Sabbath "Remains" for the People of God Heb 4

[Eric B]

I answered all of that suff before, and you all rehash the same claims like I never said anything. (GE; I thought you changed your position before).

1) No one is calling the "word of God" or even "the Law" bondage, slavery, “The weak and elemental things of this World”, or “worthless” and “pertaining to that “which by nature is not God”. It was the Jews' condemned state trying to justify themselves by the works of the Law (without Christ) that was the bondage and the rest of those things.

2) "observe days and months and seasons and years" is NOT the same as "observe times" in Lev. Two totally different words in two totally different languages. And "observe" in Rom. is altogether different from those. You can't just pair things up like that without making sure it is the same thing.

3) the fact that "observe" in Gal. is “...to inspect alongside" (i.e. to note insidiously). Where "Insidious" can be to "intended to entrap or beguile", or "stealthily treacherous or deceitful", is the biggest proof of all, because it is the SAME WORD used for when the JEWS tried to "trap" both Jesus and Paul! There is NOTHING in the Greek AT ALL about "astrology"! Now are you saying the Jews used astrology to trap Jesus and Paul? Or was it the LAW they used?
Likewise, their WATCHing the NT Christians and juding them for not keeping OT laws was the same thing, as is those who continue to do it today!

4) Your schalars are only a handful, and do not make the majority.

5) Nobody says there were only Jewish influences in the NT church. However, people do seem to think there were only pagan influences, and have underestimated the Jewish pressure and even persecution of Christians.

I no longer have the time to argue this stuff anymore. If you all think you are sucessfully convicting us as idolaters and satanic doctrines, (which is the charge constantly being thrown out) then go ahead, but remember that we have to stand before the judgment seat of Christ, and we'll see if all these lies (which are a violation of the Law!) will pass! (Once again, what you are doing is the "watching with evil intent" discussed in the passage).

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ah, Eric b, You're tiresome!
I changed my position - or more clearly took standpoint - ON GAL.4;3. Not on 4:7-11 at all! And if you think I'm double-talking, go have a look at my standpoint as published in 1994 already, 'The Lord's Day in the Covenenant of Grace', volume 4, "Paul", Paragrapgh 8.3.3, Galatians.

You haven't presented a single argument of substance otherwise that could have influenced me to "change position"! On the contrary, your every argument I have in the meantime analised and answered throughly since we have last corresponded.
Find our debate - and more - from my page, http://www.biblestudents.co.za, the latest addition "The Origin of Sunday Sacredness - Galtians 4".

 

[Eric B]

If you accept 4:3, then the whole argument that 7-11 could not possibly be talking about "the Jews", or that taking it that way "calls God's Law paganism" falls. It all goes together. All were lost in bondage, and for any to return to their former way (whether pagan or Judastic) would be a "return" to bondage.

I do not see a page on your site called "The Origin of Sunday Sacredness - Galtians 4". I see mostly a bunch of stuff disputing the SDA's, particularly, Bacchiocchi on the time of the resurrection. And you do seem to have a bit of a point on "Today since these things the third day". As for Calvin and Servetus, whether what Servetus did was against the civil law or not, still the point is that it is not our job as Christians to make correct doctrine the civil law and torture and kill people over it. If he could not tell the difference between Servetus and the Muhammadans, he had no business being a church leader. Servetus' position actually was not that far off from the original truth. He was a bit more adoptionistic in the beginning (which did compromise the deity of Christ), but then modified it to say clearly that the Word was Christ. This made his position identical to the pre-Nicene fathers such as Tertullian and Hyppolytus, but Calvin still tried him for not saying "eternal Son of God", rather than "Son of the eternal God". The former is not in the Bible, but the latter is closer, yet Servetus was condemned over the unbiblical phrase.
This is the fruit of the union of church and state, and that is more a Romish tool of the endtimes than Sunday is! (And didn't Calvin also enforce Sunday as the sabbath and not the 7th day?) This was completely contrary to the gospel of Grace.

The points I presented above are of substance, you did not answer, at least not here, but both of you would simply go back to answering your own straw men and other tangents.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

None of us at the moment stick to the thread's theme: Hebrews 3-4!
And once again EricB takes the lead taking everybody with him off another "rabit chase" as Bob Ryan once remarked!

