinners and disqualified from Eternal Life. But if people apply to live under Christ, as he is after the Cross, there is a New Covenant that fulfills the sacrifices of the Old Covenant, only requiring that we live through the Spirit of Christ, thus obtaining from him the promise of his resurrection.
But in choosing to live by the Sacrifice of Christ it makes living by the animal sacrifices of the Law redundant, disqualified, and insulting to the Spirit of Christ, who has superseded and fulfilled the sacrifices and requirements of the Law. All righteousness is fulfilled in him, and we only need to live by his Spirit in order to be viewed as righteous ourselves and covered by his atonement.
Yes, don't you know the Scriptures? No wonder you believe you're under the Law of Moses and Sabbath Law. You don't know the Scriptures!
Heb 7.11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also....
18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
8.7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said[b]:
“The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel."
Abraham's justification was no more availing of the right to Eternal Life than the Law of Moses was, because it did not yet have access to the atonement of Christ. Justification by faith was based on *hope* of Christ's resurrection, which had not yet been realized. So Abraham's justification was temporary until Christ fulfilled his hope in the resurrection.
Last edited:
Found fault with the people, not the Law.
The Law was perfectly good for temporary use. As I just showed you, the writer of Hebrews claimed that the Law was *temporary.* And it was temporary because Christ had not yet come to justify Israel by his resurrection and by his sinless life.
Since Christ had not come to forgive sin, the Law's purpose was to show that without Christ's atonement, the Sin Nature would condemn all men. No matter how righteous Israel was under the Law, they remained condemned to death as sinners.
I know you won't read this but I will post it anyway.
This might make my point easier to understand. It's lengthy, but needs to be to fully understood.
Colossians 2:16-17 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.
These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. As we can see, Paul refers to things like the Sabbath and festivals as “shadows” that point forward to Christ. Based on these verses, some argue that now that Christ—the substance—has come, the shadows are no longer of any importance. Those commandments were set aside and nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:14). Consequently, since these parts of the Torah are now irrelevant, we shouldn’t let anyone judge us for not observing them. Or so the argument goes.
Pastor John MacArthur’s comments are representative of the traditional interpretation of these verses: Don’t let anybody hold you to a Sabbath. And that’s referring to the weekly Sabbath, because the other festival Sabbaths are covered under the term “festival and new moon.” Don’t let anybody hold you to the Sabbath. It was part of the system that included the temple, the priesthood, the sacrifices. It’s gone. It was only the shadow, not the substance […] Paul is saying, you no longer need the shadow, you have the substance. -John MacArthur,
Is that really what Paul is saying in Colossians? Does he declare commands like the Sabbath and festivals to be irrelevant now that Messiah has come? That seems unlikely for a couple of reasons. First, such an interpretation doesn’t fit with the broader biblical witness of Paul’s perspective on these commandments. For instance, throughout the New Testament, we see that Paul regularly attended and participated in the synagogue services on the Sabbath (Acts 13:14, 44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:3). Luke records that Paul’s “custom” was to worship on the Sabbath (Acts 17:2). Moreover, in Acts 20:26, we see Paul expressing a desire to be in Jerusalem for the Feast of Shavuot or Pentecost. In 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, Paul instructs his readers on how they are to observe Passover. Based on Paul’s behavior and teaching elsewhere in Scripture, it’s difficult to imagine him thinking that these parts of the Torah became irrelevant in light of the Messiah’s coming. Instead, these examples of Paul observing and teaching these commandments are what we would expect if he believed they were still important. Second, the false teaching Paul addresses in Colossians is characterized as “according to human tradition” (Colossians 2:8). It is “according to human precepts and teachings” (Colossians 2:22).That description does not seem to apply to the Sabbath, festivals, and dietary laws. Those things were not human teachings; they were commanded by God. Moreover, this false teaching is characterized further as being “not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8). But we know that Christ affirmed every