01/03/2009 Sabbath Meeting Transcript

Last week, we went over a response that I had gotten from a pastor, a Baptist pastor, because I had sent out a link to the audio broadcast a few weeks ago, or some weeks ago. I forget when it was--November, I think.

When I shared a study called, "Is the Law Jewish?" And I wanted to know what this Christian person thought of it. And they replied back with a reply from their pastor. And so I went ahead and replied to that pastor, the different points that he had brought out and wanted to hear what he had to say in return.

And he did respond, and so because he responded to my response, I decided to respond to that one. And, hopefully, we can get into an enlightening conversation and arrive at some truth. You know? You never know. Maybe I have some error, and I have to always keep that in mind, and I can learn things.

And I have no qualms with the idea that I could be in error in anything, and I want to hear correction in that. So, anyway, he wrote back, and I shared with him my thoughts on his reply.

And I figured it would be good to--I'm sure a lot of you get into these kinds of emails and conversations with different Christian leaders and Christians who believe that the law is abolished and no longer relevant today.

And so I figured you'd be interested in that email and maybe encourage you all into some area that maybe you can reply back and be more equipped in your answers.

And so, anyway, this week we're going to go over, again, this pastor's reply to me, and then my reply to that reply.

And one of the main points I'd made in the letter that I'd written to that pastor, specifically, was about sin being the transgression of the law. And since that's the very definition of sin, we, obviously, do not want to sin. So why would we want to transgress any of the commandments in the law. It's all one and the same.

And that was one of the main points of my letter, and it's a very difficult point for anyone to refute, because there are several scriptures, not just 1 John 3:4, but there are several scriptures which indicate that very clearly. Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7, both of which connect the disobedience to the law as being sin.

And so if anyone disobeys one of the commandments in the law, obviously, that's sin, and we're not supposed to sin, right?

But what's happened is culture and tradition have redefined what sin is, rather than letting Yahweh and His Word define that. And so I brought that out very heavily, and he went into the book of Galatians, of course, of which I replied back to his points.

And so, anyway, this week he tried some other thoughts, some other things I'm sure he's been taught in maybe seminary or through other people in the Baptist organization, or maybe somewhere in his own studies, but very common replies to us.

And some of these points here he brings out, I don't believe I've ever had the opportunity--or maybe I've had the opportunity--but I haven't written anything on the subject and posted it to the web. And so I thought it would be good to go into some of these areas that are very common that we run into, some of the points that they say.

So, anyway, this, again, we're diverting a little bit from the normal topical study, and we're going to get into this email discussion between me and the Baptist pastor, who I will leave unnamed. I don't want to pick on anybody. It doesn't matter who has the truth. It really doesn't. It only matters what the truth is.

And so in our attempts to arrive at the truth, let's examine the words of this pastor and see what we can find. Maybe he has some truth we can learn from; maybe he doesn't.

So, anyway, this is his words. And the person I originally wrote to said this is the pastor's answer, and that was it, and had the pastor's answers here. And the first thing in his email he wrote was, "Sin is a transgression of the law." 1 John 3:4.

And he said, "The word 'law' is 'anomia'"--in the Greek, I presume--"and is translated iniquity or iniquities 13 times. In 1 John 3:4, the word transgresseth is 'anomia' which is translated 'law' one time in the verse.

"The first word 'law' is also 'anomia' and the four words, 'transgression of the law' is also anomia."

Obviously, he's looking at a Strong's Concordance here.

"So, actually, the Greek word 'anomia' is used three times in this verse. Possibly, to better understand this verse, we would translate it, 'Whoever practices sin, does also lawlessness or iniquity, and sin is iniquity or lawlessness. So John is not really speaking of the law of Moses in this text."

Well, that's interesting. I didn't reply to that point yet, but he says, "Romans 3:20, by the law, is the knowledge of sin."

He said, "The word 'law' is a different word. It is the word 'nomos,' translated 197 times 'law,' and translated no other way, referring definitely to the Mosaic law, but also the other ordinances," and I'm going to say what he says here, "God has given us.

"We know sin is any act, attitude, or state of being, which is contrary to the character and will of God. In 1 John 3:4, basically, then he is saying sin is lawlessness. If we are contrary to God's Word, we are standing contrary to His will and are sinning."

That was his points there in 1 John 3:4. So, basically, he was saying that the word 'anomia' in 1 John 3:4 does not refer to the Mosaic law, but that it refers to just things that are generally contrary to His will.

So I replied back, and I said, "Well, I agree that sin is anything contrary to Yahweh's will. The question I'm addressing, though, is what is His will? What is sin? A very important thing you might have missed here is that if you look in your Strong's Lexicon, it defines 1 John 3:4, anomia."

This is a word he's saying is not referring to Mosaic law. "It defines 1 John 3:4 'anomia' as this: 458, anomia, from 459, illegality, i.e. violation of the law or genitive case, wickedness."

And so I said, "Notice that the anomia of 1 John 3:4, translated 'transgression of the law,' literally means illegality, i.e. violation of the law. That's the meaning of the word."

So then I said, "Well, if a person does something illegal, like driving 65 miles an hour in a 35 miles per hour zone, that's no different than saying they've violated or that they've transgressed the law.

