The book of Galatians provides one of the strongest New Testament parallels to the error of imposing Old Covenant practices like mandatory seventh-day Sabbath keeping on New Covenant believers. Paul wrote it to confront “Judaizers” who taught that Gentile Christians must observe the Mosaic Law (including circumcision, festivals, and holy days) to be truly accepted by God.
Key passages that directly apply:
Galatians 4:9–10
But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!
Paul equates turning back to mandatory observance of days (including Sabbaths) with returning to spiritual slavery under “weak and miserable forces.” This is a direct rebuke of any system that makes Old Covenant calendar-keeping a requirement for Christians.
Galatians 5:1–4
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery… You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
Making Sabbath observance (or any Old Covenant sign) a “test commandment” for salvation, fellowship, or future inheritance is precisely the kind of legalism Paul condemns. It shifts trust from Christ’s finished work to human performance.
Galatians 3:24–25 The law (including the Sabbath command) was a guardian or tutor to lead us to Christ. “Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.”
Galatians shows that legalism is not just a minor doctrinal difference — it is a different gospel (Gal. 1:6–9) that nullifies grace and severs people from Christ.
Hebrews 3–4 develops a sustained argument that the ultimate “rest” God offers is far greater than the weekly Sabbath or even the physical Promised Land
Hebrews 4 – The Spiritual “Sabbath Rest” Fulfilled in Christ — a present reality of resting from our own works by faith in Christ. God’s own rest began after creation (Heb. 4:4).
Colossians 2:16–17 – Shadows vs. Substance … weekly Sabbath explicitly called a shadow; do not let anyone judge you by it.
Romans 14:5–6 – Liberty Over Disputable Matters … days are matters of conscience, not grounds for judgment.
Israel under Joshua never fully entered that rest because of unbelief.
Therefore, “there remains a Sabbath-rest [sabbatismos] for the people of God” (Heb. 4:9).
This sabbatismos is not another weekly ritual but a permanent state of rest: “For anyone who has entered God’s rest also rests from their own works, just as God did from his” (Heb. 4:10). It is the present spiritual reality of ceasing from self-justifying efforts and trusting completely in Christ’s finished work. Believers enter this rest the moment they believe.
Colossians 2:16–17 – Shadows vs. Substance
7Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” (Col. 2:16–17)
The weekly Sabbath is explicitly listed among the Old Covenant shadows. Once the substance (Christ) has come, believers are not to let anyone judge them regarding these days.
Romans 14:5–6 – Liberty Over Disputable Matters
The apostle Paul applies this same principle practically in the church:
8One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord.”
Galatians – The Danger of Legalism
Paul warns that returning to mandatory observance of days is a return to slavery and a fall from grace. Any teaching that makes Sabbath-keeping a test of righteousness or a requirement for salvation mirrors the exact error he confronted in the early church.
The New Covenant does not abolish the principle of Sabbath rest; it fulfills and elevates it entirely in Christ. The weekly seventh-day observance was always a temporary shadow — a gracious tutor meant to lead God’s people to the greater reality of ceasing from all self-reliant works and resting wholly in the finished, once-for-all work of Jesus (Hebrews 4:9–10; Colossians 2:16–17; Romans 14:5–6).
Hebrews 4 reveals this rest as a present spiritual reality that every believer enters the moment they trust Christ alone. Colossians 2 declares the old shadows obsolete. Romans 14 treats observance of days as a disputable matter of Christian liberty. Galatians powerfully warns that imposing such days as a requirement is a return to slavery and a fall from grace (Galatians 4:9–10; 5:1–4).
Armstrongism’s insistence that seventh-day Sabbath keeping remains a binding “test commandment” for Christians today — and will be strictly enforced in the Kingdom — is a serious theological error that parallels the legalism Paul confronted in Galatians. By making a specific day a requirement for acceptance with God or for future salvation, it:
- Confuses the shadow with the substance, living as though Christ’s finished work never fully arrived.
- Undermines the glorious superiority of the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:6–13), which operates by better promises, a better High Priest, and the law written on the heart rather than external rituals.
- Reimposes the very legalism the apostles decisively rejected (Acts 15; Galatians 1–5; Colossians 2:20–23; Romans 14). Turning any Old Covenant sign into a test of righteousness directly contradicts justification by grace through faith alone and risks alienating people from Christ.
- Diminishes the liberating power of the gospel, exchanging the rest we receive as a free gift for a system of ongoing performance, fear, judgment of others, and division.
This is the heart of the New Covenant: we do not earn rest through commandment-keeping; we enter rest by grace through faith. Jesus’ invitation remains open to every weary soul:
Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me… and you will find rest for your souls. (Matthew 11:28–29)
That is the true Sabbath rest of the New Covenant — and it is infinitely better than any weekly ritual could ever be.
107 comments:
When one reads through and thinks on these things it becomes difficult to understand why we ever thought otherwise. The reason why we did is that the pretend apostle and his henchmen worked hard to deceive and lead to that method of legalism.
From Colossians and other places and as above we get to know the instructions in the NT we see how legalism has an appearance of wisdom… but the rules are of no real value…; it deceives by looking holy but it is in fact a spiritual trap that effectively aligns with the purposes of the evil one - driven by forces that oppose the Gospel.
A social dilemma: Being part of a cleanup crew following your splinter group's church social, you find a Bible. The social was held at a local lake, and the surrounding picnic area. There were other groups present, one of which was a youth group from a local Protestant church. You are trying to decide whether to take the Bible to the lost and found at church next sabbath, or to leave it with the youth pastor from the other group. The page for the owners' name has not been filled out. What is the best way to tell which group the owner is from?
Turn to the Epistle to the Galatians. If the gold on the edges of the pages is unbroken, and some of the pages are still lightly stuck together, the Bible belongs to one of your brethren. If the gold on the pages of the Old Testsment and the Book of Revelation is totally worn away, that further confirms that the Bible belongs to an Armstrongite!
How many other religions do you guys dispel or pound against, other than 7th day sabbath keeping groups?
Why no protest here on shameful Islam or baseless Buddhism...did Siddartha Gautama really float up as a deity? Dud Joseph Smith really see a Victorian Era text message inside a dark 1800s hat?
Can Galatians grace begin to argue against more than just HWA?
Silent Pilgram
Good expository writing. I would respectfully suggest that this is not convincing to most Armstrongists. They see the Sabbath as an eternal covenant and that is their prime hermeneutic. Everything else must fit within this principle. I found the following statement in Armstrongist literature:
“In addition to Christ's great sacrifice for us, what else did He say He would do? Notice: Jesus said, "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden (be my OBEDIENT friends), and I will give you REST"! (Mat. 11:28.) (from Lesson 27 from the Correspondence Course, 1969)
But this rest given by Christ is presented in the context of observing the seventh day. I think Armstrongists would agree with pretty much everything you wrote – they would just see it implemented through the seventh day because that is the only way it fits with the eternal Sabbath covenant.
Paul provides us with a resolution to the issue of the seventh day as the means of implementing the New Testament Sabbath. It is found in his wars with the Circumcision Party. The physical ritual of circumcision was eternal, covenantal and directly connected with salvation. Yet Paul is clear that the physical ritual was set aside by the New Testament. And Armstrongists will agree that this is the case. Yet, they have no exegesis that removes the Sabbath from the same category as circumcision. That is, both circumcision and the Sabbath survive in spiritual renditions without the physical rituals that once were associated with them.
I will add by way of clarification that I believe that there is nothing wrong with observing the seventh day as liturgy. But it is heretical to claim that it is a requirement for salvation.
Scout
Much of the “the law is done away with” teaching ultimately circles back to one commandment these folks do not want interrupting their lifestyle: the Sabbath.
Interestingly, the Hebrew word used for Sabbath means "an interruption." Hmmm...