iota and dot of the Torah as having enduring authority in the lives of his followers (Matthew 5:18). He said his followers are to do and teach even the least of the Torah’s commandments (Matthew 5:19). When we consider Paul’s record of observing the biblical Sabbath and festivals, along with the fact that in Colossians 2 he is coming against what he calls “human teachings,” it seems strange that he would discourage Sabbath, festival, and dietary law observance in Colossians 2:16-17. But, aside from simply doubting the traditional interpretation of these verses, do we have any good reasons for accepting an alternative interpretation? To understand Paul’s admonition here, it might help us to gain a fuller understanding of what scholars call “the Colossian heresy.” What was this heresy that Paul counters in his letter? The Colossian Heresy Paul warned the Colossian believers about a false doctrine that certain people were teaching. We are given a description of this false doctrine in Colossians 2:8. Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. The false doctrine influencing believers at Colossae is characterized first as “philosophy and empty deceit.” The Greek term translated “philosophy,” philosophia, generally carries the sense of “manner of life” and often addresses ethics. For instance, Josephus describes the Essenes, Sadducees, and Pharisees as different “sects of philosophy” (Antiq. 18.11). In the Hellenistic Jewish literature, the word takes on what the scholar Nijay Gupta calls “a moralistic edge.” He writes: A number of texts presume that a good and true philosophy has the ability to restrain sin and control wanton passions and desires. -Nijay K. Gupta, Colossians (Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 2013), p. 90 Gupta cites three historical sources that demonstrate this idea. For instance, in 4 Maccabees, written in the first or second century AD, Antiochus pressures the Jews to eat unclean foods. Eleazar defends the dietary laws of the Torah, as well as Judaism more broadly, calling it “our philosophy”: You scoff at our philosophy as though living by it were irrational, but it teaches us self-control, so that we master all pleasures and desires, and it also trains us in courage, so that we endure any suffering willingly. -4 Maccabees 5:22-23, RSV According to the Letter of Aristeas, written in the third or second century BC, Ptolmey asks the question, “What is philosophy?,” to which a Jewish sage responds: To deliberate well in reference to any question that emerges…and never to be carried away by impulses, but to ponder over the injuries that result from the passions, and to act rightly as the circumstances demand, practicing moderation. -Letter of Aristeas. Quoted in Nijay K. Gupta, Colossians (Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 2013), pp. 90-91 Philo, a first-century Jewish philosopher, also has some relevant remarks: Philosophy teaches temperance with regard to the belly, and temperance with regard to the parts below the belly, and also temperance and restraint of the tongue. -Philo, Congr. 80. Quoted in
Nijay K. Gupta, Colossians (Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 2013), p. 91 These historical sources give us an idea of what Paul means by the word philosophy. Broadly, it’s a manner of life intended to develop self-control. The doctrine influencing the Colossian believers could be considered a type of philosophy, but according to Paul it is “empty deceit.” It doesn’t actually deliver what it promises. Paul says it is “of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh” (Colossians 2:23). Another problem with this false teaching is that it is “according to human tradition.” From Paul’s perspective, mere human teachings are useless in overcoming the power of sin (Colossians 2:22-23). Finally, this false teaching is according to “the elemental spirits of the world,” which likely refers to spiritual beings that were believed to have control over nature and the cosmos. Philo writes about nations that made divinities out of the four elements of earth, water, air, and fire (Decalogue 53). The Wisdom of Solomon, a book written in the first century BC, speaks similarly about ignorant people who believe that the elements, such as wind, fire, water, and so forth, were gods who ruled the world (Wisdom of Solomon 13:1-2). Passages from the pseudepigrapha (1 Enoch 43:1-4; 75:1; 80:6-8; Jubilees 2:2) and Dead Sea Scrolls (1QM 10.11-12) give some additional evidence of these types of ideas floating around the Judaisms of the Second Temple era. It appears that the false teachers at Colossae were enamored with cosmic authorities, supernatural powers over nature, and angels (Colossians 2:8, 15, 18, 20). They exalted and feared these spiritual entities, believing them to have control over the universe and their destinies. These superstitions were also combined with religious practices, including biblical holy days.