"So the illegality here in 1 John 3:4 is in reference to Yahweh's law, and sin is violating or transgressing Yahweh's law, doing something illegal. That's what iniquity actually is. It's doing something illegal, according to the law of Yahweh.

"Now, the reason why the Strong's Lexicon defines this word 'anomia' as illegality, i.e. violation of the law, is because the word 'anomia' comes from word #459. You see there, it says 'from 459.' Anomos. 459 is anomos, and so that's why it says 'from 459.'

"458, anomia, comes from another Greek word that's rooted in anomos, which is 459. Now, the word 'anomos' is a compound word."

A compound word is two words being put together, right?

"So the word 'anomos' is a compound word consisting of 'a' which is a negative particle and 'nomos.'"

Now, he admitted in his reply here that nomos is referring to the Mosaic law, right? So nomos is the word he accurately described as referring to the Mosaic law, and so, actually, in the word 'anomia' the 'nomia' is actually rooted in 'nomos,' which is that word that he described as referring to the Mosaic law and other ordinances.

"So 'a' being the negative particle and 'nomia' or 'nomos' referring to the law, which he himself admitted was the Mosaic law in Romans 3:20 and translated law 197 times. And so with this in mind, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the very definition of sin is violating or transgressing Yahweh's law, as you said."

I said to him, "As you said, nomos is definitely referring to the Mosaic law, as well as other ordinances that Yahweh has given and that 'nomia' in anomia of 1 John 3:4 is from 'nomos.'

"And the Strong's Lexicon definition agrees with this, as well. That's why it says that 'anomia' means illegality or violation of the law."

So we don't want to do things illegal. We don't want to be illegalists. I didn't say that, but that's my point.

So then he replies, he says, "So the question is are we sinning if we do not keep the Sabbath as instructed in the Old Testament, as well as the rest of the Mosaic law of the 613 commands? I do not believe we are."

That's what he said. Well, my reply to that point was, "I understand that you do not believe you are, but the Bible defines sin as transgressing the law. And even the verse that you did supply as legitimately referring to Yahweh's law, let's look at what it says, Romans 3:20.

Romans 3:20 - Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Now, we're not justified by the law, right? It can't declare us righteous, but it's true. By the law is the knowledge of sin. So this verse basically says the same thing we read in 1 John 3:4. The law defines for us what sin is. Why? Because by the law is the knowledge of sin. Right? Okay.

Then he says this, he says, "The law is still a part of our Bible, and it's principles are there for us to follow and obey, but keeping the letter of the law is not for us today, as Christ fulfilled the law, and we are not to keep those 613 commands in a literal way, but we are to keep the principles of them."

To which I replied, "Well, there is no Bible verse that says we don't need to keep Yahweh's commandments anymore in a literal way and just keep the principles of them. So where is this coming from?

"If it did, one can find a reason to disobey other things they don't want to do and take literally, like the command that says not to bear false witness, not to steal, not to commit idolatry, not to take His name in vain, not to murder.

"Anyone can say, well, we don't mean that literally. Are we supposed to pick and choose? Why pick the Sabbath commandment as the only one out of the ten that we are unwilling to accept for what it says?"

And then he says this, "Well, let me try to explain it this way." Explain what? He's saying explain why we don't keep the law in a literal way, but just keep the principles.

And I said, "Well, all right, I'll try to keep in mind that this is the basis you have for not accepting the commandments for what they say, but only keeping the principles of them." This was his reasoning.

He said, "In Numbers 15:32, the children of Israel found a man picking up sticks on the Sabbath." Boy, I bet you've all heard this one before.

"They took him before Moses and found him guilty, and the Lord…" Sorry. "…directed them to stone him to death. Exodus 35:3 tells us that we're to kindle no fire on the Sabbath day. Are we to keep this command? No doubt, that is what the man of Numbers 15 was doing. If my son gathers sticks on the Sabbath day, am I or the community of Christians to stone him?

"One might say we cannot do that today, because our laws forbid it, but should we obey man's law above God's law? Acts 5:29, we ought to obey God rather than men."

And I'm sure almost everyone in this room, who has taken a stand for keeping Yahweh's commandments has heard this argument before. So, anyway, my reply to that argument is this.

"This is a common misconception regarding the law. It is very important that we do not confuse the moral commands of the law with the sentencing guidelines for breaking them. Sentencing guidelines determined what the punishment would be if someone did transgress the law.

"They were for the judges of the land to follow, not the common man. The sentences were carried out in the context of a court system much like we have today.

"For instance, if I see a man breaking the speed limit, it is not my job to pull him over and give him a fine of This is for the judges and the legal authorities of the land to carry out. The United States of America does follow Yahweh's law in regards to death penalty for murderers, but not for other crimes.

"The first century Jews illegally tried to stone Yahushua several times without a fair hearing, but this is not the way it was supposed to be. And I think that this is what maybe has led to this misconception.

"But within the Torah, there is another aspect, as well. In addition to the aspect of judgment, stoning, and so on, there is also the redemptive aspect: sacrifices, priesthood, etc. These two aspects, the judgment and the redemptive aspects of Yahweh's law, both deal with what the priests and the judges were supposed to do when sin happens, when transgression of the law actually happens.

