Do you accidently contradict Rom 14 with Gal 4??

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Act 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
Act 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
Act 21:22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
Act 21:23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
Act 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.


A couple of things to note. The exercise was intended to PROVE that there was nothing to the false claims being made against Paul.

1. What claims -- according to the text what was the false accusation?
2. What was to be "proof" that this was false? Why would it "prove it"?
3. WHO was it according to vs 25 that authorized the instruction given to the gentile Christians in Acts 15?

For now answering the questions is left as an exercise for the reader.


Hint: You can not sustain your suggestion without actually answering the basic questions pertaining to the text. Feel free to address the question listed above.

 

[BobRyan]

If you want to keep the passover go ahead. If you want to pass on the Christmas ham go ahead.

"regardeth it unto the Lord" (Romans 14) but don't go teaching people they need to.

Let's say that a Jew or Gentile chose to go down the path you are suggesting above -- then your conclusion fits with Romans 14.

By contrast the tolerance you claim to have above is NOT there at all for the pagan practices of Gal 4.

1. It is left as a simple exercise for the reader to observe that this language in Gal 4:8-11 IS condemning the very practice identified!

2. The reader will also observe that not only is the practice condemned BUT the authority/deity in whose "service" the practice is dedicated/devoted -- is said to be "by nature -- no god at all" (hint: Paganism)

3. The reader will also notice that this is "a return" to be "enslaved all over again" as in the state when the pagans "did not know God"

Gal 4
8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods[b/].
9 But 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?

 

[BobRyan]

As we have seen here - the issue with Romans 14 is obedience to scripture according to one's conscience. The practices in Rom 14 (ALL of them) are DEFENDED by Paul even to the point of CONDEMNING anyone who would say anything negative about it!!

by contrast we have Gal 4 where an actual "RETURN" to paganism is identified in Gal 4:8-11 and flatly CONDEMNED without qualification. (Hint: no "go ahead and return to paganism if you are really really sincere about it")

By contrast we have the error of trying to "equivocate" BETWEEN what is CONDEMNED in Gal 4 and what is DEFENDED in Rom 14 as in the following example.

Romans 14 and Galations do have something in common:
the word WEAK.

Rom. 14:1 "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye"


Rom. 14:2 "another, who is weak, eateth herbs."

Gal. 4:9 "But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?"

Paul was saying the Romans who were concerned with the elements, food and days, were weak in faith. With the Galations he was addressing the worthlessness of the elements themselves.

 

[BobRyan]

As we see clearly on this page --

in Gal 4:8-11 pagan PRACTICES are being condemned along with anyone who should engage in them REGARDLESS of whether that person is "teaching" others to do it or not.

In Rom 14 we see that the PRACTICES listed there are DEFENDED as done "unto God" and all who engage in those PRACTICES are defended against ANY criticism at all from others.

The contrast between these two opposites could not BE more apparent to the objective reader.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

From the "weak and beggerly" thread where most people may not see this as a reference to eithe Gal 4 OR to Rom 14.

Paul is not attempting to show that the elements of the world are weak. He is just stating the obvious. What he is concerned with is "turn ye again". Before they were serving "gods which were no gods" and now are considering turning back to such things being pushed by the judaizers.

Paul was concerned with the practice of turning to the elements of the world that Paul speaks about in verse 3 "Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world".

1. "EVEN so WE" is something Paul references in Gal 4:1-7 where he deals with the GENERAL SIN proglem for ALL MANKIND (both jews and gentiles).

Hint: Paul was never a "former pagan engaged in pagan practices" -- but the gentiles of Galatia were.

2. In Gal 4:8-11 where the phrase "weak and beggerly" is ACTUALLY found - we see that PAGANISM is referred to and in fact a WARNING against RETURNING to pagan worship forms that were dedicated to deities that "by NATURE are not gods at all".

Such is NOT the case with the WORD of GOD - just with paganism!

Obviously

Paying attention to the details here is very helpful as it turns out.

Gal 4:1-7 deals with the GENERAL SIN problem of ALL mankind

Gal 4:8-11 deals with the SPECIFIC sin issues of the gentile church of Galatia where former pagans began to "return" to their former practices.

Obviously.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

TrustIT -
So can you accept someone and their practice who says all days are alike?

Here is a switch to Rom 14 where SOME were observing ALL of the Lev 23 holy days -- and others OBSERVED one ABOVE the others.