Cont:
In practice, this false philosophy strictly regulated foods, drinks, and festivals (2:16) and involved ascetic rituals and worship of angels (2:18-23). By adhering to the practices and regulations of these false teachers, people believed they could attain wisdom and be protected from the evil spirits that troubled them. Hippolytus of Rome, a late second/early third century Christian theologian, wrote about the heretical teaching of a man named Elchasai (A Refutation of All Heresies 9.11). Elchasai’s teaching gives us a fitting parallel to what we see happening at Colossae, where some teachers mixed elements of Judaism with astrological beliefs and practices. Citing Hippolytus, the scholar Clinton Arnold writes this: There is one figure who may help us better understand how a Christian teacher may have combined magical, astrological, Jewish, and local pagan cult traditions into a new teaching. At the end of the first century, during the time of Trajan (A.D. 98-117), a Christian leader named Elchasai combined aspects of Jewish nomism (circumcision and law observance) with astrological beliefs and practices. The resultant syncretistic teaching emphasized the hostility of the stars (viewed as angels) and the need to regulate one’s life according to the calendar (especially the Sabbath and the courses of the moon) […] Colossae was certainly not afflicted by the teaching of Elchasai, but “the philosophy” bore many similarities. At the minimum, the example of Elchasai points to emerging forms of localized syncretistic Christianity at an early stage. The Elchasaite teaching also demonstrates how a magical/astrological interpretation of sabbaths could surface in early Christianity. -Clinton E. Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface between Christianity and Folk Belief at Colossae (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), pp. 217-218 In summary, the false teaching at Colossae was a type of “philosophy”—a manner of life intended to develop self-control. But according to Paul, it failed to deliver what it promised because it was according to mere human tradition and it wrongly exalted elemental spirits and powers. It incorporated the observance of some biblical practices mixed with ascetic rituals. A big problem with this mystical false teaching is that it ultimately resulted in minimizing the Messiah’s exalted position as the head from whom the body derives its life (Colossians 2:18-19). These false teachers worshiped angels and tried to appease the elemental spirits instead of looking to the Messiah. So, how does Paul counter this false teaching? He proclaims the preeminence of the Messiah: • Paul teaches that the Messiah is the real embodiment of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:23). • Messiah is “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15). That is, God’s full character is embodied in Messiah (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:4; Philippians 2:6; Hebrews 1:3). • Messiah is “the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15), which is an Old Testament title expressing royal status and authority (Psalm 89:27). • It was by, through, and for Messiah that “all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities” (Colossians 1:16). Importantly, the invisible creations in heaven would include angelic beings. Paul’s point is that Messiah, the one by whom, through whom, and for whom all things were created, has authority and power over all created things in heaven and on earth. • Messiah is “before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:17). That is, Messiah has priority in terms of time and rank, and he is the sustainer of the universe (cf. Hebrews 1:3). Paul hopes to encourage the Colossian believers not to try to find coherence in the universe by turning to angels. Messiah is the one who holds all things together. • Messiah is also “the head of the body, the church” (Colossians 1:18; 2:10, 18-19). That is, he is the lord over the church as well as its source of life: “…the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God” (Colossians 2:19). • Messiah is “the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent” (Colossians 1:18). The Messiah’s resurrection has inaugurated the kingdom—his resurrection being the “firstfruits,” assuring us of the full harvest to come at the end of the age (1 Corinthians 15:20, 23). In the meantime, the Messiah exercises his rule through his body, the church. • The Messiah is one in whom “all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” (Colossians 1:19; 2:9). As F.F. Bruce puts it, “all the attributes of God—his spirit, word, wisdom, and glory—are disclosed in him” (Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmands, 1984], p. 74). Paul made this proclamation to set the record straight about who was really in charge. He wanted to warn the Colossian believers not to be led astray by mystical teachings involving things like angel worship. His concern was that these false teachings relegated the Messiah, who is head over all rule and