"But then there's the aspect of right and wrong. If Yahweh says we should keep the Sabbath day, then we keep the Sabbath day, just like He told us to. If Yahweh says not to murder, we do not murder. These are matters of right and wrong.

"The other aspects have always been changeable, because sometimes Yahweh will pardon a person and not require judgment. Remember that King David should have been put to death for adultery and for murder, but he was given mercy.

"The high priestly line was translated to the heavenly temple under the order of Melchizedek. But these are the judgment and the redemptive aspects dealing with what ought to be done when sin actually takes place.

"The right and wrong aspects define what sin is, and they have not changed. Sin is still the transgression of the law. It still teaches us right from wrong."

So that's my response to those who say, "Well, why don't you stone people?" So this is one of the things that have led people to believe that we don't keep the law anymore, because we're not stoning people anymore, and we don't have to keep it in a literal way.

And here's the other reason he gave for not keeping the law in a literal way. He said, "In Mark 2:23, the disciples picked corn to eat on the Sabbath and was condemned by the Pharisees, but was not condemned by Christ.

"He speaks of David eating of the shewbread, which was only for the priests, but he did not condemn David. Why? The Lord justified David. Why? The letter of the law was not imposed."

And so my reply to this is, "Why wasn't the letter of the law imposed here? After all, don't you believe that they were under the law back then under David? So why wasn't the letter of the law imposed?

"The truth is our Savior's shift of focus from a commitment to some list of do's and don'ts and a shift from an external observance of the law to an inward motivation and intent was only new to some of the people in His immediate audience because of their misunderstandings.

"But His focus on the inward motivation was the exact same perspective that Yahweh inspired in the law. In Deuteronomy 10:16, it says:

Deuteronomy 10:16 - Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

"That's right, in Deuteronomy 10:16, circumcising the heart was important. Also, Deuteronomy 30:11-14:

Deuteronomy 30:11 - For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.

Deuteronomy 30:12 - It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

Deuteronomy 30:13 - Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

Deuteronomy 30:14 - But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

"So David had the law in his heart. He understood the proper meaning and intent of the law, and that's why Yahushua used him as a reference for correct interpretation. He was not bringing forth a new view, a new idea, a new way of keeping Yahweh's law.

"He was bringing out the way the law of Yahweh was intended to be kept from the very beginning, and He used David as a good example of that.

"If Yahweh's original intent regarding the law was an external rigid letter of the law obedience, then Yahushua would have had to correct the law itself. But He wasn't correcting the law; He was correcting the Pharisees and holding up David as an example of how Yahweh wanted the law to be understood from the very beginning.

"After all, we know Yahushua could not have broken a single commandment in the law of Yahweh even once. He was born under the law, and He had to keep it to utter perfection, just as Yahweh intended.

"If He was a lawbreaker, He could not be our Savior. Lawbreakers need forgiveness, right? So He would have needed a Savior just like we do. But we know He was a perfect sacrifice without a single blemish. He would not have totally ignored the Sabbath day, like many do today.

"And so, therefore, the reasons that you have supplied for ignoring and forgetting the day that Yahweh told us to remember is without scriptural support or justification."

And then he writes, "We are not under the law of Moses, because it was a part of the covenant between Israel and God, not between God and the church."

My reply, "Well, you're right. We are not under the law. If we were under the law, we would not be condemned. But as I said before, we're not above the law either." And you can reference my message last week for that point.

"And I must ask you again, if you do not accept sin as transgression of the law, because the law was a part of the covenant between Israel and God, how can you claim yourself as being a party of a new covenant?

"Because the new covenant is also a covenant between Israel and Yahweh. In Jeremiah 31:31-33:

Jeremiah 31:31 - Behold, the days come, saith YAHWEH, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Jeremiah 31:32 - Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith YAHWEH:

Jeremiah 31:33 - But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith YAHWEH, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their Elohim, and they shall be my people.

"So we must identify ourselves with Israel, if we want to be a part of the new covenant, because the new covenant, just as the old covenant does, involves Yahweh and His people Israel.

"Also, we see here that the new covenant involves the law being placed in our minds and written on our hearts. The more obedient we are to His law, the more evident it is that we have the law in our heart.

"That's what it means to have the law in our heart is that we are obedient to that law. Psalm 119:11, it says:

Psalms 119:11 - Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

Interesting. "So if His word is in our heart, we will not sin against Him. We will not transgress His law, if that Word is in our heart."

And as I quoted earlier, Deuteronomy 30:14:

Deuteronomy 30:14 - But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

"That you may do it, that's what it means to have the law of Yahweh in our hearts is that we do it and that we do not sin against Him.

"So the law being placed in our hearts does not mean that we will have some kind of new interpretation of what it says or that we are free to ignore what it clearly does say. Much to the contrary, it means that we will be obedient to the law.

"The fact that the law is in our hearts does not mean it's internalized now, as many claim, as if to say it used to be external only, and now it's internal. It always was internal. It was in their heart that they may do it, Deuteronomy 30:14.

"So when Yahushua said it was wrong to lust after a woman in your heart, this was nothing new. The 10th commandment says not to covet your neighbor's wife. Does it not? That was not a new idea. It was from the law.