 

[Eric B]

actually, it was you and Bob who took the discussion off Heb.3-4, when you commented on Gal., and then Bob jumped in with his non-sequitur points.

I am not trying to take you down any rabbit rail. (still in accusatory mode, I see). I have been trying to wind down the discussions, because of time. But that could not go unanswered.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by Eric B:
actually, it was you and Bob who took the discussion off Heb.3-4, when you commented on Gal., and then Bob jumped in with his non-sequitur points.

I am not trying to take you down any rabbit rail. (still in accusatory mode, I see). I have been trying to wind down the discussions, because of time. But that could not go unanswered.

Say you, Eric,
"If you accept 4:3, then the whole argument that 7-11 could not possibly be talking about "the Jews", or that taking it that way "calls God's Law paganism" falls."

How do I understand you now? Do you admit 7-11 is 'talking about' the Gentiles then? Then we have nothing to debate - then the 'days' are 'pagan' and idolatrous; then 'days' "known" by their pagan names, are implied; then Sunday is there, first and foremost!

Anyhow,
someone referred to Ignatius. Ignatius doesn't have an idea of Sunday; he thinks of the Sabbath - "sabbatidzontes" - "according to the life (or day) of the Lord" - "kata kuriakehn dzohntes" OR NOT AT ALL ("MEHKETI") which simply argues for TRUE, and CHRISTIAN, SABBATH-KEEPING. What the issue is about I really can't see - it (again) is something blown up by the Sundaydarians. As Ignatius says in 4,1, "We should be REALLY Christians, and not merely have the name!" "The unbelievers, bear the stamp of this world", says he in 5,2. So does its 'Day' - 'Sun's-Day' and "the Lord Sun's Day"!
See "Second Century" http://www.biblestudents.co.za

Sorry Eric, my son got "Origin of Sunday" on the net late. It is there now, I hope.

 

[Eric B]

I don't see how you figure I "admit" any such thing. You are the one who "admitted" 4:3. I pointed out then that that proves that 7-11 are not necessarily talking about "pagan" "bondage". And the whole context of the chapter (v.21ff, ch.5, etc.) shows they are not.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Eric B:
[QB] actually, it was you and Bob who took the discussion off Heb.3-4, when you commented on Gal., and then Bob jumped in with his non-sequitur points.

The "details" will show that I simply noted other respected historians and Bible scholars that were willing to "admit" to the pagan system that was referenced in Gal 4.

Since the comment was made that SUNday was possibly one of those pagan days -- I pointed to the history of emperor worship that HISTORIANS admit to be a problem in the first century for gentiles-turned-Christian.

But that would be "the details" again and I am sure they are inconvenient for some models.

I suppose if one is happy to make God the author of paganism or to equate HIS word with paganism -- then my pointing out how REAL paganism was in fact the more likely problem - would be inconvenient.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by Eric B:
I don't see how you figure I "admit" any such thing. You are the one who "admitted" 4:3. I pointed out then that that proves that 7-11 are not necessarily talking about "pagan" "bondage". And the whole context of the chapter (v.21ff, ch.5, etc.) shows they are not.

Eric, you have just supplied yet another example of your confused reasoning. Just read your two statements together - can't you see?
And your insistent hammering on the whole context is bluff merely.

 

[Eric B]

My two statements together:
1)v.7-11 are NOT necessarily talking about "pagan"...
That means that they at the most COULD refer to paganism; but MAYBE NOT!
2)the whole context of the chapter shows they are not.
This is the deciding factor. In #1, it was maybe or maybe not. #2 shows it was not. No contradiction. One builds upon the choice left by the other.

So it is not my "confused reasoning", but rather your confused perception! Just like:

I suppose if one is happy to make God the author of paganism or to equate HIS word with paganism -- then my pointing out how REAL paganism was in fact the more likely problem - would be inconvenient.