authority in creation, to the theological background. Thus, Paul encouraged the Colossian believers to look to the Messiah alone to satisfy their yearning for spiritual fulfillment (Colossians 2:10). This is why he goes to some length to express the supremacy of the Messiah. Paul makes one more significant point in his argument for the Messiah’s preeminence. He proclaims that only the Messiah’s work on the cross provides forgiveness of sin and reconciliation with God (Colossians 1:20; 2:11-14). Redemption cannot be found anywhere else, least of all through a strict observance of ascetic rituals to appease angelic powers. The Messiah’s work also had the effect of defeating the spiritual rulers and authorities (Colossians 2:15). To demonstrate his point about redemption and reconciliation, Paul uses the metaphors of circumcision, baptism, and the “record of debt” (Colossians 2:11-14). Paul’s circumcision metaphor here expresses our dying in Messiah’s death—that is, “putting off the body of the flesh.” Paul then moves to baptism to express our being buried and rising in union with Messiah in his burial and resurrection. When we put our faith in the Messiah, we die with him, enter his tomb with him, and are raised with him. The third metaphor Paul uses—the record of debt—has caused some confusion. Some have supposed Paul teaches that Messiah took away the Torah and nailed it to the cross. Let’s look at the passage: Colossians 2:13-14 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. The interpretation that Messiah set aside the Torah is unlikely. First, the Greek word that the New Testament always uses to refer to the Torah (nomos) is nowhere to be found in this passage. Second, the idea that Messiah took away the Torah doesn’t fit with Paul’s argument. How would getting rid of the Torah assure forgiveness of sins? That simply doesn’t follow. A better interpretation is that the “record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands” refers to the record of our sins and the punishment required for them. God’s Torah legally demands death as payment from those who break it. However, the Messiah has canceled our record of sins that stood against us. The Messiah has canceled our record of sins that stood against us. The Messiah did not cancel the law, but rather the written record of our transgressions of the law, because he provided forgiveness for the sins that we had committed.
Cont.
Cont.
By canceling the record of our sins, the Messiah “disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them” (Colossians 2:15). That is, he has removed any power these spiritual forces might have had over us. Therefore, we need not seek out the wisdom or protection from any inferior spiritual entities. The Messiah has already provided everything we need. Now that we have a better understanding of the false teaching in Colossians, and Paul’s answer to it, let’s turn again to Paul’s admonition concerning certain Torah commandments: Colossians 2:16-17 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. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Once again, this passage is traditionally interpreted to mean that the Sabbath, festivals, and so forth are now irrelevant in light of the Messiah. Therefore, the Colossian believers should not be judged for not observing them. But based on what we’ve learned about the false teachings Paul is dealing with, it seems clear that there is more going on here. Paul does not state that the commandments are invalid; he states that the judgment of these false teachers is invalid. A better understanding, which is consistent with the context, is that the Colossian believers are not to accept judgment from these false teachers regarding how to observe these commandments. The false teachers at Colossae applied esoteric meanings and ascetic rituals to these Torah commandments (Colossians 2:21-22) and judged those who didn’t follow their teachings as unenlightened (Colossians 2:16). Paul says not to accept their judgment. Their form of “Torah observance” is really no Torah observance at all. It’s a false religion mixed with a distorted misuse of the Torah. The scholar Douglas Moo likewise has recognized that these aspects of the Torah have been connected to a broader religious philosophy in Colossians: On the whole, then, it seems best to view the practices in v. 16 as basically Jewish in origin and perhaps even orientation while still recognizing that they have been taken up into a larger mix of religious ideas and practices. -Douglas Moo, Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), p. 221 In other words, proper observance of these Torah commands was not the problem in Colossians. The problem was that false teachers had mixed things like the Sabbath and festivals with their mystical teachings. Paul’s admonition to the Colossian believers, then, is not to accept judgment on these matters from these false teachers. These false teachers misuse and distort the biblical commandments in their worship of various cosmic powers over which the Messiah has triumphed (Colossians 2:15). Again, the problem is erversion of these Torah commands within a false religious philosophy, not the commands themselves. As the scholar Peter O’Brien puts it: For Israel the keeping of these holy days was evidence of obedience to God’s law and a sign of her election among the nations. At Colossae, however, the sacred days were to be kept for the sake of the “elemental spirits of the universe,” those astral powers who directed the course of the stars and relegated the order of the calendar. So Paul is not condemning the use of sacred days or seasons as such; it is the wrong motive involved when the observance of these days is bound up with the recognition of the elemental spirits. -Peter T. O’Brien, Word Biblical Commentary: Colossians, Philemon (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1982), p. 139 This added context perhaps could bring some clarity to what Paul means in verse 17. Let’s read it again: Colossians 2:17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Here, Paul says that things like the Sabbath and festivals serve as shadows pointing toward “the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” That is, these aspects of the Torah ultimately are intended to reveal the work of Messiah. Notice that Paul says these Torah commandments are a shadow of “things to come,” not just things that have already happened. These commands function not only in memorializing Yeshua’s work of atonement on the cross but also continue to point forward to his future work to occur at the end of the age. Paul’s point is that the Sabbath, festivals, and so forth, were intended to point beyond themselves to the Messiah, who is the substance. They were not meant to be the end in themselves, and they definitely were not meant to be used in angel worship. As we’ve seen, like other difficult passages in which it appears on the surface that Paul diminishes the value of the Torah, a closer look at Colossians 2:16-17 reveals that he spoke against only a misuse of the Torah, not the Torah itself. In conclusion, a contextual understanding of these verses implies that Paul does not regard things like the Sabbath and festivals as unimportant. He condemns only an improper observance of these laws in connection with mystical false teachings that downplay Messiah and his work. Once again, the problem was with human precepts and teachings, not God’s commandments themselves (Colossians 2:8, 22). But when we observe these parts of the Torah appropriately, with a focus on the Messiah and his work of redemption, there’s no problem. In fact, recognizing the substance that these “shadows” point to ought to make us value them that much more!
Paul is here saying that Christians are not to be "judged" for failing to observe the Law and its Sabbath requirements. He has gone to great lengths elsewhere to explain that Christians are under a New Covenant that is completely separate from the Old Covenant of Law.
That doesn't mean Christians are devoid of any law, but only that law no longer applies within the context of the Law of Moses.
1st of all, the Lord's Supper is not "Passover." Eating bread and wine as though Jesus' body and blood, given for us, is not Passover! It was observed at Passover, but demonstrated something in addition to Passover and extending beyond the Law itself.
2ndly, Paul's custom was to reach Jews 1st wherever he was. So to meet in Jewish communities where the Law was still being observed it only made sense to not make an issue over custom while he was trying to preach to them the Gospel. He would meet on Sabbath days because he knew that Jews could be reached on Sabbath days. He observed various feasts because he knew where Jews would be on these feast days. None of this has a thing to do with Paul sanctioning the Law as still in play!
If I wanted to reach Hindus, I might travel to India and visit a temple. None of that means I'm sanctioning Hindusim in order to reach Hindus!
Wrong! Teaching the Law after it had ceased to apply as a legal covenant is by definition "human teaching." It is every bit inspired by Man as any other false religous system that relied upon human wisdom, or the thought that restricting one's behavior brought a necessary acceptance by Deity.
It was thought that abstinence would bring admiration by the Deity, when in reality this was just "human wisdom." God restricts the evil ways of the flesh not merely by abstinence, but more, by giving us His own Spirit through the forgiveness of Christ. Denying ourselves from certain sinful acts appears to be wise. But apart from the Spirit of Christ, these acts cannot achieve Eternal Life or eternal merit.
As I've told you repeatedly, this statement from Christ was said while the Law was still in effect, well before the Cross and well before the Spirit was given to point to Jesus, and not to Moses. Jesus indicated that the truth of human condemnation without Christ would be as certain as the universe itself, and that only Christ could successfully fulfill what the Law had promised with respect to redemption.
