"His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility."

It seems quite clear to me that we are both reconciled and that we remain on good terms with God solely and exclusively by the work Christ did for us upon the cross, and our continuing acceptance of the gift of that atonement through faith—not in any fashion whatsoever by what we may think to merit or demonstrate through our works. I am also convinced that the Law and "its commandments"— including the fourth—are abolished, made of none effect, put away as no longer of any use, by the atoning work of Christ upon the cross. When He breathed his last breath upon that cross, the last page of the chapter of "The Law" was finally and forever closed!

Here is the Greek dictionary rendering of the word which is translated "abolishing" above:

It is my opinion that this may be how God can risk setting us free in a new and sinless universe. It would seem impractical to give us potentially billions of rules to follow, which would cover any and every conceivable situation we could ever find ourselves in throughout eternity. Instead, we can be "programmed" with the responses of a loving heart. With this as our operative motivation, we would then be safe in any situation because we would never wish to act contrary to the best interests of any other party.

Paul clearly refutes the idea that our faith in Jesus is intended to help us be successful (in an earthly context) in our moral duty to keep the Law. Our faith in Jesus is intended to replace our attempts to keep the law (in any kind of a legal context). It is an all or nothing deal. If we try to "keep" any of it we have to keep it all, and thus be justified by our works. Or, we must completely rely on Jesus’ work, and abandon ourselves to the control of the Spirit. We must take our focus off keeping rules! If our focus is on anything but our relationship with our redeemer, we will wander astray!

WOW! We see with exact clarity that The Law was only a temporary institution—with periods both before and after when it has no application to anyone!

This is so clear that I can hardly think of any comments to add. Bearing in mind the above examples showing a definite non-distinction of any different classifications of laws, Paul is positively emphatic that the Christian living by faith, is no longer under the law.

I believe it is more important than ever to seek and internalise "God’s Law." We should constantly be seeking to know God’s will and plan, and meditating upon how we can fit ourselves into it, (not the other way around). But this rests upon the foundation of loyalty and love and relationship rather than the fear of being judged for "doing something wrong."

A spirit of loyalty and relationship are much more likely to generate a true and natural response of behaviour than keeping our eye on the list of rules. Also this method of regulating our behaviour will create much less stress and drain on our mental energies, and will foster an infinitely greater likelihood of remembering the ’right’ response in any given situation as it is then springing forth from a natural harmony with our priorities.

see Romans 3.19,20

So we see that the "first covenant", of which the Ten Commandments are a part according to Paul (see Gal 4:24), now stands canceled! Of course the principles of the law remain, embodied in Jesus’ "New Commandment" of love. But that new law does not include any of the "signs" of the Old Covenant—which were given to Israel alone.

I believe it is significant that James, speaking for the group, pronounced that it should not be made "difficult for the Gentiles who are turning the God." The only directives to be handed down to these Gentiles are that of abstaining from food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, and from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. If there was a need for the Gentiles to observe the Ten Commandment Law, there would have been a need for explicit instructions confirming that. They were Gentiles.

These four items are the only directives to come out of the discussion, or more properly, argument of vs 5 where the Jewish converts were, much the same as Adventists are doing now, asserting that Gentile Christians must obey the system of Law.

It is abundantly clear that this council decided that it was indeed not necessary for the Gentile converts to observe "The Law."

see Acts 15:5 and Acts 15:19-20

"He accepts people only because they have faith in Jesus Christ!"

So, there we have it—made as plain as it could be. Paul says that the Law has no more power over us who live under the new Covenant than a marriage contract has over a person whose spouse has died!

The focus is on our attitude, not our performance! Faith is an attitude.

We will cover this passage again in the section on the Sabbath, but I wanted to mention it here as well for the sake of its relevance to our relationship to the "Law". Paul makes it so clear that this system of laws no longer apply to us!

While I am well aware of the arguments attempting to establish the opposite position, the first conclusion this study brings me to is an absolute conviction that there are no separate categories of The Law: ie. Moral vs. Ceremonial. The New Testament shows no such distinction! Paul clearly demonstrates that he considers it all one package.

The second conclusion I am brought to is that while our relationship with Christ remains fully intact, and our desire to fulfill God’s will in our lives should thus be stronger than ever, this package of law is totally nullified and voided in terms of any application to the person who has chosen to believe and trust in Christ and the work which He did, on our behalf, upon the cross. He tells us that the law "coming down from Sinai" is now cursed and put away. It is replaced by the glorious dispensation of Grace, which we now enjoy; and also by the new "Law of Love" and the leading of the Spirit—the sign of the New Covenant. Thus, as pertains to our next subject of study, I am convinced there can be no remaining authority to make the Fourth Commandment "special" and "eternal."