"In fact, the entire 10th commandment written on stone, which is against coveting, involves a sin that can only occur in the heart of a person. He says do not covet. That means don't desire. Well, that's something that can only happen in your heart. Right? And so contrary to modern opinion, it always was about the heart from the very beginning.

"Deuteronomy 6:5 says that we are to love Yahweh with all of our heart. Leviticus 19:17 says not to hate others in your heart. The principle of loving your enemies is taught in Exodus 23:4-5 and Proverbs 24:17. These are not new concepts that appeared on the scene with the new covenant. These are things that have always been true."

So then he says, "Yes, we keep its principles of separation, holiness, relationship with others, but Christ did take it out of the way, nailing it to His cross. Colossians 2:14. We are not to choose what can be kept and what cannot be kept, as you said."

Then he quoted me, where I said, "If I told my son to do something, and he was truly not able to do it, I would not charge him with wrong."

He says, "But you cannot do that with God's law." So in other words, what he's saying here is that Yahweh is very rigid, and even if you're not able to do what He tells you to do, you're totally, physically, totally, completely unable to do what He told you to do, He's going to charge you with wrong anyway. That's what he's saying. "You can't do that with God's law." That's what he says.

My reply to that is this, "You cannot separate Yahweh's law from His character. If our heavenly Father was ever so unfair in judgment, as to condemn a person for disobeying a commandment that it was impossible for him to keep, then this is not the same heavenly Father I read about in the Bible, no matter what book you're reading from.

"In fact, one of the weightier matters of the law is mercy. In Matthew 23:23, Yahushua said to the scribes and Pharisees, He said, 'Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law.'

"The weightier matters of the law, 'judgment, mercy, and faith. These ye ought to have done and not leave the others undone.' So, again, the letter of the law, as you describe it," talking to the pastor, "was never Yahweh's intent. If you keep the law, you will recognize when mercy is supposed to be implemented.

"David was under the law, right? Yet, he rightly judged the intent of the law. He ate the shewbread and yet was blameless. So you can do that with Yahweh's law. You have to properly understand His intent.

"It was the scribes and Pharisees that turned the law of Yahweh into some legal code of do's and don'ts and even added thousands of ordinances on top of it. They condemned the Messiah for picking corn to eat, because they believed it was legally considered harvesting on the Sabbath, but starving on the Sabbath was never Yahweh's intent to begin with.

"It was never wrong to save the life of an ox who had fallen into a ditch or to do good on the Sabbath day. Yahushua and the disciples were not doing wrong by picking grains and eating them. Their choice was either to starve on the Sabbath or rub the grains off a stock and eat them.

"The illustration of David either starving or eating shewbread show that their legal codes that they had set up were unscriptural, and He picked a perfect example of how Yahweh's law was intended to be kept. The scribes and Pharisees had ordinances of men, which laid on men's shoulders things that were hard to bear.

"But Yahweh's law says this, Deuteronomy 12:32:

Deuteronomy 12:32 - What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

"And so they were adding to Yahweh's law extra ordinances that were not correct. And so this was a sin in itself. Their adding to Yahweh's law was a sin in itself.

"Now, Yahushua condemned them for transgressing Yahweh's law, so that they could keep their tradition in Matthew 15:3, and these sinful acts, along with all the other sins of mankind, were among the sinful things that Yahushua bore on His shoulders.

"And when He became sin for us, they were nailed, along with Him, to the tree when He became sin for us, just as the prophet spoke in Isaiah 53:11. The prophecy about Messiah is that Yahweh shall see the labor of His soul and be satisfied. And by His knowledge, my righteous servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities.

"That's what the Messiah was prophesied to do, to bear our iniquities. And so when He became sin for us and was nailed to the tree, our sin was nailed to the tree, along with Him. That's what was nailed to the tree, was our sin.

"The law of Yahweh was not the problem. It did not need to be crucified. The problem was sin. The problem was our choice to transgress the law. And so now that we have been justified by His blood, why would we want to return to that vomit and sin again? It was for that reason that Yahushua had to die for us in the first place.

"If He had to die for us, because we broke the Sabbath day, why would we go off and sin and do it again? It was either right or wrong to break the Sabbath. So contrary to modern opinion, Yahushua did not come to save us from that big bad law and the angry Jehovah God who wants to stand over you with a stick and annihilate you at the slightest infraction.

"He came to magnify the law, to make it honorable again, delivering those who were bound by iniquity and imprisoned by their own sin. Isaiah 42:21-22 speaks of the Messiah, and it says:

Isaiah 42:21 - YAHWEH is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.

Isaiah 42:22 - But this is a people robbed and spoiled; they are all of them snared in holes, and they are hid in prison houses: they are for a prey, and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore.

"So Yahushua did not come to destroy the law, so that we would not be held responsible for breaking it; He came to cleanse us from our sin, which is our violation of that law, and to demonstrate a holy example for us to follow. Following in His footsteps is all I'm trying to do, and I know that this included the keeping of all of Yahweh's commandments."

His reply, he's hanging on to Colossians here. Colossians 2:14, he said--because I did address Colossians last week.