As I said above, following the Law without the inspiration of Christ's Spirit is no better than following Human Philosophy. Everything taught in the Law is that Man is a sinner and that as a sinner he can never obtain eternal life on his own. He must have recourse not to animal sacrifices, which just show that he is a sinner, but to Christ, the perfect offering.
Only through Christ can man be saved. And so, God gave Israel a New Covenant. Just like the 1st tablets were broken, and had to be replaced, so the Law of Moses was irreversibly broken, and had to be replaced with a better, different Covenant.
You don't seem willing to accept biblical truth. You seem fastened to the religious belief that the Law remains valid, along with Sabbath Law. Your choice....
When believers read in the Book of Hebrews that Yeshua is a heavenly High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, many of them automatically assume that the earthly priesthood has been replaced. But that’s not what the author of Hebrews is saying. He can’t be saying that, otherwise he’d be contradicting Scripture in other places. He would even be contradicting himself, as we’ll see in a moment. As we read in the New Testament, the apostles continued to participate in the Levitical services long after Yeshua’s resurrection. Here are just a few examples: Acts 2:46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts Acts 3:1 Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour. Acts 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them. And of course, let’s not forget the author of Hebrews himself, who recognized the ongoing service of the Levitical Priesthood in Jerusalem: Hebrews 8:4-5 Now if he [Yeshua] were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” But wait! There’s more! Both Ezekiel and Zechariah acknowledge the reality of a future earthly priesthood, temple, Levites, and animal sacrifices after Yeshua’s second coming (Ezekiel 40-48; Zechariah 14:20-21). So surely the author of Hebrews is not saying that the Levitical priesthood and the earthly tabernacle have been replaced in light of Yeshua’s priesthood. The Levitical priesthood served a valid, ongoing purpose, and it will serve that purpose again in the future millennial reign of Messiah. In addition to conducting the earthly tabernacle services, the Levitical priesthood paints a picture of the Gospel and Messiah’s priestly work in the heavenly tabernacle. So then, what is the author’s point in Hebrews 7:11-12? Basically, as he says, the Levitical priesthood could not attain perfection. What does that mean? As scholar J.K. McKee explains: The source text employs the term teleiōsis, meaning “a completing, perfecting...fulfillment, accomplishment; the event which verifies a promise” (Thayer). The perfection that our author is speaking about is the state of people being totally and completely reconciled to their Creator. This was a state that was simply unattainable in the Levitical system, because sacrifices had to be continually offered before the Lord for the propitiation of sins. This does not necessarily make the Levitical priesthood bad, or even “imperfect,” because the Levitical priesthood was surely given and established by a God who is perfect. It does, rather, make the Levitical priesthood incomplete and unable to bring about the complete perfection that is to be established in the lives of God’s people. -J.K. McKee, “Hebrews for the Practical Messianic,” p. 107 The sons of Aaron are human. Therefore they have weaknesses. They sin, they grow old, and eventually they die, which means they cannot continue in their duties (Hebrews. 7:22-23, 28). The earthly priestly system is made up of sinful humans whose sacrifices, which are made year after year, cannot fully reconcile mankind to God. Only a sinless and immortal heavenly high priest can accomplish this. Yeshua is that heavenly high priest of a greater and perfect priesthood, and He’s the only one who can truly make atonement and reconcile us to God. The Levitical priesthood is the shadow that points to that reality. It’s a symbol, as everyone acknowledges. But the fact that it serves as a symbol does not take away from its value and purpose.