It appears then, that this reference is quite pragmatic.

Of course Jesus went to the synagogue on the Sabbath. He was a Jew. The last Person ever who was still under the law. However, as Jesus also observed the Jewish feasts such as the Passover, etc., and we are certainly not expected to observe those ceremonies, I do not believe this text gives us any evidence that He expects us to do now as he did then. It was also a wonderful opportunity to preach to a group of people who urgently needed to hear what He had to say!

As He is Lord of the Sabbath; if He thought it was so important for us to remember to esteem it after he left (especially if it was to become a pivotal identifier of His loyal people) then surely He would have made some kind of statements about it in a supportive vein while He was here. But I cannot find even one! Even Revelation contains nothing that I can find that even alludes to the Sabbath issue—indeed the word Sabbath does not even appear anywhere in the text of the entire book of Revelation!! So, how can anyone use the Bible to say that the only people who have God’s exclusive confidence and special blessing are those who carry the banner of the Sabbath into battle with the rest of Christendom?

Jesus was not only ignoring the Jews’ system, and doing His own thing—He was challenging them to test their thinking. Trying to persuade them that they were clinging to shadows. In another account, Jesus became very angry at their callousness—their bent toward putting the supposed forms of the law above the needs of human beings.

If the saints did change their worship to Sunday in the first generation (and evidence suggests they did), it would certainly not have taken place before the event the new day was to commemorate!

Obviously, Jesus not only had no hesitation about doing what the Jews considered "work" on the Sabbath but also was not reluctant to charge others to do the same. (Moses had declared it against the law to carry a burden on the Sabbath.) I wish I could have been there first hand to observe the whole demeanor of His attitude toward the Sabbath and what it had become to these people. It is plainly obvious that He disdained that majority’s attitude toward it; most of the passages about the Sabbath in the gospels are about Jesus’ flaunting (if I dare to use that term) His opposition to the Jews’ attitude toward Sabbath observance.

If the Sabbath is a continuing ordinance, why does the New Testament include so many references to Jesus getting in trouble with the Jewish religious leaders for breaking the Sabbath, and not mention one single instance of Jesus upholding or declaring the value and significance of the Sabbath?

a measure of distance

A great opportunity to witness to a pre-assembled group. I see no valid reason to assume this passage is promoting a requirement of Sabbath observance. This was the venue for the week that Paul could have an audience of this size already assembled. We may accuse him of being an opportunist here more readily than we might suspect him of upholding the sanctity of the Sabbath!

Merely another splendid opportunity to witness to the gathered Jews. I see nothing more in this incident.

This is another attempt to find a group of people who were godly, but still in need of Christ.

This is where the Jews would have been assembled as a group.

It was his "custom" because, having been a pharisee, he felt a special calling and urgency for the Jews. There is no strength in this passage for arguing for the continuing observance of the Sabbath by the apostles.

Again, this is simply where the Jews that Paul was attempting to reach with his message would have been together in one place. And the only day they would have been gathered together.

This, to me, is conclusive evidence that the Adventist view of the Sabbath being the identifying mark of God’s loyal remnant is inaccurate. For that position to be correct, it would have to be clearly outlined in the New Testament, for I am convinced that God would only use a source which is clearly unimpeachable to any true and searching Christian to convince His people of this startling doctrine. The Bible declares itself to be completely sufficient in its truth unto salvation. How can I read and accept the above passage of scripture and then embrace Ellen’s assertion that those who choose to worship their Christ on "The Lord’s Day", that is, the day of His Resurrection are taking upon themselves "The Mark of the Beast"? As I will show later, other members of the body of Christ have every justifiable reason for questioning the validity of Mrs. White, and in this case, her statements about the Sabbath.

Paul here seems to be appalled and deeply disappointed that the Galatians were reverting to the forms of the old system which included the sacredness of certain days and ceremonies. If the specialness of the seventh-day Sabbath was to be treated as a separate issue, then it seems reasonable to me to assume that Paul (or at least someone in the new testament) would have clarified that point.