Your question is about a case NOT mentioned in Romans 14 at all - a case where someone "regards NO DAY AT ALL".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Rom 14 NASB
5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day (alike[/i] inserted here by some translators). Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

Jamieson Fausset, Brown – on Romans 14

the Church here, in spite of thy censures.
5. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day--The supplement "alike" should be omitted, as injuring the sense.
Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind--be guided in such matters by conscientious conviction.
6. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it to the Lord--the Lord CHRIST, as before.
and he . . . not, to the Lord he doth not--each doing what he believes to be the Lord's will.
He that earth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks--The one gave thanks to God for the flesh which the other scrupled to use; the other did the same for the herbs to which, for conscience' sake, he restricted himself. From this passage about the observance of days, ALFORD unhappily infers that such language could not have been used if the sabbath law had been in force under the Gospel in any form. Certainly it could not, if the sabbath were merely one of the Jewish festival days; but it will not do to take this for granted merely because it was observed under the Mosaic economy. And certainly, if the sabbath was more ancient than Judaism; if, even under Judaism, it was enshrined among the eternal sanctities of the Decalogue, uttered, as no other parts of Judaism were, amidst the terrors of Sinai; and if the Lawgiver Himself said of it when on earth, "The Son of man is LORD EVEN OF THE SABBATH DAY" (see Mr 2:28) --it will be hard to show that the apostle must have meant it to be ranked by his readers among those vanished Jewish festival days, which only "weakness" could imagine to be still in force--a weakness which those who had more light ought, out of love, merely to bear with.
http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/romans/jfb/romans14.htm

John Wesley admits that this is a reference to the Lev 23 list of annual feast days –

Wesley

Verse 5. One day above another - As new moons, and other Jewish festivals. Let every man be fully persuaded - That a thing is lawful, before he does it.

Verse 6. Regardeth it to the Lord - That is, out of a principle of conscience toward God. To the Lord he doth not regard it - He also acts from a principle of conscience. He that eateth not - Flesh. Giveth God thanks - For his herbs.
http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/romans/wesley/romans14.htm

 

[BobRyan]

Question: How is it that a student of scripture at that time would feel free to “select some days ABOVE others” in the Lev 23 list of annual Holy days rather than simply observing/highly-regarding ALL of them?


To see a list of THREE out of that set that were actually required of all – see Exodus 23.

Ex 23

Three National Feasts

14"Three times a year you shall celebrate a feast to Me.
15"You shall observe the [b]Feast of Unleavened Bread[/b]; for seven days you are to eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the appointed time in the month Abib, for in it you came out of Egypt And none shall appear before Me empty-handed.
16"Also you shall observe the Feast of the Harvest of the first fruits[/b] of your labors from what you sow in the field; also the Feast of the Ingathering[/b] (Booths) at the end of the year when you gather in the fruit of your labors from the field.
17"Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord GOD.

Some may observe ALL the Lev 23 annual feast days – or some may have chosen to honor only the 3 mandatory ones listed in Exodus 23. But after the end of all animal sacrifices (Heb 10) with the death of Christ. The shadows ceased to be mandatory. Paul points this out in general in Col 2 and then specifically for Passover in 1Cor 5 “Christ our Passover has been slain” 1Cor 5.

John Gill Commentary Luke 2
Verse 41. Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year,.... Joseph was obliged to go three times a year, as were all the males in Israel, at the feasts of the passover, pentecost, and tabernacles, Deuteronomy 16:16.[/b] The first of these is expressed here, at the feast of the passover; but the women were not obliged to go up[/b]: for so it is said by the Jews {p}, twvr Myvn lv Nxop, "the passover of women is voluntary," or in their own power; they might go up to the feast, or not, as they pleased. It is indeed said of Hillell, who was now alive, that he obliged the women to the first, but not to a second passover: to which the Karaites object; the account they give is as follows {q}; "truly the women were obliged, by the school of Hillell, to the offering of the passover; but if they were hindered from the first passover, the second was in their power; that is, the thing depended upon their will and pleasure, whether they would offer or not, which may be justly wondered at; for why should they be obliged to the, first, and not the second? for behold, as to the obligation of the passover, there is no difference between the first passover, and the second, The sum of the matter is, our wise men, on whom be peace, have determined and say, that there is no obligation but to males, who are arrived to maturity." So that this was a voluntary thing in Mary[/b]; which discovers her piety and religion, and her great regard to the ordinances and appointments of God.
http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/luke/gill/luke2.htm

Deut 16:16
16"Three times in a year all your males shall appear before the LORD[/b] your God in the place which He chooses, at the Feast of Unleavened Bread and at the Feast of Weeks and at the Feast of Booths, and they shall not appear before the LORD empty-handed.