And that is revealing, because the Sabbath is the test commandment, written by the finger of God Himself. There was no asterisk on the tablets when God gave His eternal law that #4 had a time limit.
Rather than confronting that directly, many redefine “fulfilled” to mean “abolished,” keeping nine commandments morally binding while treating the fourth as not relevant.
In the end, it echoes the spirit Christ exposed in His parable: “We will not have this man reign over us” (Luke 19:14).
Because when someone rejects God’s authority over His time to separate oneself from one's own pleasures, what they are often really resisting is God's right to govern their lives at all. Good luck with that...
8However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. 9But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
Paul was referring to day, week, month, year observances of no gods. The weekly sabbath is of the true God established at creation, is not ....weak and beggarly.
It can be a fine line between the two (of what one's reason/intent of keeping this or not keeping that). What we do know is that our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees and Sadducees. We know that they kept the law and were strict about it. but they didn't have God's Spirit and they rejected repentance and Christ. And they kept the sabbath and holy days
For me, what I have an issue with even the letter ( 3rd tithe), and additional "holy convocations" than what is written, within Armstrongism. And a few others that come to mind. Keeping the right days is not going to save one.
What I like about God's selection in Paul who had the background of being a Pharisees, as he does a 180 and serves the Gentiles with compassion, letting them know they don't need to be circumcised and other things to be saved. But God did select an Israelite to facilitate the gentiles, he didn't select a gentile to start off with serving the gentiles for the gospel.
The Galatians were gentiles, right? So how could they possibly be turning back to observing the Sabbaths??? Sounds like they were turning back to their pagan roots and trying to worship The Creator with them (kinda like the RCC does today).
You called it! Of course, its not possible to break just one commandment. If you think it through, breaking one commandment is breaking the other nine as well. But then, the Bible tells us that. James 2, I think...
Then it can go the other way, such as believing all is good just because one keeps the Sabbath and Holy Days, but ignore some of the others. You can be GTA, and not care about the 5th or the 7th. Near the top of the food chain, and ruined it. Break one brake'm all.
"one's own pleasure," Which splinter is right to attend on the sabbath?
Eeny, meeny, miny, moe
Don’t be retarded. We all came out of Armstrongism….thus the subject matter. It’s really not that difficult to understand.
The above at Tuesday, May 26, 2026 at 8:59:46 AM PDT
This argument above aligns with the Armstrong doctrine and exposes just how thoroughly it contradicts Scripture.
Armstrongism treats the Sabbath as a “test commandment,” but this idea does not come from the Bible. It originates with Ellen G. White, was absorbed by Herbert Armstrong (almost certainly through his early library studies and Adventist contacts), and is repeated by followers as if it were apostolic truth.
Paul never says that believers who do not keep Sabbath are rebels or sinful. In fact, he says the opposite: “Let no one judge you… regarding a Sabbath day” (Col 2:16). Armstrongism judges precisely where Paul forbids judgment, and it does so by deliberately dismantling Paul’s teaching in Colossians — a pattern inherited from Adventism’s anti‑Pauline teachings.
The “test commandment” claim collapses the moment one reads the Old Testament itself. The Sabbath was given only to Israel and explicitly as the sign of the Sinai covenant (Exodus 31:13–17).
When the covenant ended, the sign ended. Hebrews 8:13 states that the old covenant is “obsolete, aging, and ready to vanish.” You cannot keep the sign of a covenant that no longer exists. If someone wishes to rest on a particular day and finds spiritual benefit in doing so, that is entirely their freedom. What I am addressing here is not voluntary rest, but the notion of a test commandment — something very different.
Christians are not governed by tablets of stone but by the Spirit of the living God (2 Cor 3:3–11). Rejecting the Sabbath as a covenant sign is not rejecting God’s authority; it is accepting Christ’s authority as mediator of a better covenant.
The irony is that in Armstrongism the Sabbath becomes a curse. Once elevated into a universal “test command,” it becomes the gateway for importing whatever bits and pieces the self appointed leader wishes to impose. One of Armstrong’s favourite additions was Old Testament tithing, which he taught from the beginning and used to bind consciences and fund his empire, doing inestimable harm to many believers.
Unfortunately, it became a most undesirable empire, one built on fear, obligation, and selective appeals to Sinai. What began as a “test commandment” quickly turned into a mechanism for extracting obedience, loyalty, and money. The Sabbath itself was not the problem; the much loved and argued legalistic framework imposed upon it was.
The result is a system that contradicts Paul, misuses Moses, and replaces the freedom of the Spirit with the bondage of the old covenant.
It is a very good thing that the claimed apostle's bombastic empire collapsed — it was built on falsehoods. Yet there remain those who labour to recreate it, convinced they are restoring “the truth,” unaware that they are rebuilding the structure Paul warned the Galatians to flee
What we read here is one of the most common Armstrongist (and Adventist) attempts to neutralise Galatians 4 — yet it collapses the moment you read Paul carefully. It is one of the myths Armstrong worked tirelessly to construct as he desired to twist Paul's teaching..
Paul is not talking about pagan days. His four‑part formula — days, months, seasons, years — is the Jewish calendar, the same formula he uses in Colossians 2:16 for Sabbaths, new moons, and festivals.
He calls these observances “weak and beggarly” not because they were pagan, but because they belonged to the old covenant, which Hebrews says is obsolete.
Paul ends the section with: “Tell me, you who want to be under the Law…” (Gal 4:21). That alone destroys the “pagan days” claim. He is not talking about paganism. He is talking about the Law. He is pleading with them not to return to elements of the law:
circumcision — Gal 5:2–3 (circumcision - why would he connect pagan days with circumcision?)
the calendar — Gal 4:10
the covenant — Gal 4:24–25
the guardian — Gal 3:24–25
the slavery of Sinai — Gal 4:3, 4:9, 4:24–25
This is the system Armstrongism tries to resurrect. Paul calls it bondage. Returning to the Sinai calendar is precisely what Paul warns against. Armstrongism does the very thing Paul pleads with the Galatians not to do — yet its followers insist they possess “the truth” and all others remain deceived - unaware that Armstrong is rebuilding the very structure Paul urged believers to flee.
These other groups you cited did not spiritually rape us!!! Not the Orthodox Jews, the Seventh Day Adventists, Messianic Jews, COG-7, Joseph Smith, or Siddhartha! Why would we even mention anything about them here?
I just came from doing some work for a local Catholic Church. It was a good experience, a positive one! I didn't cringe, feel uneasy, or have a panic attack or vomit like I would have if I had been inside of an ACOG.
The blog is intended to expose the folly of Armstrongism — which is precisely why the self‑appointed apostle banned critical examination of his teachings.
Including ludicrous Armstrong claims he was led by God to “restore” the Sabbath as the identifying sign of the one true church. In reality, his so called OTC being a human invention built on selective readings, myths borrowed and created, and authoritarian and greed driven control.
While a member of the WCG for about 12 years I heard the phrase many times, "we are to qualify for salvation". How do we qualify for salvation? By keeping the law? The truth is there is no way we can qualify for salvation! We would have to live a perfect, sinless life to qualify for salvation. One sin disqualifies us! Keeping the OT laws do not in any way qualify us. It is the perfect, sinless life of Jesus that qualifies us for salvation. The OT law is null and void because it is powerless to secure us salvation. It means nothing to God if we keep the Sabbath or any other of the OT laws and rules.
Anonymous 8:59 wrote, "And that is revealing, because the Sabbath is the test commandment, written by the finger of God Himself."
You realize that the Sabbath is not done away. Christ has become our rest. So, he is our Sabbath. The seventh day still exists just like the foreskin still exists. It just does not have the sway it once had.
Armstrongists should feel relieved that the Sabbath is now only liturgical. Because they do not keep the Sabbath. They do all manner of activities on the Sabbath that the OT does not allow. Yet will stand up in defense of the seventh day as if they were actually keeping it.