It seems to me that the message of the New Testament, or New Covenant, is that the whole system of Law was "fulfilled" by Jesus. Paul is adamant that we are no longer subject to the legal bonds of "The Law". According to numerous parallel passages of Scripture and many commentaries, this also includes the Ten Commandments. Of course this does not make the principles of the Ten Commandments something to shun, but rather a "road map" to life. If all this be true, then the issue of Sabbath vs. Sunday can likely be considered a non-issue to God. It seems to be an issue only with people who have become convinced that we are still directly subject to "The Law."

Is it possible that this has become a central issue to Adventists because it is the primary reason for their very existence?

The theme of the New Testament resounds strongly of relationship and common sense. Jesus sharply and bitterly challenged the religious leaders of his day for their bent toward adhering to "The Rules" arbitrarily, and not pausing to consider the realities of application. ESPECIALLY WITH THE SABBATH.

Is it really possible to interpret this text in any reasonable way so as to exclude the Sabbath issue—especially when it is one of the items specifically listed?? And would it be appropriate to "not let anyone judge" us on an issue if that issue were even so important as to be a point that decides our very loyalty to God Himself?? Surely this is not so!!

Importantly, original language study reveals that the word rendered "Sabbath" here is in the singular, not plural, which stipulates it as a reference to the weekly Sabbath rather than an annual festival, etc.

of Hebrew origin 7676; TDNT - 7:1,989; n n

AV - sabbath day 37, sabbath 22, week 9; 68

1) the seventh day of each week which was a sacred festival on which the Israelites were required to abstain from all work

1a) the institution of the sabbath, the law for keeping holy every seventh day of the week

1b) a single sabbath, sabbath day

2) seven days, a week

This is a precise description of my view.

I can’t see any instruction here as refers to the observance of a certain day—but, rather it seems to be talking about the attitude of our heart toward God either qualifying or disqualifying us for admission to the peace and rest of Heaven. Several non-Adventist commentators use this passage to establish a post-resurrection irrelevance of the distinction of the Sabbath as a certain day.

Let me hasten to mention that Walter Martin does not bill the SDA church as a cult in this book. The book is a study into most of the modern religious cults, and as Adventists have often been accused by the public or other churches of being one, he actually includes a strong and friendly defense on behalf of Adventism. Dr. Martin took a great deal of criticism from his colleagues for his conclusions on the matter of Adventism.

The church Fathers provide a mass of evidence that the first day of the week, not the seventh, is the Lord’s Day. Some of this evidence is here submitted for the reader’s consideration. In company with the overwhelming majority of historians and scholars, we believe that not only the New Testament but the following citations refute Sabbatarianism. We have yet to see any systematic answer to what the Christian church has always believed.

1. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, in the year A.D. 110, wrote: "If, then, those who walk in the ancient practices attain to newness of hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but fashioning their lives after the Lord’s Day on which our life also arose through Him, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ, our only teacher."

3. The Epistle of Barnabas (between 120 and 150): " ‘Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot endure’ (Isaiah 1:13). You perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me but that which I had made in giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is a beginning of another world. Wherefore also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, a day also in which Jesus rose from the dead." ...

7. Eusebius (about 315): "The churches throughout the rest of the world observe the practice that has prevailed from the apostolic tradition until the present time so that it would not be proper to terminate our fast on any other day but the resurrection day of our Saviour. Hence, there were synods and convocations of our bishops on this question and they unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree which they communicated to churches in all places—that the mystery of the Lord’s resurrection should be celebrated on no other than the Lord’s day."

8. Peter, Bishop of Alexandria (about 300): "We keep the Lord’s Day as a day of joy because of Him who arose thereon."

9. Didache of the Apostles (about 70–75): "On the Lord’s own day, gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks."

Thus it appears that from apostolic and patristic times, the Christian church observed the Lord’s Day or the first day of the week; further, the Jewish Sabbath, in the words of Clement of Alexandria (about 194) was "nothing more than a working day."

While I immediately confess that these citations do not carry anything of the authority of scripture, they do refute, on the authority of history, the traditional Adventist position that the Christian Church observed only the Seventh-day Sabbath until the decree of Constantine in the early fourth century, and that Sunday observance is therefore merely a Catholic invention. I think it noteworthy that some of these citations are from the period of about AD 100 and even earlier—the same time frame assigned to some of the books included in the New Testament. If "The Lord’s Day" had not been Sunday, or if worship upon it had been in error; would not the apostles have had an opportunity to correct it? Would not some of that correction of as important a point as the Adventists have made it have found its way into the scripture?

Now here is the paragraph as it appears in the Encyclopedia:

Such use of the ellipsis is not uncommon in certain Seventh-day Adventists’ writings in connection with the Sabbath, the Lord’s Day, etc., and we regret that they resort to it in order to substantiate their position....