To make a comparison, the same could be said about things like Baptism. Baptism is merely symbolic of deeper spiritual truths about the gospel, but no Christian believes that the symbol is worthless or should be discarded. The bottom line is this, the idea that parts of the Torah have been replaced is impossible. Why? Because the author twice appeals to the prophecy about the New Covenant, which writes the Torah on the hearts of God’s people. If the Torah is now replaced, why then does the author affirm the prophecies about it being written on our hearts? Moreover, even if we assume that this passage is saying that the sacrificial system has been replaced, it still wouldn’t follow that commands like the Sabbath, feasts, and dietary instructions have been replaced. That would be an overstatement, since the context is dealing only with the priesthood, not the rest of the Law. Evangelical Old Testament theologian, Walter Kaiser, agrees: It would be wrong to think that just because the sacrificial system had been replaced therefore the whole law, including the moral law of the Decalogue (Ex 20; Dt. 5) and the Holiness Code (Lev 18-20), had likewise been superseded and replaced.” -Walter C. Kaiser, “The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments,” p. 367 So even if we grant the premise that the Levitical Priesthood has been replaced, the conclusion of many, that literal commands like the Sabbath have been replaced with a different application, it simply doesn’t follow. But again, there’s no reason we should even grant that premise since the author doesn’t say that the Levitical Priesthood has been replaced. Think about it. The very fact that the author of Hebrews makes it a point to explain how the Messiah could be a legitimate priest makes sense only if he considers the Torah to still be applicable to all in the faith. In summary, the author’s argument in Hebrews is that the Levitical laws do not restrict Yeshua from being a priest since Yeshua is not a priest on earth. Because he is not a priest on earth, the laws governing the earthly priesthood do not apply to Yeshua’s priesthood in the heavenlies. Remember, there’s a difference between the earthly and heavenly tabernacles—the earthly tabernacle functions as a symbol pointing to the heavenly tabernacle. Yeshua’s priestly work within the heavenly tabernacle works within a different system than the Levitical system. Being from the tribe of Levi is a requirement to serve in the earthly tabernacle, but it is not a requirement to serve in the heavenly tabernacle. The primary qualification to serve in the heavenly tabernacle, according to the author of Hebrews, is “the power of an indestructible life.” And of course, Yeshua, following his resurrection, now meets that qualification! Thus, the author of Hebrews explains to his audience that Yeshua can be our great High Priest, despite not being descended from Levi. Why? Because he’s a priest of a different priesthood. And thus, there is a different law—or a change of the law, as the author puts—governing the heavenly tabernacle when compared to the law that governs the earthly tabernacle. But the law governing the earthly tabernacle is still in force…on earth! That’s why the author of Hebrews says: Hebrews 8:4-5
Cont.
Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. Just to drive this point home, here’s an analogy that might help us better understand what Hebrews 7:12 is saying: There are different laws governing civil leadership depending on the country. For instance, if someone living in the United States were an immigrant from Canada, they would not be allowed to become the President of the United States. Why? Because the law governing the office of President of the United States requires you be a natural born citizen. But if that same person moved back to Canada, they would not need to be a natural born citizen of the United States to enter into the office of the Prime Minister. It’s a different office of civil leadership in a different location. Canada’s requirements are different than America’s requirements. Thus, in this case, when there is a change being referred to in the office of civil leadership, there is a change in the law governing civil leadership. Note the parallel to the wording of Hebrews 7:12 pertaining to a different priesthood in a different location. What does that mean? If the Canadian citizen is in the USA, the law applies to them and is what prevents them from being President of the United States. If they return to Canada, the existing Canadian laws do not prevent them from being the Prime Minister of Canada. US laws do not apply in Canada for the office of the Prime Minister, and Canadian laws do not apply in the USA for the office of the President of the United States. It just means that the law of America as it pertains to the Presidency does not restrict a citizen of Canada as it pertains the office of the Prime Minister. In the same way, there are different priesthoods and thus different criteria for being a priest depending on which priesthood you’re part of. If Yeshua were on earth, He would not be allowed to be a priest without being a son of Aaron. But if He ascended into heaven to represent the