Scouot
it's difficult because Sunday wasn't observed with Christianity until later via Nicea and the Armstrongist and Adventist will point to Dan 7:25. The difficulty is that during the first century when the Gentiles were being grafted in what was instructed was from the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), we do have the conversion of Cornelius and all we got was his baptism and of course only one day was observed (7th day Sabbath). Paul dealt with their foods that use to be offered to idols, jewish christians wanting them to be circumcised and other parts of the mosaic law. Before 70 AD, the temple was still there and the high priest was still there before Rome's sieges. It was a combustion of groups all in one place. But the NT doesn't really spell it out of a condemnation of another day being observed unless you go with the mark of the beast doctrine. Things are sort of hidden for the sake of faith. Us NT era guys aren't suppose to have all of the biblios.
Armstrongist believe within themselves to be Israelites so it's appropriate to observe the Sabbath, Holy Days, 3rd tithes and extra holy convocations, whereas the Adventist don't consider themselves to be of that identity. This is a great discussion and writeup SP.
Tank
I see Silent Pilgram waxing eloquent again with the usual platitudes all blended together, in which he feels sets everything in stone. He must be running out of material, for we just had this same discussion a few weeks ago.
No, I'm not going to rehash the whole thing over again. I think most recognize this goes way beyond Armstrongism, and that there are legitimate alternative views on the observance of "days" and physical traditions and rituals ( which ALL CHURCHES have and do). We are all in agreement (or should be) on legalism, on self righteousness, and making "law" or anything else a substitute for Grace. But Grace has many objectives, one of which is to teach us how to live and how not to live (Titus 2:11-12). It is a full time job which requires our full attention and comparable health to maintain the desire and focus to keep plugging along.
You can look it up yourself but the facts are, Christian people of the "orthodox" persuasion also suffer from stress, anxiety, depression, and restlessness at rates just as high or higher than non Christians. Either they don't understand or they are not taking advantage, or taking the TIME needed to capitalize on this promised spiritual sabbath rest that SP claims is all one needs to be and do everything that God requires of them.
When Jesus walked the earth, He presented the Sabbath as TIME for God, and service to family, neighbor and one's self. Maybe the Son of God actually knew what He was talking about when He said the Sabbath was made for man, and that it was much more than a useless and empty weekly ritual that really wasn't needed in the first place. Even the suggestion that it was merely a ritual tells me that the person making that claim really doesn't have a clue!
My two cents.
You are correct they were Gentiles, and they did have a pagan background.
However the context of the letter as one reads through shows he is not talking about their pre‑Christian paganism - rather it is all about what they were being pressured to adopt after becoming Christians.
If Paul meant pagan days, then the question arises why does he immediately warn about circumcision (Gal 5:2–3) - pagans didn’t circumcise; being under the Law (Gal 4:21) - pagans were never under the Law; the Sinai covenant (Gal 4:24–25) we know paganism is not Sinai; the Jewish calendar (Gal 4:10) and pagans didn’t keep Sabbaths, new moons, festivals, or sabbatical years
So, all the pressure on these Christians was coming from Judaizers not pagans.
The fake apostle invented the pagan idea so he could enforce sabbath, festivals, tithes and so forth.
Correction: the apostle didn't invent it as we know the “pagan days” theory wasactually created by early Adventists in the 1800s as a way to dodge Paul’s teaching in Galatians 4, because Paul’s language clearly refers to the Jewish covenant calendar.
Galatians 4 is devastating to Sabbatarianism.
Adventists needed a workaround to protect their Sabbath doctrine, so they claimed Paul must be talking about pagan observances instead. Armstrong simply copied this argument from Adventist literature and repackaged it as if it were divine revelation. He was a master of the repackaging of things and claiming divine revelation. .
And concerning the “creation Sabbath” argument it warrants mention as Armstrong and his ilk make it a really big sign of the true church. But, it doesn’t help either.
Paul is not discussing creation it is clear he is discussing covenant.
And the Sabbath as a sign is explicitly Sinai‑based:
It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel…”
“It is a sign forever between Me and the children of Israel…
See Ex 31:13–17; plus also Ezek 20:12 - “I gave them My Sabbaths to be a sign between Me and them…”
So, the claim that “the weekly Sabbath is not weak and beggarly because it is of the true God” simply ignores Paul’s point. Paul is not insulting God’s Law; he is saying its covenantal role has ended.
Further, if one has any interest get hold of materials from Jewish experts of the Torah, there are excellent sites, and you will learn none of them see a command in Genesis for man to observe sabbath,. It all started at Sinai and just before.
Excellent points you make and hoping all goes well with you
Are you guys led by God to restore Constantine's Sunday? Did Paul do much more than collect a collection on one particular week's 1st day?
Thanks BP8……..I believe the Sabbath is not a requirement for salvation but there is great advantages to its observance. At the Shul (synagogue) I attend, yes I am one of the tribe ha ha, many of us find a rest and refuge from the craziness and business of daily life. At the Friday nite service, and I get this a lot from just asking fellow attendees, they love the time out, the focus away from this world and a inner peace found in its regular observance and familiarity. A refuge indeed. We all need this stability that Sabbath can bring into our lives, realising for believers that ultimately Christ is our final and eternal rest. My two cents worth, cheers.
SHARP CONTRASTS
The Holy Bible VERSUS Everyone Else
The Holy Bible
In the beginning of the Holy Bible, God finished all his work in six days (Genesis 1:1-2:1). Then God RESTED on the seventh day and BLESSED the seventh day and MADE IT HOLY (Genesis 2:2-3). This is where the seven day week came from. God used the weekly Sabbath to TEST the Israelites to see whether they would obey him (Exodus 16:4-5). God included a command to REMEMBER the Sabbath day in one of his TEN COMMANDMENTS (Exodus 20:1-17). God's Sabbaths were to be a SIGN between him and the Israelites (all 12 tribes, not just the tribe of Judah, the Jews) throughout their generations (Exodus 31:12-18). In New Testament times, Jesus said that he was Lord of the Sabbath day and that the Sabbath was made FOR man (Mark 2:27-28). God said that in a yet future time all mankind will come and bow down before him from one Sabbath to another (Isaiah 66:22-24).
Everyone Else
In sharp contrast to the Holy Bible and God and Jesus, people seem to think that God's Sabbath day of rest was a horrible burden and CURSE made only for the Jews and that it is AGAINST man, and that people need to FORGET all about it. They say that Sunday, the first day of the week (which the unbiblical Epistle of Barnabas calls the eighth day) is the Lord's day and that people should observe it instead of God's Sabbath. Since they do not like to remember or observe God's biblical annual Holy Days either, they ignorantly and falsely claim that Jesus was resurrected on Sunday morning, rather than near the end of the weekly Sabbath. They try to argue that their imagined Sunday morning resurrection theory somehow justifies their rejection of God's Sabbath and their switch to the observance of their own unbiblical, man-made, pagan-based, demon-inspired custom and tradition of observing Sunday, “the venerable day of the sun” as one infamous pagan sun-worshiper by the name of Constantine called it.
The unbiblical writing The Letters of Ignatius: To Magnesians tries to make the biblical Sabbath out to be “strange doctrines” and “antiquated myths” that are “worthless.” People seem to think that everyone needs to forget all about the biblical Sabbath, and not observe it, and not mention it, and not bring it up at all. The Sabbath upsets the carnal minds of the wicked people who do not want to be subject to God's laws, which is almost everyone today. About a billion Roman Catholics observe Sunday (sort of), thinking to “change [God's] times and laws” (see Daniel 7:25). Almost another billion Protestants observe Sunday, because “like Mother Church, like Daughter Churches” (see Revelation 17:5). About a billion Muslims observe Friday, the sixth day of the week, but apparently it is not a sin for them to work on it. Evilutionists fully deserve to have to work 24/7/365. Religious goofballs and the mentally and physically lazy would like every day to be a Sabbath. People will do virtually anything and everything under the sun in the name of religion, except actually obey the God of the Holy Bible, of course.