"The word 'handwriting,'" he said, "is 'cheirographon,' which basically means 'that which is written down.' It is only used once in the New Testament. The word 'ordinances,' as you say, is the word 'dogma.' I do disagree that it is always used in reference to the ordinances of man, although sometimes it is used that way.

"It is used and translated as the word 'decrees' in Acts 16:4 as the decrees of the apostles, but were from God."

I'm quoting the pastor here. "Ephesians 2:5, it's translated 'ordinances,' which does refer to the Old Testament law. God's moral law is written in the hearts of all men. Colossians 2:14 is definitely speaking of God's ordinances in the Old Testament. The reason I believe He uses this word, instead of the usual word for law, 'nomos,' is because He wanted to include it all: law, feasts, sacrifices, etc.

Now, my reply, "If all the law, which you say are dogmas, were nailed to the cross and abolished, why are the apostles commanding the Gentiles to keep these dogmas in Acts 16:4 in their decrees? In case you didn't catch that, Acts 16:4, it says that they delivered to them the dogmas to keep.

"Now, if the dogmas are nailed to the cross, why are the apostles delivering to them the dogmas to keep? And why do you only pick certain parts of Yahweh's law to disobey? If it's all nailed to the cross in such a way that we are free to disobey it, then we should be free to disobey all the commandments in the law.

"The reason why 'dogma' is used in Acts 16:4 is because the dogmas given in Acts 15 were part of a man-imposed legal court ruling, just like Caesar's dogmas were in Luke 2:1, when a decree went out from Caesar for the census.

"Of course, we believe that the dogma of Acts 15 is correct and inspired by Yahweh, but not all dogmas, rulings, statutes of men are. There are some rulings of men, dogmas, that are in the United States laws that agree with Yahweh's Word, as well, but they are still dogmas, because they are rulings of men.

"The dogmas spoken of in Colossians 2 are clearly identified as the commandments of men and include things that are not from the law, like the worship of angels and various Ascetic practices. These are against the law, not from the law.

"The explanation I provided concerning Colossians 2 clearly shows that dogma was contextually the ordinances of man. They are referred to as such throughout the chapter, and the contrast is consistent throughout the context of the chapter, but you did not address that point.

"Now, the dogma in Ephesians 2:15 does not refer to the law of Yahweh, but again the commandments of men. We can discuss Ephesians 2 if you want, but you would need to admit that you are no longer a Gentile, but are now an Israelite, as Ephesians 2 clearly says.

"In Ephesians 2, it was the Jewish dogmas that were creating enmity or hatred between Jew and Gentile. And if you read it, it says that He abolished this enmity, this hatred, which was legislated by the commandments of men.

"Yahweh's law never commands or legislates enmity between anybody. Israel was commanded to love their neighbor and the Gentile foreigner in Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19. The commandments and the law were written for Gentiles, as well, according to Numbers 15:16.

"One law shall be for both. So Yahweh's law does not create enmity between Jew and Gentile, but there were a ton of Jewish ordinances of man that did."

Now, I wrote this reply before I had written the study on Ephesians 2 that I shared a few weeks ago. And if you want to reference that study in Ephesians 2, I would encourage you to visit EliYah.com/transcripts, and you can listen to and read the study there on Ephesians 2.

So then he says, the pastor says, "I, therefore, have liberty in Christ to eat bacon or catfish and enjoy it. In my faith, I believe Jesus Christ fulfilled the law, and it is taken out of the way, and I am free to enjoy that which He has provided. In my faith in His finished work, I do this."

And I reply, "Well, for what reason would you not apply this to other commandments, as well? We could say I have liberty in Christ to disobey other commands. From what I have seen, there is no scriptural or logical basis for picking out certain commandments and choosing to ignore those on the basis of the law being taken out of the way.

"If I had liberty in Christ to purposely disobey the law, as you have put it, then what I am doing is I am making void the law through my faith. But Paul said, Romans 3:31:

Romans 3:31 - Do we then make void the law through faith? By no means! Yea, we establish the law.

"The word translated 'establish' means to stand, according to #2476 in the Strong's Lexicon. Thinking that we are free to disobey the law and enjoy it is not causing the law to stand. It is rendering the law null and void.

"Liberty in Christ, as you have put it, does not mean license to sin, and sin is clearly the transgression of the law, as we have examined. The real issue is that some of the Gentiles who entered the church in the early part of the second century did not want to give up their pork, and they did not want to do things that made them look Jewish.

"And so they would find excuses to disobey the commandments which might offer this impression to other of their Gentile friends that they've become Jewish, and so they rejected certain Jewish-looking things that would make them look Jewish, like keeping the Sabbath day, keeping dietary restrictions, keeping feast days, calling on Hebrew names and so on.

"Other commandments, like loving your neighbor and meeting on the venerable day of the sun would not yield much persecution among their sun-worshiping friends, and popularized Christianity through this compromise.

"Marcion, though he was regarded as heretical, had a certain amount of influence on the early church that remains to this day, and various offshoots of the Gnostics, who like to spiritualize everything, also had influence on early Gentile church theology, and the ghosts of their theology remain in mainstream Christianity to this day, and they were not addressed by the reformers.

His reply, "However, if you do not have that faith, then for you it would be a sin to partake of pork, for Romans 14:23, 'He that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith. For whatsoever is not of faith is sin.'"