heavenly tabernacle, He would not need to be a son of Aaron to be a priest. It’s a different priesthood in a different location. Therefore, when there is a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law in which is governing the priestly office from the Earthly, to the Heavenly. Why? Because the priesthood locations are different! What does that mean? The earthly priesthood’s laws don’t apply to a priest in the heavenly tabernacle. However, Yeshua’s position as priest in the heavenly tabernacle, of course, does not change the law of the earthly tabernacle. It just means that, as a priest in the heavenly tabernacle, Yeshua is not restricted by the laws of the earthly tabernacle. Obviously with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, there is no way for the earthly priesthood to properly function in Jerusalem right now. But according to biblical prophecy, after Yeshua returns, that priesthood on earth will be reestablished, as we explained earlier. Both priesthoods—the heavenly and the Levitical—are valid and can even function simultaneously since each applies to different office parameters. The author of Hebrews makes that very point by stressing the fact that there are already priests on earth who function according to the Torah. This interpretation is much more consistent within Hebrews and the rest of Scripture. The author of Hebrews clearly affirms the ongoing authority of the Law as being written on our hearts through the New Covenant, and he affirms the ongoing service of the Levitical Priesthood alongside Messiah’s heavenly Priesthood. One does not replace the other. The earthly served, and will serve again, as a symbolic shadow of the heavenly reality. “But wait!” You might say. “Later in the same chapter, the author of Hebrews clearly says that God’s Law has been set aside because of its weakness and uselessness!” Well, let’s take a look at the passage: Hebrews 7:18-19 For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. So what is the former commandment that is set aside? Is it the Law of Moses? No, remember the context. What is set aside for Yeshua are the requirements of being a priest in the earthly priesthood. When it comes to the heavenly priesthood of Yeshua, those requirements in the law are set aside, because Yeshua’s priesthood doesn’t function on earth but in the heavenlies. And, as we’ve explained, physical lineage from Aaron is not what qualifies a person to serve in the heavenly priesthood. The author’s point in these verses is that the Law’s qualifications for serving in the earthly priesthood are insufficient in establishing a priesthood that can bring about perfection. Again, the earthly priesthood and animal sacrifices could not fully reconcile mankind to God. It was never designed to do that; it only points to that which does. So in that sense, the earthly priesthood is “weak” and “useless,” for it could not make a person “perfect” so that they could be reconciled to God. To be clear, the author is not saying that the parts of God’s Law concerning the earthly priesthood are weak and useless in general—they’re only weak and useless in the sense of accomplishing something they were never intended accomplish. It would be kind like saying, “When it comes to changing a car tire, a cooking stove is useless.” But obviously a cooking stove is not useless in general. In the same way, the earthly priesthood is certainly not useless as it pertains to serving in the earthly tabernacle. The bottom line in this passage, as well as in Hebrews 7:12, as we explained, is that the earthly priesthood could not attain perfection. It’s made up of weak, sinful humans who grow old and die. Animal sacrifices could never fully make atonement for the people; otherwise there would be no need to offer them over and over again. The earthly priesthood could not write the Torah on the hearts of the people. Therefore, since the earthly priesthood could not accomplish those things, there is a need for a priesthood that can. Yeshua is the High Priest of that priesthood in heaven. But this heavenly priesthood does not replace the earthly priesthood. As Hebrews 8:4-5 makes clear, the earthly priesthood continues to serve a valid and ongoing role on earth. It’s a shadow—a symbol—that points to the heavenly reality.
That's what I say to you.
You just don't get it.
That isn't an argument from Scriptures. That is using Scriptures to present what to you are "contradictions" in order to rationalize away what the Scriptures are obviously saying.
No, we should assume the earthly priesthood has been replaced because that is precisely what the author of Hebrews said, whether it appears like a contradiction to you or not.
I've already touched on that. Following customs is designed to reach people who are associated with those customs. It is to avoid unnecessary conflict over custom in order to reach them with the Gospel. This is not explicitly saying that Paul, in following these customs is sanctioning the Law for Christians. There is a big difference between someone giving an account and explicit biblical doctrine being taught!
But you just go on to teach that Jesus' priesthood means the priesthood of the Law is still in play? Go figure!