Using an example from one of the Ten Commandments, which some people today think were done away with, Jesus warned about people worshiping him in vain when they ignore the commandments of God in order to observe the traditions of men (Mark 7:6-13). This is precisely what people are doing today when they forget, ignore, and reject God's Sabbath in order to observe their own Sunday-keeping custom and tradition. For some reason people seem to think that God's recorded ways are not important and even totally worthless and bad, but that people's own unbiblical customs and traditions are somehow vitally important and valuable and good.
Great point 7:22, The inner peace is rewarding. And we encourage you to continue in your faith. For some that were in armstrongism, the sabbath was also a part of the busy (non rest) daily life. I remember traveling an hour to and from service, being in a busy city. It depends how our work as well, are stress, what we are dealing with internally. Sunday was more of a "rest day", because you could just rest. Ha
352 says
"The OT law is null and void BECAUSE it is powerless to secure salvation"?
Since the role of the law is NOT TO GIVE SALVATION, then your entire statement has become null and void!
Also, another beauty:
" It means nothing to God if we keep the Sabbath or any other of the OT laws and rules"??
Really? How about loving God and loving neighbor (Lev.19:18, Deut.6:5, Matt.22:37-40)? Does God care about that? Or the many OT laws concerning idolatry, murder, stealing, false witness, and so on, does God care about that?
It's unqualified statements like these that give atheists all they need to discredit God and ridicule Christianity.
Ever think of reading the writings of the disciples of the original Apostles, 7:12? Ones whose names are actually mentioned in the New Testament? The next generation? The ones they personally mentored and ordained? There was no "lost century", but in fact a continuing and abundant history, a similar volume of work to what is contained in the New Testament. I'd suggest additional reading if you are a seeker of truth!!!
We live in a different era, one in which we attempt to prove things, or restore truth in a learned or intellectual manner. Proof meant quite a different thing in the context of Jesus and the disciples. It was not a deduced thing. It instead involved undeniable supernatural phenomena. The ACOGs lack that. HWA lacked that. So, here we are, scurrying all around, trying our best to figure things out. Some quote HWA, or use the eisegesises he produced as if they came from Jesus Himself. And yet, when it came time for the spiritual authentication of HWA (1972-75), authentication simply was not present! We received only backpedaling and inexcusable excuses. Not altogether different from the case of one David Pack. Or others of a parallel existence.
Come on people! There was no guesswork back in the first century. Those of "the Way" could feel Christianity by the seat of their robes! That's why it spread like wildfire! Our discussions are good. Hearts are in the right places. We just lack that certain ooompf, although it is trendy in some circles to fake it or attempt to conjure it up!
I think most recognize this goes way beyond Armstrongism, and that there are legitimate alternative views on the observance of "days" and physical traditions and rituals ( which ALL CHURCHES have and do) ....
But the question isn’t about traditions it’s really all about whether the apostles ever bound the Sabbath on Christians. Armstrong says they did, and from that he builds his whole edifice about being the “one true church” with its required Sabbaths, festivals, and everything that comes with them.
If someone simply wants a Sabbath ritual, they’d be wise to stay well clear of Armstrongism, because Armstrongism doesn’t treat it as a ritual at all it treats it as covenant law.
Jesus kept the Sabbath as a Jew under the Law, but the apostles never bound it on Gentile Christians. In fact, the New Testament never commands any weekly holy day at all. Meetings on the first day weren’t commanded, and meetings on the Sabbath weren’t commanded either. There’s no need to cite every verse - the pattern is consistent.
Jewish Christians were free to keep the Sabbath and festivals culturally, but the apostles never treated them as covenant requirements. Paul explicitly says he himself is “not under the Law,” and Acts 15 removes the Law’s yoke for all believers, whether Jew or Gentile.
There we go.
Fact checked clarity offered here by 7:48:00. Nicely done mate.
What if Mr. Armstrong had an 800 year lifespan as the Adamic era folk did...and let's say you could force Mr. Armstrong into one of those booths at the county fair where a guy is in a mockup stockade-style restraint, then only the face is exposed...where people buy tickets to whip semi-firm semi-dangerous tomatoes at him.
You all here strike me as harboring such obsessive, un-relenting, vehement, hot vengeance toward HWA, that if he was restrained in that fair booth for 800 years, you folk would hurl tomatoes at him in advanced, weakened age for those entire 800 years.
Would that really be fun to physically hurt a man for 500 or 600 or more years? Y'all's blistering hot prejudice & scowling, scathing disdain toward HWA would likely have you electing to hurl non-stop danger at his face for those years & years.
Would any of you really be proud of yourself after doing that to him for hundreds of years? Can your grace faiths consider treating even him (at some point), as a human being...within your thought processes?
If he had "fallen and can't get up", would y'all leave him lay on a 102° f. Pasadena pavement? Are the years of vehement words of protest served to him here, much different than hurling tomatoes in his fragile, worn face for 800 years...or leaving the frail man onto the ground if he had fallen or tripped?
Are the emotions you harbor toward current day Armstrong-style COG members really your permission slip to taunt, haunt, seethe, & verbally pummel all things Armstrong & all people wishing to continue his style of worship?
And just as y'all got past what Clinton did to Monica Lewinsky's dress, try getting past the HWA/Dorothy stuff. Were any of you still cheering Eric Swalwell on anyway?
I think that those who are advocates of keeping the O.T. laws miss the point of grace. The O.T. laws are not needed because the written law is replaced by something far better, principles written in our hearts by faith in the saving grace of Jesus. Not only does the sacrifice of Jesus save us for salvation but also it relives us of the debilitating shame that actually keeps us from making good decisions in life.
958
When I referred to the Sabbath as a ritual I was quoting from SP's post. That's not how I see it.
You say the question here isn't about tradition, but it's really about whether the apostles ever bound the Sabbath on Christians? I disagree, and I believe it is that carnal approach on viewing the law simply from the standpoint of do's and don'ts that is the cause of all our strivings about the law.
A wise man on this site once said, "Salvation has more to do with the heart than action". BINGO, there's your problem, and solving that problem is the basic theme of the entire new testament. The law poses no problem here, unless you are using it on your own to accomplish God's objectives (see Romans 9:30-10:4).
Galatians is not dealing with the do's and don't of the law, those which are binding and which are not. Galatians ask the following questions:
Justification HOW? Ch.2:16, 3:8, 24, 5:1-4.
Righteousness HOW? 2:21, 3:21.
Perfection HOW? 3:3.
Receive the spirit of God HOW? 3:3.
The Galation heresy is summerizied in 3:3. " Are you so foolish, having begun in the spirit are you now made perfect by the flesh"? In other words, having begun in the truth of the new nature (which is God's and the new testament's objective), you are soon removed and seek to be made perfect in the old nature, which is "another Gospel", 1:6.
The carnal and pharisectical approach to the problem of the carnal nature is human action. God's approach and solution is correct these human flaws that are causing the problems to begin with, a change in nature, a new heart, which is what salvation and the new covenant are about.
They that are " in the flesh" cannot please God. The carnal mind is not even subject to God's law, Romans 8:7-8. BUT, the "new nature" delights and serves the law of God. For him, the law is holy, just, and good (Romans 7:12, 21-25). BIG DIFFERENCE! A whole different change of perspective!
Yes, HWA had it ass backwards, but he's not alone. The whole world takes the same approach for that's all they know. Think about it. Salvation has more to do with the Heart than Action. The law is not the problem here. It's the instrument that points out the problem that requires a heavenly solution. We are HIS workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.