So in other words, he's saying that I'm the one weak in faith here, because I can't bring it to myself to eat a pork chop, and he's the strong one in faith, taking his liberty in Christ to eat bacon and catfish and enjoy it.

Well, my reply to him is this: "Peter was not weak in faith, obviously. 'In the name of Yahushua, rise up and walk.' And yet he still had not eaten anything common or unclean in Acts 10, maybe a decade or so after Yahushua was resurrected.

"And so was Kepha, Peter, the main leader at that time unaware that this was all nailed to the cross? And was he a man that was considered to be weak in faith, because he wouldn't eat things common or unclean, even at the direction that he was given?

"He was not weak in faith, and the law of Yahweh was not nailed to the cross. Part of the problem in Romans 14 was that the Jews considered anything that was offered to an idol as being unclean. The Jewish Talmud teaches this, but the law of Yahweh never taught this at all."

Now, for those of you who are interested, I do have a full study on Romans 14, and you can find it there on the main page of the site.

"But the law of Yahweh never taught that the food itself offered to an idol automatically became unclean. In Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8, Paul was pointing out that whether we eat meat sold in the market is a matter of faith in regards to the person.

"Paul says in both texts that those who are weak in faith should not be partaking of meats offered in the marketplace, just in case that they are mindful of that idol when eating it."

Now, the actual prohibition, brethren, I didn't mention this in my study or my reply to him, but the actual prohibition in Acts 15 was in the context of going and partaking in a fellowship meal with that particular idol, where that meat was just sacrificed.

And, actually, the pagan temples back then were like restaurants, where people would go in and eat and partake of the fellowship meal with that idol with their friends. And that's the context.

"But if something was offered to an idol, and it happened to find its way into the meat market, Paul was pointing out that that's not necessarily wrong to partake of it. It's a matter of faith.

If in your heart, you're thinking of that idol, with the possibility it was offered to that idol, you don't really know, then you shouldn't partake of it.

"And so 1 Corinthians 8:7-9, Paul just said that we know the idol is nothing. He says, however, there is not in everyone that knowledge. For some, with the consciousness of the idol, until now, eat it as a thing offered to an idol, and their conscience being weak is defiled. There's the weak brother right there.

"But food does not commend us to Elohim, for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse. But beware, lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak.

"So Romans 14 is also referring to the eating of meats offered to idols, and that's why Paul said not to destroy your brother with your food. Both 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 are speaking of the same thing.

"If you compare them side-by-side, it becomes very clear. The meat markets in Rome and Corinth were subject to having meats from various pagan sacrifices, and that's why both Romans and 1 Corinthians speak of eating or not eating. Some decide to become vegetarian, so they would not have the possibility that they might eat meat that was offered to an idol.

"And so we have Romans 14:1-3

Romans 14:1 - Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

Romans 14:2 - For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

Romans 14:3 - Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for YAHWEH hath received him.

"And so those who were strong in the faith would know that an idol was nothing and would not even think of the idol when eating various meats sold in the marketplace.

"And those who are weak in the faith couldn't help but think of the idol, and so those who are stronger in faith were instructed to not partake of the meats, if it was going to cause the weaker brother to stumble; otherwise, they're no longer walking in love. And so both 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 were both speaking of the same thing."

Somebody asked in the chat room, "Was Daniel weak?" No. That was a part of a fellowship meal with an idol.

"So the true clean/unclean was not established with the law of Moshe. The true clean and unclean was known to Noah when he built the ark. Noah took seven of every clean animal and two of every unclean animal, Genesis 7:2. This was prior to the Sinai covenant.

"So before there was ever a covenant at Sinai, there was clean and unclean; and, in fact, there were sacrifices. That's another subject altogether.

Genesis 7:2 says:

Genesis 7:2 - Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

"It wasn't something that was established at Mt. Sinai and at the time of the people of Israel. This was something that was established at creation and was known to Noah when he built the ark. And so this is something that was long before there was ever a Jewish man.

"And you used that point earlier to say because this was before there was ever a Sinai covenant. Yeah, we do keep that command. But you keep it in a different way.

"Isaiah 66:15-17 also talks about the Messiah's return, and it says that He will destroy those who are eating swine's flesh and other abominations.

Isaiah 66:15 - For, behold, YAHWEH will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.

Isaiah 66:16 - For by fire and by his sword will YAHWEH plead with all flesh: and the slain of YAHWEH shall be many.

It doesn't sound like something that's already occurred, right? All flesh--lots of flesh standing around right now.

Isaiah 66:17 - They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith YAHWEH.

Now, I said, "This is not to condemn you or anyone, because Yahweh is merciful if our hearts are sincere. But I personally find this verse impossible for me to ignore. It has not been fulfilled yet.

"Yahweh calls the eating of unclean animals an abomination several times in the scriptures, and those who eat them make themselves abominable to him in Leviticus 11:11, 11:43, and 20:25. Abominations are considered to be the worst of sins, the worst of the worst. Now, didn't Yahweh say He changes not? What did Yahushua do? That's what I want to know."

And then in response to my point about James 2:2, the synagogues being where they met, and that being evidenced that they were keeping the Sabbath day, he said, "The Christians often met in the synagogue, for that is where Jews, as Jews, they were accustomed to meet."