We admire the boldness of our Adventist brethren in their claims for the Sabbath, but their boldness is misplaced and leads to a distorted concept of the value of the law of God, for when a person believes and teaches that "the fourth commandment is the greatest commandment in the Decalogue," it is apparent that he has no understanding of the spirit of the law. Volume 4 of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia represents the reasons why the Christian church observes the Lord’s Day in preference to the Sabbath, and also clearly states (2629–2634) the Seventh-day Adventist position.^C-50 On page 2633 the Adventists contend: "According to church history the seventh-day Sabbath was observed by the early church, and no other day was observed as a Sabbath during the first two or three centuries."

There are a variety of passages of scripture which seem to suggest that Sunday began to be a day of worship from the earliest times following Christ’s resurrection. While none of these is "in-your-face" air-tight, and worship on Sunday is never enjoined, it is very significant that there are these several references. It is also important to notice that Sabbath observance is never enjoined in the post-resurrection New Testament.

It is apparent that while several languages still use their version of "Sabbath" for Saturday, most of those same languages also render Sunday as "Lord’s Day". Thus assuming any authority for keeping the Sabbath based on language is at best feeble.

While it is clear that there is no Biblical injunction to observe Sunday rather than the Sabbath, it is also quite clear that those who choose to worship their Jesus upon the day of His resurrection have reasonable Scriptural and substantial historical reason to do so. It seems apparent to me that there is at least as much New Testament evidence to support worshiping on Sunday as there is for the Sabbath. It is my opinion that there is tremendously more so.

It is very important to observe that while worship on Sunday seems to be sanctioned by both the New Testament and historical evidences, observance of Sunday is not even hinted at in the Bible and indeed, is likely a very wrong way to approach the day. In other words, none of the requirements of Sabbath observance such as beginning and ending times or religiously abstaining from work, etc., are to be transferred to one’s reckoning of how he addresses the day. To carry such requirements and disciplines over from Sabbath to Sunday is to revert to servitude to the law, as Paul abhors in the Galatians. (See Galatians 4:9-11.)

Also, I think the Adventist church flatters the Catholic church far beyond their due. It is true that the Catholic position states that they still recognise the Seventh-day Sabbath as the biblical day of rest; and also that they assumed the authority to officially transfer the solemnity of Sabbath to Sunday. (They also presumed to transfer many of the requirements of observance to the new day as well.) However, simply because that church system chooses to enforce its hold over its members by means of these various authorities does not mean that the reasons that the Christian Church at large has selected Sunday as their special day of worship find their cause in that same catholic decision.

See also Romans 10:3,4.

Here is evidence suggesting that we are consciously taken to Heaven upon our death. Taking Jesus’ argument one logical step further, if soul-sleep were valid, then God would still have needed to say either "I was the God..." or "I will be the God..." If Jesus uses this argument to prove that there is a resurrection, then it seems likely from the grammar used that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are now in His presence.

I see no feasible way of arguing one’s way out of the truth in this matter. One of the last possible stunts I can see Jesus pulling is to use bad theology and doctrine to make a point! If Jesus Himself describes the afterlife in this manner, then I believe it is incumbent upon me to accept it at face value—unless there is some biblical reason not to—and there isn’t, as far as I can see.

This passage very clearly establishes the biblical position of an immediate ascension to Heaven (or Abraham’s bosom prior to Christ’s resurrection) upon the death of the saints. Jesus is telling a story (differentiated by some from a parable because He used names) about two men who die and are taken to their rightful reward. The rich man is sent to hell because of his lack of concern for the needs of his fellow men (let that be a stern warning). He asks Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers to warn them—so they have gone to their respective places while the rich man’s brothers are still alive upon the earth!

Also, the rich man is begging Abraham to send Lazarus to come and ease his agony—indicating an immediate and enduring period of misery. As contrary as this runs to my deeply entrenched system of beliefs, it is terribly important not to just discard this passage because it does not happen to fit with my established pattern of thinking. These are Jesus’ own words here!

I don’t know how anything could be more clear from this passage than the certain fact that Paul looked forward to dying...so that he could go—immediately—to be with Christ! This passage cannot be referring to Christ’s return and the resurrection, as there would then be no "choice" involved—no decision to be distressed over. He declares he was torn between his duty to stay and help the fledgling church and his burning desire to depart so that he could see and be with his Saviour!