@ 3:35: Dude, it's all figurative, and is continued because misguided people are still using HWA's hook and package to attract and spiritually rape new batches of innocent victims. What you see here is being done in the same sense that Hitler and Stalin are still reviled and universally despised. Obviously, it will eventually die out as HWA's original victims die off, but right now, the daughter ACOGs still have semi-viability, peoples' parents and loved ones are stuck in them and being abused, and the revised HWA interpretation of the Olivet Discourse is on its last throes of possibility as people who were born in 1948 as Israel was reborn are mostly dying off.
Relax. It's only gonna last a minute. Then, we'll see how what you so quaintly refer to as a "style of worship" fares. Well, make that a "you'll see", or in your parlance "y'all will see" cause my atoms will have dissipated into the universe.
What a gas!
Reading through this thread makes John 6:44 really come to life. There is absolutely nothing that can be said to convince anyone of God's Truth. It's up to the Father to call an individual into the Truth before they can understand anything about it. That is why we see such elaborate opinions against God and His Law.
The Church makes its case, and moves on. We do not try to convince anyone of anything. Those God is calling will respond. Everyone else will resist with every fiber of their being. This is why there is a resurrection following the millennium.
Anonymous 7:48 Sharp Contrasts
I found your response interesting because it is classical Armstrongism. You attempt to “flood the zone” with poorly exegeted ideas and scriptures out of context. With such volume and disarray, nobody will take the time to respond to the mélange. Hence, you win a pseudo-victory. This rhetoric really doesn’t work anymore.
I will respond just briefly so as not to take the bait. Jesus stated the following:
Matthew 11:28-29: "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, 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."
If there were already rest in the seventh day, why would Jesus redundantly proclaim this? And this would be the perfect place in his ministry to bring up the value of the seventh day as the rest we all need, both spiritually and physically. But instead, he points the listener to himself as the source and place of rest. If he really meant the seventh day, why didn’t he mention the seventh day?
This is just a clue and not a full-blown argument. There are many other supporting scriptures. Ultimately, we learn from these scriptures that the Sabbath is perpetuated in Christ and not the seventh day. Just like circumcision is not perpetuated in the removal of the foreskin but in a change of heart. Is that so surprising. Jesus is law of God in action. The scripture says "For Christ is the end (or culmination) of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." (Romans 10:4, ESV). The Torah is not the center with Christ as a peripheral law-keeper or bit player. Christ is alpha and omega.
Scout
BP8, I was referring to the law as a means to salvation when I said it means nothing to God. Certainly God wants us to make good decisions in life that is done when we have faith that Jesus will guide us to make those good decisions not the law!
O wise Scout at 735.
You say "if there was already rest in the 7th day, why would Jesus proclaim this (Matthew 11:28-29)"?
Is physical rest and spiritual rest mutually exclusive? I see Jesus as the source and place for both kinds of rest, and His sabbath reforms illustrate this. Jesus said, " it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days" (Matthew 12:12). Doing good, helping those in need, physical and spiritual refreshment, all fit in with the teachings and example of Jesus Christ. How do we know His reforms are not included in His Matthew 11 declaration? Why would they not?
I think from the very beginning (Genesis 2) that it was God's design that the 7th day was made and given to man for rest (Mark 2:27-28). Where things go haywire is when carnal man gets a hold of things and perverts it to the point of even accusing the Son of God of being a sabbath breaker (John 9:16) because He violates some of their carnal directives. HWA was about as bad with some of his ridiculous directives.
As usual, I enjoy your comments.
803
Thank you for the clarification. Yes, Jesus will and does guide us, but let us not forget some of His instruments He uses in doing so. Proverbs 6:23 says,
" For the commandment is a lamp, and the law is light, and reproofs of instruction are the way of life.
Concerning this instruction, it is written, "All Scripture (both testaments) is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for instruction in righteousness. They (the holy scriptures) are able to make thee wise unto salvation THROUGH FAITH WHICH IS IN JESUS CHRIST" (2 Timothy 3:15-16).
God's word and God's spirit will guide us in the way we should go.
8:59, Such a fabrication! But, the mind bent on Armstrongism will not see it. Many actually "observe" sabbath but do not believe it is required which blows and Armstrong sized hole in your comments.
Without the law? What if God is the law? What if the law is God? Do you gracies plan to always throw out the baby with the bathwater? Forever?
Even during your planned tenure floating on clouds with harps? And psaltery?
ok, time will tell as Iannis says (John that is)
When the Catholics canonized the New Testament, they only included the materials from the time of Jesus and the disciples/apostles. In their own history, they preserved the writings from the generations which followed, but these were not given sacred status.
How does the exalted 7:21.00 know "who" is misguided?
Didn't your Biden & Kamala promote people's "freely chosen" right to worship as they/we please?
Is it perpetually here going to be unending backgammon between the "ACOGS" & the "gracies"?
Ok. 1:50. Great, after D.E.I. & woke etc. halts years of rudeness toward those with down syndrome by sucessfully discouraging the term "retarded", all of a sudden the gracies on Banned revive the terse term all over again.
Heaping it onto me, whoa, I'm retarded now. Can't I be a Berean on my own without your input, and sift out for myself, the popular mainstream's rash bible assessments when I personally prefer the 7th day/holy days/COG after my Berean bible studies?
Fulfilled = abolished. Wow, finally someone has fact checked that erroneous flimsy lame equation. It's a new day.
8:59, you certainly did your bible study, thank you for the effective comment there...in Jesus' name, amen mi amigo.
Anonymous 4:11 wrote, “What if God is the law? What if the law is God? Do you gracies plan to always throw out the baby with the bathwater? Forever?”
God is not identical to whatever law he dispenses. The law is a creation or declaration of God and is based on his nature. But this does not existentially equate God to the law he declares any more than you are the mousetrap you build.
Christians are not antinomian as Armstrongist like to accuse them of being. Christians follow the Law of Christ as given in the New Testament. They do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The baby is retained but only as the New Testament says it should be. In short, one cannot appeal to antinomianism to justify observing the seventh day. That dog won’t hunt.
Peter wrote, “But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus…”. Apparently, God is a gracie.
Scout
Anon41143, it is strange that you try to disparage people that teach grace by calling them "gracies". Without grace your life is simply a vapor. I am so thankful that the Lord has shown me the faults of Armstrongism as I have a deep Rest in Christ that Armstrongism never provided or understood. I remember rolling my eyes at such comments when I was proud in my Armstrongist righteousness, but to use a modern phrase: "when you know, you know".
What is funny is is that Armstrong checked up on the jewish authority on the Sabbath and if we are still on the correct day , but they will not check on the jewish authority on what year we are in 5,786 for man to be given 6,000 years. But those days will be shortened. 1975!!!!
Doesn't the holy spirit itself clue you in that the true Hebrew year currently would indeed be about 5990 or so...
If some of us are labelled ACOGS then the word gracie can be flung out there as well.
Goofball! At least be respectful enough to use the proper pronouns! The Holy Spirit's pronouns are ""He", and "Him"!
You got me 2:01, but perhaps on Feast of Trumpets, that's what RCM would say. According to them it's actually 5997, didn't It tell you
Ever consider the rest at creation was meant to be eternal? there’s no 8th day/next week. Just a ceasing from creation and it was good. So rest was created for man as a gift. But we aren’t supposed to be ever away from God’s presence. Yet man chose to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, and immediately was separated from that rest.
Come to Jesus and you’ll experience the true rest.
ya the digit of "7" falls under the clause of "or so"
According to some calculations based on the LXX I think we’re already over 6000 I think.
Eh, even the Jews acknowledge that their calendar is off by a couple of hundred years.