And I said, "Well, are you sure that they weren't just obeying the Ten Commandments and doing what Yahweh told them to do, which is to remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy? Sunday is never called the Sabbath anywhere in the scriptures."

And then he said, "Paul, although he was a Christian, still attended the synagogue to preach, but the church met on the first day of the week also."

And so I replied to this. I know what he's referring to, the idea that they kept Sunday. I said, "Well, if they met on the first day of the week, that wouldn't surprise me, because they met every day, and the first day of week would have been included, of course. In Acts 2:46, it says:

Acts 2:46 - And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

"And so that's something they did every day in Acts 2:46. Nevertheless, we keep in mind that Genesis 1 teaches us that the days begin in the evening, not when a mechanical clock strikes midnight. Genesis 1:5:

Genesis 1:5 - And Elohim called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Genesis 1:8:

Genesis 1:8 - And Elohim called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Verse 13:

Genesis 1:13 - And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Verse 19:

Genesis 1:19 - And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Verse 23:

Genesis 1:23 - And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Verse 31:

Genesis 1:31 - And Elohim saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

"And so on. Leviticus 23:32 says that the Sabbaths are to be celebrated from evening to evening.

"This would mean that the first day of the week would actually begin on what is commonly called Saturday evening, and it also means that your Sunday night meetings that you're keeping this winter are actually on the second day of the week, according to scripture, not on the first day of the week.

"Now, we keep the Sabbath day just as Yahweh commanded, because we don't want to ignore one of the Ten Commandments, and that's when we are actually commanded to have our meetings. In Leviticus 23:3:

Leviticus 23:3 - Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of YAHWEH in all your dwellings.

"So the day we're told to keep the holy convocation is on the seventh day. When the sun goes down, it is typical for brethren who are gathering on the Sabbath day to remain together for a fellowship meal.

"Now, the brethren in Acts 20:7 were sharing a post Sabbath meal together, and Paul continued preaching after the Sabbath into the evening until about midnight. And the reason why he continued preaching was because he wanted to get all the time in he could to teach the brethren, because he was scheduled to depart the next morning, which would actually be what people call Sunday morning. And so this was also the practice in Corinth.

"And 1 Corinthians 16:2," they often quote, "because the gathering of collections was done on that first day of the week, that would be just after Sabbath in the evening hours, and the handling of monies and various items for collection, which grains and foodstuffs, etc., would involve labor and commerce, which are not permissible to do on the Sabbath day.

"And so on the first day of the week, which was just after sundown on what the world calls Saturday, that's when they actually did these things. They'd come together for a meal. They would come together and do their collections and so on and the things that weren't permissible to do on the Sabbath.

"But they actually had their meeting as a holy convocation on the Sabbath day. So neither of these two verses, Acts 20:7 or 1 Corinthians 16:2 mention any change whatsoever in the Sabbath, nor is there any verse anywhere in scripture commanding us to gather on the first day of the week every week.

"You only have two scriptures which can be easily interpreted a number of ways. But one thing is sure. I think it is safe to assume that they should not be interpreted in such a way that would cause the fourth commandment of the Ten commandments, regarding the Sabbath day, to be blotted out, altered, sawed out, or changed in any way.

"Yahweh wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger to signify the eternity and the finality of all ten of them. Throughout the New Testament, the seventh day of the week is still the only day called the Sabbath.

"The first day of the week is never called the Sabbath. It's simply called the first day of the week. To me, this speaks volumes and contradicts the notion that, in anyone's mind, the Sabbath was ever changed.

And so then he says, basically, "Jew or Gentile in the New Testament that have accepted Christ are not Jews or Gentile, but Christians." Although that word is not used.

And then I said, "Well, there's a reason why that word isn't used, but what is the difference between calling myself Israel or telling you that I am of the seed of Abraham? There's no difference, because believers in Yahushua actually are the seed of Abraham, according to Galatians 3:29.

Galatians 3:29 - And if you are the Messiah's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

"So if you say that we're not Israelite, we're not anything, well, which is easier to say? I am an Israelite or I am Abraham's seed? There is no difference; and, therefore, we are Israel. And this is why we can be a partaker of a new covenant which is only with Israel and Judah.

"If we're Gentiles, Yahushua makes us an Israelite. And, in fact, even for Israelites, He makes us a true Torah-keeping Israelite, what Yahweh intended Israel to be from the very beginning. Nevertheless, you say that you are a Christian. Well, doesn't Christian mean Christ-like? Isn't it He that lives in us?

"Now, was He an Israelite or was he a Gentile? And, again, I would ask you why would Paul refer to Gentiles in Ephesians 2 as 'in time past Gentiles,' indicating that they're not Gentiles anymore, and then say they 'were' aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, if the Gentiles were separate and did not inherit the same promises as Israel?"

He never answered that question. Ephesians 2:11-12.

"And again I ask you, if there are two camps, and the Jews are not a part of the bride of Messiah, are you saying that you would exclude the 12 apostles and Paul himself from being a part of the bride of Messiah? They were Jewish."