Matthew Henry Ex 23:14
IV. Their solemn religious attendance on God in the place which he should choose is here strictly required, Exodus 23:14-17. 1. Thrice a year all their males must come together in a holy convocation, that they might the better know and love one another, and keep up their communion as a dignified and peculiar people. 2. They must come together before the Lord (Exodus 23:17) to present themselves before him, looking towards the place where his honour dwelt, and to pay their homage to him as their great Lord, from and under whom they held all their enjoyments. 3. They must feast together before the Lord, eating and drinking together, in token of their joy in God and their grateful sense of his goodness to them; for a feast is made for laughter, Ecclesiastes 10:19. O what a good Master do we serve, who has made it our duty to rejoice before him, who feasts his servants when they are in waiting! Never let religion be called a melancholy thing, when its solemn services are solemn feasts. 4. They must not appear before God empty, Exodus 23:15. Some free-will offering or other they must bring, in token of their respect and gratitude to their great benefactor; and, as they were not allowed to come empty-handed, so we must not come to worship God empty-hearted; our souls must be filled with grace, with pious and devout affections, holy desires towards him, and dedications of ourselves to him, for with such sacrifices God is well-pleased. 5. The passover, pentecost, and feast of tabernacles, in spring, summer, and autumn, were the three times appointed for their attendance: not in winter, because travelling was then uncomfortable; not in the midst of their harvest, because then they were otherwise employed; so that they had no reason to say that he made them to serve with an offering, or wearied them with incense.
http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=ex&chapter=023

 

[BobRyan]

Matthew Henry Deut 16:16
IV. The laws concerning the three solemn feasts are summed up (Deuteronomy 16:16,17), as often before, Exodus 23:16,34:23.
http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=de&chapter=016

The general commands concerning them are, 1. That all the males must then make their personal appearance before God, that by their frequent meeting to worship God, at the same place, and by the same rule, they might be kept faithful and constant to that holy religion which was established among them. 2. That none must appear before God empty, but every man must bring some offering or other, in token of a dependence upon God and gratitude to him. And God was not unreasonable in his demands; let every man but give as he was able, and no more was expected. The same is still the rule of charity, 1 Corinthians 16:2. Those that give to their power shall be accepted, but those that give beyond their power are accounted worthy of double honour (2 Corinthians 8:3), as the poor widow that gave all she had, Luke 21:4.
http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=de&chapter=016



#1. Neither of these is the case of "observing NO day" - or "regarding NO day". (not withstanding the hopes of many today who might wish that such was the case).

#2. There is no OT command to "observe every day".

#3. There is no mention at all of the 7th day Sabbath of Creation week - of the 4th commandment.

#4. BOTH practices (and both Examples) are being defended in Romans 14.

#5 EVEN if you Inject God's own Seventh-day Sabbath INTO the Romans 14 text - that would mean that keeping the 10 commandments IS allowed such that the arguments made AGAINST Sabbath Keeping (saying that it places us under the law) are void. Because if such arguments were true - you could not "defend" such an outcome. You could not argue "For those who want to be back under the law - let them believe it - its ok - they do so for the Lord". That is extreme opposite of the Galations 5 position and you end up with an internally - self-conflicted - text.

#6. The NT issue defined: It is the Annual feast days - the annual Sabbaths. One person observes ONE of them above the other - while another "observes Every day" - all of them.

Paul is arguing that BOTH practices are valid, in fact Paul Himself observed all of them as we find in Acts 21, 23, and 24.

And as Paul says of those observing these feast days –

Every commentary found so far – acknowledges that these are the Lev 23 feastival days and that “esteem” is in fact a reference to “OBSERVING” them not a way to speak of "ignoring them".

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Sgt Fury

(Your pseudonym makes me shudder in my pants from my army-days fears! Bad joke! but just felt like cracking it because it's true I was so afraid then!)

Serious, "It seems as though the Gentiles in Galatia were contending both with the temptation to return to pagan observances and the influences of Judaizers who were trying to steer them into observing Mosaic ordinances. "

I have on another thread stuck out my neck to oppose the idea the circumcision supposed in Galatians not in the least was the OT-circumcision, but the audacious sealing of the Galatians' heresy of venerating the four time-gods while they were not prepared to foreswear their Christianity.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I don't see a problem with reconciling Romans 14 with Galatians 4.

In Romans 14, Paul is saying some observe special days and others do not. To each his own.

Galatians 4 supports that by condemning those who are "enslaved" by their observance of special days such that it the observance becomes a measure of holiness for themselves and others.

 

[J.D.]

I didn't vote because the one option said "Gal 4 observances include the Rom 14 Observances". I think it is the other way around - Rom 14 obs. include Gal 4 obs. Rom 14 is the broader statement. Gal 4 is dealing specifically with Jewish/Mosaic observances.

BTW Rom 14 does not validate the observances of times, etc. - it tolerates the weaker brother until such a time that said weaker brother grows out of his childish attachment to ceremonial law.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I didn't vote because the one option said "Gal 4 observances include the Rom 14 Observances". I think it is the other way around - Rom 14 obs. include Gal 4 obs. Rom 14 is the broader statement. Gal 4 is dealing specifically with Jewish/Mosaic observances.