ACOGs is an apt abbreviated descriptor for those in "all the churches of God". Grace is something we all should want and to mock it as a pejorative is very strange and perhaps telling.
The only people we have witnessed mocking grace here have been the legalistic law enforcers. The believe grace is cheap and mock all who understand its the transformative power extended to people not based on their merit, works, or law-keeping.
315
Read Exodus 20:8-11 (especially verse 11) and you will see that the 7th day sabbath physical rest was from the beginning. It was made (Mark 2:27-28) for man's physical refreshment. The rest we find in Jesus is superior, but it doesn't cancel our need for the former. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. The flesh need building up from time to time to even appreciate the glories of the Spirit.
Soooo, is their weekly calendar off by a couple of days. 😁
It's interesting...the Jewish Calendar issue. Is it God's Calendar? Romans 3 indicates so. Believe God would not command fixed, set, appointed festivals and sabbaths without providing a fixed Calendar on which the dates are set, fixed. A calendar from Day One in Genesis. Jewish names of months are in the Bible. The feasts and sabbaths are moeds in Lev 23, the Hebrew word moed meaning fixed ("feasts" is a mistranslation, should be fixed, or appointed, times). But Biblical years added indicate we are near, at, or just past 6000 years, so the Jewish calendar designated year is off.
Assume the "Jewish" calendar has been fixed for thousands of years. This year the first day of Iyar, the second month in the Jewish calendar, is May 17. The Jewish months are lunar, began at the new moon. Time of the new moon calculated today (NASA?) is May 16, 20:01 UTC. Seems the Jewish calendar is accurate......after 1000s of years.
They did that to fudge the fact that the baby Jesus did arrive prophetically on time back then.
They didn't screw with the days of the week.
But they did screw with the year in order to make Jesus/Iesous/Yeshua not seem to be Messiah.
Doesn't prophecy prove that only Herbert W. Armstrong, and not "the Jews" was the authority on these matters? Wasn't 1975 year 6,000? Oh, wait............
1975 was the Year Without A Charlemagne.
The lire & the franc & the deutschmark still reigned supreme, not a computer was stirring, not even an internet mouse.
WCG was too dumb to see that until maybe 1979, which by then there was The Year When George Deukmejian Climbed Down The Chimney.
Yet you do not really rest yourself and seem at war within yourself.
You harp on about how imperfect Sabbath Christians are, but yet dwell amongst Sabbath Christians to look down on them, and plot to destroy them, through any and all means.
Yet God whom you say "doesn't know them" repeatedly throughout many years protects them from you. Go figure that one.
Your rest in Christ apparently involves no judgment on yourself.
After scanning the comments there is something I want to say. I don’t think this settles any issues – more likely just will stir up more controversy. I would just like to see the controversy take a certain direction. There are certain reference points that should be considered.
1. People often speak of the Sabbath in a nondescript way. There are different views of what the Sabbath means. There are people whose observance of the seventh-day Sabbath is liturgical – a matter of worship form. And there are people who believe it is a requirement for salvation. Adventists fall into the former category and Armstrongists into the latter. The former is simply a matter of worship and the latter is a heresy. People in the former category can be regarded as Christians and the people in the latter category cannot. To use the nondescript term “Sabbath Christian” to define both these categories is in error. Some people who seek to observe the seventh-day Sabbath are not Christians. And there are many Christians who do not observe the seventh-day Sabbath.
2. The seventh-day Sabbath issue is difficult to analyze. Arguments tend to generate a vortex of confusion. So, God has given us an excellent tool to do this analysis. It is called circumcision. (No, that’s not what I mean.) Physical, ceremonial circumcision in ancient Israel was a commandment that was a part of an eternal covenant and is directly connected with salvation as a causation. And in the New Testament it still exists but has been transformed into a spiritual rendition. This same principle applies to Jesus as our Rest. Note that in circumcision the original physical act lost its gravitas. Circumcision as a principle illuminates the Sabbath and all those parts of the Torah that have been transformed, most notably the sacrificial ceremonies. Both circumcision and the Sabbath yet exist in a transformed state in the New Testament. And, of course, not everything in the Torah was transformed.
3. It is important to sort this out because if Christ says he is our spiritual rest, and he does, and you regard the seventh-day as your spiritual rest instead, you are rejecting Christ. If you say that you believe in both the seventh-day as rest and Christ as rest at the same time, that is not the model we see in scripture based on circumcision.
4. The physical rest idea does not support the seventh-day exclusively. It could just as well support Sunday or any other day of the week.
5. And, lastly, for all the date mavens, I know dates and the movement of celestial bodies is fascinating but if there is anything that really needs a rest it is all the nerdism about dates among Armstrongists. This is where we really need a Sabbath but for more than just the seventh day. The Millerites back in the Nineteenth Century were into dates big time. They had charts. Look what good it did them. 1844 came and went.
Scout
The rest was spiritual from the beginning.
I guess we should be looking out for the data centers in Berlin, but wait a minute.
Pope Scout and his self-righteousness strikes again.
Your hypocrisy is forever before you. If you consider Sabbath Christians heretics then why are you a UCG Pastor?
But, but, 2026 has come, hasn't went yet.
I don’t believe in all that dates stuff, I just brought it up since Armstrongism likes to correlate Hebrews 4 to the millennial rest (with the 7th day rest). In turn making that rest complete the 7000 years. Since they like to point to the jewish authority concerning the sabbath day, they don’t go to them concerning their date setting. It’s kinda funny. I will look more into your #3.
Grace is your way of saying swindling, usury, abortions, lying, cheating, are no big deal even if done repeatedly as long as the "grace card" is pulled out as an ace in the hole.
1040, I truly believe you need to understand the Law of Christ. Christians are not under “The Law” given at Sinai. But, the Law of Christ prevails in their lives. This is why, from my experience, the behavior of most Christians is better than that of those in the COGs.
Scout 752
I believe the sabbath/ circumcision connection is both overstated and overrated for the following reasons:
1) Circumcision was given to Abraham and his seed in particular, whereas the Sabbath was made for mankind as a whole after man's creation.
2). The Sabbath is one of the 10 commandments. Circumcision is purely ritual.
3) During His ministry, Christ magnified the law to its fullest spiritual intent and principle. His sabbath reforms fall into this category.
4). Females were exempt from the physical ritual of circumcision "after the manner of Moses" but can fully participate in the circumcision "after the manner of Christ". The Sabbath is for everyone to benefit from.
5). Spiritual rest does not cancel out the need for physical rest. They are not mutually exclusive. It is true one can find physical rest on any day. But God has set apart and pronounced a special blessing on the 7th day (Exodus 20:8-11). Since He is God, He gets to choose! He is not the author of confusion. The sabbath is structured time for given purposes. If man was left to his own devices would He even bother to rest or acknowledge God at all? Would we even bother to acknowledge the world's holidays if not given the time off?
A question to close with is this. Christ promoted the Sabbath and its positive benefits and opportunities. But what about the ritual of circumcision, why was it instituted in the first place?
Miller Jones in a previous blog on his personal site makes the following comments. He writes, " it is hard to imagine circumcision being regarded as an improvement on the original design (of the penis). It would not be inappropriate to characterize this practice as a mutilation of male genitallia. In other words, Hebrew men ( not women) were required to suffer a painful disfigurement of the most visible manifestation of their manhood".
The question to ask is WHY? What purpose does this ritual serve? My theory is it was given to Abraham and his children as a perpetual reminder of His plot to work out God's plan through his sexual encounter with Hagar. This also became a fitting symbol for the old covenant (Galatians 4:22-31), which was a purely physical flesh driven agreement based on human performance (Exodus 19:5-8). On the other hand, spiritual circumcision is symbolic of God Himself working out His righteousness in us through the new covenant, where it is not by human works, lest anyone should boast. We are His workmanship. Both Acts 15 and the Galation heresy point this out.