It's like my father used to say: I wish we could take a screwdriver, open up your head, and see what is going on in there. Nobody has said that God's Word is paganism, but you keep seeing that somewhere. You talk so much about "the commandments", do you really thingk God accepts this lying? Break one commandment to try to prove another! But then you HAVE TO do something, because your whole basis for self-righteous judging of non-sabbath Christians falls on chapters like this. Anything but admit that 'I am no more obedient than anyone else, and by judging, I am the one who is actually not a "doer" of the Law!' (the spiritual Law, that is)

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by Eric B:
My two statements together:
1)v.7-11 are NOT necessarily talking about "pagan"...
That means that they at the most COULD refer to paganism; but MAYBE NOT!
2)the whole context of the chapter shows they are not.
This is the deciding factor. In #1, it was maybe or maybe not. #2 shows it was not. No contradiction. One builds upon the choice left by the other.

So it is not my "confused reasoning", but rather your confused perception! Just like:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I suppose if one is happy to make God the author of paganism or to equate HIS word with paganism -- then my pointing out how REAL paganism was in fact the more likely problem - would be inconvenient.

It's like my father used to say: I wish we could take a screwdriver, open up your head, and see what is going on in there. Nobody has said that God's Word is paganism, but you keep seeing that somewhere. You talk so much about "the commandments", do you really thingk God accepts this lying? Break one commandment to try to prove another! But then you HAVE TO do something, because your whole basis for self-righteous judging of non-sabbath Christians falls on chapters like this. Anything but admit that 'I am no more obedient than anyone else, and by judging, I am the one who is actually not a "doer" of the Law!' (the spiritual Law, that is) </font>[/QUOTE]You even contradict yourself. First you say: "If you accept 4:3, then the whole argument that 7-11 could not possibly be talking about "the Jews", or that taking it that way "calls God's Law paganism" falls" - which says 7-11 speaks about GEBTILES. In your next post you reverted to your old stance it speaks of Jews (only).

Next, you quote Bob in your last post - not me, nowhere! In any case what Bob says is true; or is it not - for you?

You supply anyone with that screwdriver that fits the screws to the lid of your mind's interior. Only the screwdriver of the Word can open the Word though.
But go read some statistics on the context of Galatians about it being Jewish or Gentile, from the latest addition on http://www.biblestudents.co.za. It is there now.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

But it being Sabbath morning here in South Africa now, let's get something positive from Hebrews 3-4. Bob's theme was the Sabbath "REMAINS" for God's People. "Apoleipetai" - it mweans, "remains obligatory / true / valid / a given", for "God's PEOPLE", His Christian Congregation - not for 'the world'; not for UNbelievers; but for believers in HIM who 'HAD GIVEN THEM REST" - for believers in HIM who "HAD ENETERED INTO HIS OWN REST AS GOD (from His own works)". Jesus Christ had "FINISHED THE WORKS THE FATHER HAD GIVEN HIM"! Alleluiah! He had risen from the dead "the third day according to the Scriptures" - the 'third day' of GOD'S 'Passover' - of His Salvation by 'the exceeding geatness of His power when He raised Christ from the dead" ... "IN SABBATH'S-TIME'S FULNESS"! In the Fulness of God's "REST" that is, He, "rested", and "finished", and "perfected", and "revived", and "sanctified", and "blessed" - THIS IS THE DAY OF GOD'S TRIUMPH THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD! Let us raise the Sopng of Moses and of the Lamb - it the Song of Resurrection; it is a Sabbath's Song!

 

[Eric B]

You still don't get it. You still are reading what you want to read. Look again: "If you accept 4:3, then the whole argument that 7-11 could not possibly be talking about "the Jews", or that taking it that way "calls God's Law paganism" falls". This you say "which says 7-11 speaks about GENTILES". How do you figure that? The whole argument that 7-11 could NOT be talking about Jews FALLS. The whole idea that TAKING IT THIS WAY (as applying to the Jews) calls God's Word "paganism" FALLS. That means it still COULD possibly be refering to the Gentiles, but NOT NECESSARILY, as we see that the Jews are NOT EXCLUDED. Then, the remaining context is the clincher, showing that it is in fact about those pushing "the Law". So no "reversion", only the same truth I was building up to all along.
You are just throwing out a bunch of charges without even reading thoroughly what you are responding to.
The screwdriver analogy was about checking to see what makes you two think the way you do, not really about fixing it. Only the Word [of CHRIST] can remove the blinders (2 Cor.3:14) that cause you to distort the teaching that refutes your position.