He didn't answer that one. And then he said, "Much of the New Testament had been written down and accepted as scripture when Paul penned 2 Timothy around 68 A.D. The earliest New Testament books were probably written in the early 50's A.D., and the New Testament is addressed to the church, not to Israel.

"Peter recognized Paul's writings as scripture in 2 Peter 3:14-16. Peter probably wrote around the time of Paul's death. So much of the New Testament was written and accepted as scripture before Paul penned 2 Timothy.

"Israel and the church, or body of Christ, are two different divisions of people. Israel has promises and covenants which I do not. They are promised a land forever; I am not. So I have no right to call myself Israel. I'm a part of the body of Christ, the church."

Well, he was replying to my point that all scripture is profitable for doctrine, instruction in righteousness. And m point was that the New Testament had not been written yet. He was saying that much of the New Testament was already written.

So I replied back, and I said, "The context is from a child Timothy had known the holy scriptures.

"Now, we don't know the age of Timothy or when he was converted, and so I won't belabor my point, but I tend to think that the scriptures that Timothy knew as a child that was taught to him by his grandmother, and that were able to make him wise unto salvation, that were profitable for doctrine and instruction and righteousness, did not include the New Testament.

"Now, this is not to say that the New Testament is not scripture, but certainly the Old Testament is considered to be scripture, and if the law is not worthy of instructing us in righteousness, then sin is not the transgression of the law. Sin would be the transgression of the apostles writings only.

"So I think it's important for us to think through and examine all the scriptures, both Old and New Testament, and see if the things that we believe are true and accurate, or whether we are being influenced by tradition and a desire to conform to modern church society.

"When I first came to faith, I decided that I wanted to let the scriptures alone be my guide. Sola scriptura was and is my creed. I don't follow any denomination, and I never have. I want to follow the scriptures without letting the fear of what others may say about me influence my interpretation.

"I never limited myself to denominational restrictions, nor did I want to put my trust in infallible men. I just want to follow Yahweh's Word for what it says. And with this perspective, I have found it to be unacceptable for me to disobey the clear commandment to remember the Sabbath day by interpreting other scriptures in such a way that would justify forgetting it.

"I don't believe Yahweh's Word contradicts itself at all, but that we should live by every word that proceeds out of His mouth. That's what my Savior did, and I'm expected to walk in His footsteps. 1 John 2:6 says:

1John 2:6 - He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.

"I know that He is Israel. I know that He kept the Sabbath correctly on the correct day and in the correct way. I know that He lived by every word that proceeded out of Yahweh's mouth. I know that He did not sin. He did not transgress Yahweh's law.

"And if He lives in me, then I will do what He did. I'm convinced that His life needs to be made manifest in my life and that He wants to keep those commandments in me that He kept when He was on the earth, no tradition hindering. He didn't like tradition too much. They often lead to transgression of the law. Matthew 15:3."

Now, for those of you who weren't here last week, I made a point, I gave a little parable about a son. I said, "I'm a shepherd living on a farm living in southern Missouri. Suppose I had seven wool sheep in my flock, and I told my son to go out in the field and shear the seventh sheep, a sheep that I had set aside for a special purpose.

"And then my son, suppose he went up the hill, and while looking at the seven sheep, he looked at them, and he liked the first sheep better. And so he picked out the first sheep, and he sheared it, and he ignored what I had said about shearing the seventh sheep.

"Did he obey my commandment when he brought me the wool? Did he do what I said? Certainly not.

"Our heavenly Father rested on the seventh day as an example for us. He blessed it, sanctified it at creation, making it a holy day. We are told to remember that day and to keep it holy. If we choose any other day to remember and keep holy, we are not doing our Father's will.

"There's no two ways about it. We are disobeying His very clear commandment; and, therefore, we would be sinning. When it all comes down to it, I will not be faulted for seeking to keep the Sabbath day just like He told me to.

"But those who do ignore that day He made holy will have to answer for themselves. I don't believe any of the scriptures you have provided have done that, and I don't think that Yahweh's character is of such that He would change the words He wrote in stone by His own hand.

"Remember, it is no longer we who live, but it is Messiah that lives in us. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Hebrews 13:6. If He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, then the Sabbath He kept yesterday, He's going to keep today.

"Thank you for your reply and for your consideration. I look forward to your response; hopefully, one in favor of truly remembering the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Last I checked, the Ten Commandments were not multiple choice. I don't want to bring him the wool from a sheep he never asked me to shear to begin with. Your fellow servant…"

And I signed my name. So that concludes my reply; and to this point, as of six weeks now, I have not heard back. So I don't know what happened. Maybe he's studying. Maybe he's contemplating. Maybe he's setting it aside. I don't know what he's doing, but I do plan to reply and ask him, at some point, "Did you get my message?"

Maybe it didn't make it into his email box, possibly. But either way, this is a classic example of typical Christian theology and what we, as brothers and sisters, can do to reply to it. And over the years, I've had the opportunity to write back a lot of different Christians over these issues.

These are some of the answers that I've not found anyone really able or capable of being able to refute. So I want to encourage you to take a look at these, and if you have any questions, feel free to let me know.

But, otherwise, may Yahweh's truth go out and may we all cry out, "Restore!" And may Yahweh bless you and may He have mercy on us all.