BP8 wrote, “I believe the sabbath/ circumcision connection is both overstated and overrated”
Circumcision was practiced in the Near East well before the time of Moses. In fact, it was practiced by the Egyptians and among them dates to 2400 BCE. Since it was performed by Egyptian priests, it must have carried a religious significance. Had there been Armstrongists around at the time of Moses, they would have groused about circumcision being a pagan carryover like Christmas. In order to be logically consistent, they should have criticized God and Moses for fostering paganism by re-purposing an ancient pagan practice to signify the promises made to Abraham.
That aside, God says this about circumcision in Genesis 17:
“He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy 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.”
Thus, circumcision has the properties of being intimately identified with the covenant and not merely a simple symbol or ceremony. Either you have it and you are a party to the covenant, or you don’t have it and you are not a party to the covenant. And it doesn’t make any difference if you are keeping the Torah. If your foreskin is intact, your Torah-keeping cannot bring you the Promises. Hence, circumcision overarches the Torah which contains the seventh-day Sabbath. And it is directly connected with the Abrahamic Covenant and Promises. These are the same promises Jesus brought to us. Paul writes in Galatians,
“Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”
Circumcision was overloaded with meaning under the OT. Yet, it ceased as a physical practice in the NT but survived spiritually as “circumcision” of the heart. Circumcision, in fact, makes an optimal model for making decisions about parts of the OT which have been superseded by the NT. This would include ceremonies, sacrifices and the seventh-day.
I believe the message of circumcision is that a person who is the recipient of grace and the promises, must be altered as a consequence of salvation. The life-changing theosis or sanctification that happens to Christians is a consequence of salvation and not cause of salvation.
Scout
A summation of the last post can be addressed with this:
Galatians 2:18-21 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”
RCM use to only quote v. 20.
Great words BP8
Addendum
With regard to the relationship between circumcision and the Sabbath, Rabbinic Judaism dictates that a male child be circumcised on the eighth day whether or not it is the Sabbath. Circumcision then takes precedence. This seems reasonable because Genesis 17:12 does not require a deferral of circumcision if the eighth day falls on the Sabbath.
Scout
Scout writes,
"Rabbinic Judaism dictates that a male child be circumcised on the eighth day whether or not it is the sabbath".
A " MALE " child, which exempts half of the human race. The sabbath however, was made for the entirety of the race!
Also, " the message of (spiritual) circumcision is that a person who is the recipient of grace and the promises must be altered as a consequence of salvation ".
Good point. The new nature must replace the old nature, which is the work of God under the new covenant. " I will write my laws upon their hearts". "We are HIS WORKMANSHIP". The failure to understand this is what led to the Acts 15 controversy and the Galation heresy.
The mixed multitude that came out of Egypt with the Israelites for the Exodus, where they circumcised?
The clear reason is it is meant for cleanliness, along with an act or sign visible to God.
Toe jam or overweight persons' leg jam & neck jam proves that the body can flap onto itself creating a bacterial fermentation of old un-exfoliated skin cells.
It's best to circumcise the little flap off whether one lives in hot arid dry desert, or in moist green lush geography.
BP8 4:54...your 2¢ have been multiplied. A hundred-fold, bravo mate.
10:48pm Re the “mixed multitude” the males who wanted to assimilate into the “church” of Israel would likely have later been cut to partake in the Passover (Ex 12:43-49) assuming they weren’t already cut prior to the first Passover and Exodus. Of course during the 40 years wandering in the desert the ritual wasn’t practiced consistently so the next generation of males were cut after crossing the Jordan (Joshua 5:2-7). Another point of note is that the type of circumcision prevalent throughout the biblical period was “brit milah” involving a tiny tip snip whereas from the 2nd century onwards it was the “brit periah” variety in which the entire foreskin was removed. So in all likelihood the circumcision that was practiced during the days of Moses, David and even Christ was not the same that is practiced today in countries like America, Israel and Muslim nations.
BP8 8:02 wrote, “A " MALE " child, which exempts half of the human race. The sabbath however, was made for the entirety of the race!”
Circumcision also pertained to everyone in ancient Israel – just as the Sabbath. Moses understood that there was a physical aspect of circumcision and there was a spiritual aspect. While women could not participate in the physical aspect, they were full participants in the spiritual aspect – the meaning – even as they are now in Christianity. The scriptures:
“Circumcise, then, the foreskin of your heart, and do not be stubborn any longer.” (Deuteronomy 10:16, spoken to the entire congregation of Israel.)
“Moreover, the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live.” (Deuteronomy 30:6, spoken to “all Israel”).
The second scripture especially shows that circumcision was for everyone spiritually although its physical implementation was for men only. The question I cannot answer is why the physical implementation was what it was. Why not make a little scar on the skin of the right forearm of both males and females, for instance. The Bible forbids cutting in the flesh but requires foreskin removal for those under the OT. I have read conjectures on why this particular physical implementation was followed but I think it remains a mystery. I do know it was a common practice among the Gentiles of the ancient Near East prior to the Torah.
The fact that circumcision has this duality makes it an excellent canonical case for understanding the impact of the NT on seventh day observance which is also dual.
Scout
Anonymous 11:19 wrote, "Your hypocrisy is forever before you. If you consider Sabbath Christians heretics then why are you a UCG Pastor?"
You may have an axe to grind with UCG but I am not a part of that. I am not a UCG pastor nor do I possess any ordination of any sort from any Armstrongist group. I am an orthodox Christian lay-member.
You are tilting with windmills.
Scout
Philippians 3:5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee;
Philippians 3:7-8 But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things.
You're the one tilting at windmills of the past.
You have sunk to lying and gaslighting anyone, who tells the truth.
Scout
I think we are on the same page on a lot of things although I question the idea of circumcision being an optimal model for making decisions about parts of the OT which have been superseded by the NT.
As you point out, both Deuteronomy texts were for everyone "spiritually", for in reality they are New covenant themes which emphasize what GOD DOES (the Lord your God will circumcise your heart, 30:6). The problem was, the people had no interest, no eyes to see. They were carnal, stubborn, they had hard lessons to learn. God treated them like the rebellious children they were, with curfews, rituals, sabbath restrictions, all which were designed to prepare them for future life to come. But like a child without maturity and understanding, they ignored those lessons and created a legalistic religion out of those very tools (circumcision, sabbath) that were meant to educate them. The value of any tool is found in what can be produced by that tool, like taking a hammer and nails and producing a beautiful piece of furniture. There is no praise in making a religion out of the hammer, or how good one is in swinging the hammer, or putting restrictions on how the hammer is to be used. The tool is only good when used for the right reason.
I think this confirms my theory that physical circumcision was a perpetual reminder of this stubborn attitude and carnal focus on " self". Why else would God allow an old covenant to exist by entering into an agreement that was doomed for failure at the outset? Yes, many things remain a mystery.
4:20 AM
The comparison doesn't really hold. Skin folds elsewhere on the body can accumulate sweat, oils and dead skin cells, but we don't routinely remove healthy tissue to address that—we simply wash those areas. The foreskin is no different: basic hygiene is generally sufficient to keep it clean.
The claim that circumcision is "meant for cleanliness" also overlooks that most intact males worldwide, historically and today, remain uncircumcised without widespread hygiene problems. Additionally, modern medical organizations generally do not recommend routine circumcision solely for hygiene, since cleanliness can be maintained without surgery.
Removing a normal, functional body part simply because it can collect debris if neglected is not standard medical practice. Good hygiene is usually the appropriate solution, not removing a normal, healthy body part just in case.
Raise your hand, raise-your-hand-if-you're-Sure.
Aren't'ch'yoo glad you used Dial?
They probably do indeed have widespread hygiene problems over there.
And most men shave & cut their hair too.
habemos papam
Rubbish 'BP8'.