BTW Rom 14 does not validate the observances of times, etc. - it tolerates the weaker brother until such a time that said weaker brother grows out of his childish attachment to ceremonial law.

GE
There is a fork in the highway! Be careful which way you turn!
Galatians 4 deals on the wisdom of the world, the philosophy of the world, the authorities of the world, the first principles of the world -- in fact, with the gods or 'no-gods' of the world, "weak and beggarly"! Do not confuse what the good laws of God to all peoples of the past were, with the stinking, filthy, gods of Egypt and Greece and all the world in unison despising and rejecting the laws God had given so that if a man walk therein he shall live!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I don't see a problem with reconciling Romans 14 with Galatians 4.

In Romans 14, Paul is saying some observe special days and others do not. To each his own.

Galatians 4 supports that by condemning those who are "enslaved" by their observance of special days such that it the observance becomes a measure of holiness for themselves and others.

GE

You are absolutely right with regard to Galatians; and absolutely wrong in thinking it is a matter of reconciliation between or of Romans and Galatians. There is not in the least of anything the two might need to be 'reconciled' in!

 

[Gold Dragon]

GE

You are absolutely right with regard to Galatians; and absolutely wrong in thinking it is a matter of reconciliation between or of Romans and Galatians. There is not in the least of anything the two might need to be 'reconciled' in!

Um .... Ok.

Meriam-Webster: reconcile : 2: to make consistent or congruous

I can see how those two passages can appear to be inconsistent or incongruous.

 

[J.D.]

GE
There is a fork in the highway! Be careful which way you turn!
Galatians 4 deals on the wisdom of the world, the philosophy of the world, the authorities of the world, the first principles of the world -- in fact, with the gods or 'no-gods' of the world, "weak and beggarly"! Do not confuse what the good laws of God to all peoples of the past were, with the stinking, filthy, gods of Egypt and Greece and all the world in unison despising and rejecting the laws God had given so that if a man walk therein he shall live!

I appreciate your careful analysis of Gal 4, but when you see a "fork", I see a left turn.

This is what I see in Gal 4:
They started in Paganism, were saved by the Gospel, then took a left turn to Jewish/Mosaic Law.

If I understand it right, you've hinged your entire argument on the word "again" in verse 9. I can understand how you might do that, but to take that one word to mean that Paul was dealing with a return to Paganism is contrary to the context of the passage. For example, he goes on to say "they zealously affect you, but not well". Were "they" trying to take the Galatians back into Paganism? I don't think so, for he says "Tell me, you who desire to be under the law".

This "turning again" must have to do with turning to the Law of Moses, and the desire to be under the Law of Moses is compared to the ritualistic duties of their pagan past.

 

[J.D.]

John Gill's comments on Gal 4:9, which conveys perfectly what I was trying to say about the passage:

"The Galatians are said to turn again to these; not that they were before in the observation of them, except the Jews, but because there was some likeness between these, and the ceremonies with which they carried on the service of their idols; and by showing an inclination to them, they discovered a good will to come into a like state of bondage they were in before; than which nothing could be more stupid and ungrateful in a people that had been blessed with so much grace, and with such clear Gospel light and knowledge.

 

[BobRyan]

J.D -- if you take Gill's argument then merely OBEYING the scriptures of the OT is enough to get one condemned as Paul is stating it in Gal 4:8-11.

But in selecting that interpretation you have a flat contradiction to Romans 14 where the practice is defended without qualification.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I didn't vote because the one option said "Gal 4 observances include the Rom 14 Observances". I think it is the other way around - Rom 14 obs. include Gal 4 obs. Rom 14 is the broader statement.

Either way - Romans 14 is defending the practices as "done UNTO God" and condemns any judgment against those who practice them.

There is no way to get the condemnation of Gal 4:8-11 to apply to practices so explicitly DEFENDED in Romans 14.

There is no "tolerate your brother UNTIL a certain point in time then go ahead and condemn him" in Romans 14.

There is no "tolerate these pagan practices for a while as Christians -- but then later condemn paganism" in Gal 4:8-11.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Galatians 4 supports that by condemning those who are "enslaved" by their observance of special days such that it the observance becomes a measure of holiness for themselves and others.

Gal 4:8-11 does NOT say "these observances are just fine in themselves but you took them too far".

RATHER Gal 4:8-11 say that the observances THEMSELVES are on behalf of that which "by nature are NO GODS at all".

There is no hint that Gentiles of Gal 4:8-11 USED to be Jews who kept the commands of scripture and NOW were going BACK to being Jews in a way that was too extreme for Romans 14 to defend.

All such arguments die instantly.

in Christ,

Bob