I still don't see that new page. The only "new" is "Shavuot-Pentecost (Pinkster)".

And the "sabbath that "remains" is SPIRITUAL. Even you once told me I could do my secular job on it, and both you and Bob go on the Internet on it. That is certainly NOT the sabbath commanded in the Law!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Alright Eric, I admit I read and understood your statement wrong. I beg your pardon. I thought it - my own conclusion - strange, that you would indeed have changed your mind. What I have thought then, is of no consequence and in the end turned out to be a waste of words. Sorry.

Then you restate your position, that no real "keeping of the Sabbath (sabbatidzontas) remains for the People of God BECAUSE OF" (ara) the fact "Jesus had given them REST (katapausis/anapausis)", "BECAUSE OF" the fact "He who had entered into His REST (katapausis/anapausis) as God ALSO rested from his own works" - makaing of the TWO things, one.
But, what do YOU say, Ignatius means with his use of "sabbatidontes" - "NO LONGER sabbatidzontes"?
Don't you -like the Sundaydarians- say Ignatius speaks of "no longer keeping THE SABBATH" (Seventh Day)?
And what do you make of the papyri that use the word "sabbatismos/(sabbatidzontes)" "keeping of the Sabbath DAY"?
But most important, what do YOU, make of Hb.4:4-5, that says, "GOD, THUS, concerning the Seventh DAY did speak, And God the Seventh DAY, RESTED"? -No Eric B, your sophistry is transparent, like your whole argument restated above, that you actually DENY your own standpoint that you do not have anything against God's Law, because your whole argument is directed against the "keeping of the Sabbath DAY" commanded in the Fourth Commandment.
I'll never speak another word about this subject WITH YOU!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Correction : Hebrews 4:9 uses the word "sabbatismos" -the almost exact equivalent of "sabbatidzontes" used by Ignatius.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Though Hebrews 4 quotes the Sabbath commandment of Christ the Creator and though it gives the positive affirmation that the Sabbath rest REMAINS for the people of God -- some have so "edited" their the text in their minds that they can ignore this entirely.

But it can not be denied that in Heb 3 and 4 there are TWO positive examples of REST given. The entrance into Canaan and also Christ the Creator's Holy Day.

These positive examples are used as a motivation to "persevere FIRM until the end" (as is pointed out repeatedly in chapter 3 and 4.

In addition the text of Psalms 95 - given to the Sabbath keeping saints of David's generation is offerred as a basis of "contrast" between the message to David vs the negative example of failure by the generation in Moses' day that died in the wilderness "due to unbelief" and "disobedience".


The argument in chapter 4:1 is that we should "fear" that such a failure to enter God's rest should also happen to us.

Paul argues that the Psalms 95 promise to the Sabbath-keeping saints of David's day - (given after so long a time following the failure of the generation in Moses' day enter Canaan) "remains". He argues that some still have failed to enter - and it "remains for some to enter".

So these two positive examples of rest are used as "Motivators" in the Heb 3 and 4 text EVEN after the cross!

This means that the intent is to UPHOLD them as good things that we would WANT - good exmaples of "rest" motivating us to ENTER and not to fail to enter - as did the generation in Moses' day.

How then could this be twisted as a means to abolish those VERY examples of rest!!??