"habemos papam". Yes, you do. And his name is Herbert W. Armstrong.
BP86 6:14 wrote, "I think this confirms my theory that physical circumcision was a perpetual reminder of this stubborn attitude and carnal focus on " self". "
What you write makes sense, but it seems to be one among many interpretations. One theme I see in physical circumcision is that it is punitive. It involves pain and blood and the removal of flesh. Why would God associate this dark experience with a very bright promise? I am not sure. Maybe it is a case of ad astra per aspera. And it is interesting that the punitive aspect is removed in the New Covenant.
Scout
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 1Cor 7:19 NIV
Scout 631
I agree with your observations. According to the dictionary, "punitive" describes actions, laws, or measures intended to inflict punishment, impose a penalty, or teach a lesson. I believe the "teach a lesson" aspect describes both physical circumcision and the old covenant experiment very well. Why else would God enter into an agreement that had no chance for success if an object lesson wasn't the reason? The reason of course and the object lesson to be learned is summerizied by Christ Himself in John 15:5: "Without Me, You can do nothing".
Man by nature is full of " self" and prone to self trust, self exaltation, self righteousness, and self performance. The great storylines of Scripture are based on this premise with the punitive consequences playing out. Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden. Abraham was circumcised after the Hagar debacle. Moses and the rock. The children of Israel ultimately going into captivity, and so on and on.
For us, as you put it, the physical aspect of circumcision is removed in the new covenant, and for good reason. It is no longer needed. We have these biblical failures and lessons written down for our sake and admonition (1 Corinthians 10:1-11), and the revelation and guidance of the Holy spirit, which defines and implements what salvation and the new covenant actually entails, which is God working in us, He is the active agent, He is writing His law on our heart, and we are His workmanship. This sanctification process is called the circumcision of Christ, that of the heart, made without hands in the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh ( the old nature), see Colossians 2:11. The Gospel calls this being dead and buried in (crucified with) Christ, which of itself can be challenging and a struggle for those called to be saints, for it is written, "we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God" (Acts 14:22).
It is here the book of Galatians comes full circle. It begins exposing "another gospel" which cannot work and ends with God's salvation objective which does work:
"For in Christ Jesus circumcision and uncircumcision avail nothing, but a new creation ( the new nature) where faith works by love", (Galatians 6:15, 5:6).
I for one am not afraid of the book of Galatians. It's one of my favorite books.
Anonymous 6:21 wrote, "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts."
The question is "What constitutes God's commands?" If it is what counts, then you will certainly want to know the answer to this question. The model of how the issue of circumcision is resolved by Paul in scripture directly informs us about how some commands should be treated. Neglecting the circumcision model is not inconsequential.
I believe your statement is a good case in point concerning a major difference between Armstrongism and Christianity. Armstrongists believe that the Law is the center of their belief system. Christians believe that Jesus is at the center of their belief system. That's why Christians are called Christians. Armstrongists seem to believe that Jesus was just another peripheral law-keeper - beholden to Moses. Jesus is the living Word of God and that Word includes whatever behavioral standards that are presently binding on his followers. What counts is Jesus living his life in you not your unsuccessful attempts to keep the Torah.
Scout
"What....commands?" Those that love God (feasts, sabbaths for they are His), and those that love others, and those that love yourself (dietary, unclean laws). But don't attempt to love God's commands on your own effort. Ask Him for the faith, and Holy Spirit, to help you.
Incidentally laws associated with the Levitical Priesthood, like tithing laws, and any other law given after Exodus 24 that was added because of transgressions of law and associated with the Levitical Priesthood are now removed. The Levitical Priesthood is no more. Gal 3:19; Heb 7:11-12 ("change also of the law" should be "removing of the law" - Heb 7:18).
A Christian is a person who believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and follows his teachings.
Anyone who says 'oh those people aren't Christians because...' is like the Pharisee in the Temple full of entitlement prayed to God and looked down on others as 'less than'.
Anonymous 11:17 wrote, “"What....commands?" Those that love God (feasts, sabbaths for they are His…”
What you refer to are parts of the Torah. These observances foreshadowed Jesus Christ. The commands you should observe are contained in the Sermon on the Mount and other behavioral standards given by the New Testament authors. This is all well-established theology.
Anonymous 11:17 also wrote, “Incidentally laws associated with the Levitical Priesthood, like tithing laws, and any other law given after Exodus 24 that was added because of transgressions of law…”
You will need to show me that neat block of scripture containing the sacrifices and ceremonies and death penalties that was added later to the Torah. You will not find it. Nobody in the Armstrongist movement has ever produced that text. Sacrifices, death penalties and ceremonies are scattered throughout the Torah with a variety of chronological contexts. Armstrongists use the dodge that the sacrifices were added because of transgressions so there had to be a law already in place (the Torah) or there would be no transgressions possible. In fact, Herman Hoeh wrote an article about the Ten Commandments being in force before the Torah. So, the “transgression” argument falls flat.
One may resort to Source Criticism and claim that the post-exilic editors reorganized the Torah by merging various sources, therefore, we cannot find that neat text block. But there editing was not random and in disarray. I doubt that they would distribute a meaningful, additional piece of text across the five books.
Also, one cannot read the section in Galatians 3 with and open mind and not see that the law that was added was in fact the Torah itself added as an expansion of the Ten Commandments.
This is all “old hat” and the only reason I respond to it is that Armstrongist always seem to think their view in unassailable. In fact, their view is weak and easily challenged.
Scout
Anonymous 11:48 wrote, “A Christian is a person who believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and follows his teachings.”
If this simple statement were true, Armstrongists would not refer to Christians as pagans. The terms of this proposition must be defined. It is not a free-for-all. There is such a thing as a Christian. Paul opposed the Circumcision Party because they wanted, among other things, to make keeping the Torah a requirement for salvation. He said of them, “You who want to be reckoned as righteous by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.” Like the Circumcision Party, Armstrongism is clearly outside the pale of the Christian movement.
Scout
Sabbath Christians do not refer to Sunday Chrstians as pagans.
Your accusation is a two way street.
Scout said: “Paul opposed the Circumcision Party because they wanted, among other things, to make keeping the Torah a requirement for salvation. He said of them, ‘You who want to be reckoned as righteous by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.’”
True—“for salvation.” But Paul wasn’t an anti-God’s law (antinomian) preacher or Christ-follower. He upheld God’s law (Torah) and its keeping. Not for salvation but as a moral or behavioral standard.
because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. Gen 26:5
Paul, not me, wrote a law was added because of transgressions. Of law. The transgressions were not accidents but violations ......of law. But now that faith has come we are no longer under a taskmaster.......like tassels.
Anonymous 6:24 wrote, “But Paul wasn’t an anti-God’s law (antinomian) preacher or Christ-follower.”
Just so. Nobody can read Romans and believe that Paul was antinomian. What is confusing is that Paul uses the term Law and we don’t always know what he is referring to. It requires a lot of contextual analysis and sometimes there is never agreement. But, after all, Paul was inclined toward Christ instead of Moses. Which means he was likely inclined toward the Law of Christ instead of the Law of Moses. Paul is the one who mentions the Law of Christ in Galatians. And he refers to the Torah in 2 Corinthians as the ministration of condemnation.
I agree that the Torah is now an ethical package instead of a salvation package. And you can adopt it as your ethics as long as you do not believe that is gives you salvation. If you want to avoid wearing socks that are part wool and part cotton, knock yourself out. The trouble is you can lose sight of what is important because when the Torah was dispensed, everything in it was important. Under he New Testament, tassels on your garments just may not be as important as treating a fellow employee like she or he is a human being and worth something to God. That is the failure of Armstrongism. The Armstrongists looked into the Torah and did not find love. They found hierarchy.
Scout
Post a Comment