IN Christ,

Bob

Dear Bob,
I see things a bit different. The "rest" we are in danger of not entering, is faith in Christ - faith in God's works accomplished in and through Him. The writer refers to some illustrations from Scripture of man's unbelief. I am sure he also had in mind also Adam's failure to believe in God, so that God swore that man would not enter into His rest, and drove Adam and Eve out of paradise. Howbeit, ultimately, man rejected god's Rest - the Rest He entered into in and through Jesus Christ. And having rejected THIS rest of God, God has sworn no one would enter into his rest, because -as this Letter elsewhere states- there is NO "day after". Christ is (was) God's last word to mankind for salvation. Do you enter in; or do you not? is the CRISIS of the AGES! "IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE TODAY!" Therefore: "Harden not your hearts!" for this is the day of salvation. There is NTHER SAVIOUR! Accept Christ or die in your stif-necked sinning! That is the writer's MESSAGE - the Gospel! Nothing more!
Thus the writer has created a firm foundation for precluding Christ's triumph and God's success - He WILL find a People who "has entered"! Rejoice! Worship God for His salvation! A People is born; behold, the Church of God! All because of CHRIST'S DOING - "JESUS who had given them REST"; "HE WHO had entered into His OWN rest as God from His". This is the GRAND CLIMAX, and this is the very BASIS and GROUNDS FOR "a keeping of the Sabbath Day for the People of God".
Now the redemption of Jesus Christ -the redemption IN HIM- has become the NEW motive, the NEW reason, the FINAL FOUNDING, for the People of God's "keeping of their Sabbath" - the Sabbath of the LORD your God. Since of old -as the writer has amply illustrated- God's rest, God's salvation, God's Passover, has been the reason for His Commanding the Sabbath Day to be kept holy; the reason for and the blessing as such of it; the reason for and the sanctification as such of it; the reason for and the rest as such of it; the reason for and the perfecting as such on it; the reson for and the reviving as such in it it - the Seventh Day the Sabbath of the LORD your God.
Christians believe and keep the Sabbath DAY, for no reason but the redemption of God in Jesus Christ through resurrection from the dead!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

A keeping of the Sabbath Day THUS has become the Christian's obligation, or not at all! The Gospel - nothing more! What more could there be?

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose if one is happy to make God the author of paganism or to equate HIS word with paganism -- then my pointing out how REAL paganism was in fact the more likely problem - would be inconvenient.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said
It's like my father used to say: I wish we could take a screwdriver, open up your head,...

&lt;obligatory ranting deleted&gt;

Here is what we find in good scholarship and Bible historians when it comes to Gal 4 and the pagan days observed THERE but NEVER MENTIONED in all of the OT as something for God's people!!

6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "" Abba! Father!''
7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.

This is the “conversion” moment – when the lost becomes born again – an adopted child of God. It is a ‘contrast in faith’ between the lost state and the saved stated. It is not a contrast between the saved OT saint and the saved NT saint as many have vainly hoped in recent years.

7 therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.

This ends the section applicable to all mankind “in general” apart from anything specific at Galatia.

But then Paul starts to focus “specifically” on the condition of the pagans-turned-Christian IN the church of Galatia. Comparing their condition before salvation with their condition afterwards and the errors they were starting to lapse BACK into.

Lets take a look at Gal 4 again where it specifically focuses on the error of the gentiles in Galatia worshipping pagan idols.

Gentiles who "did not even KNOW the ONE true creator God".

Gentiles who worshipped "THINGS" that were "BY NATURE" not gods at all.

Gentiles who are "turning back AGAIN" to the "Weak and elemental things of the WORLD"

Gentiles who USED to observe "days and months and seasons and years." in their old system of emperor worship and are now introducing something like it mixed with Christianity.

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?
10 You observe days and months and seasons and years.
11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain

Obviously the problem with these Galatians pre-conversion is not about Gentiles in Galatia being obedient to the Law of God prior to being a Christian!
Obviously the problem IS about …

8 however at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no Gods.

Clearly Paul addresses the gentile churches in Galatia and mentions that in their lost state - before becoming Christian they were worshipping false gods. The Hebrew nation-church by contrast was established by the one true God of creation who was to send his only son as messiah-Christ-savior was known by the Hebrews and Paul agrees to this in Romans 3:1-3 as well as his reference to Timothy's up-bringing.

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?

Clearly Paul refers to going back to practices of the pagan system - returning to be enslaved by the pagan superstitious practices - again.

1. There is no place where Paul (or any Bible author) calls obedience to God’s Word – “Slavery”. Yet some Christians today prefer to think of it that way.
2. There is no place where Paul (or any Bible author) refers to God’s Word as “The weak and elemental things of this World” – yet some Christians do.
3. There is no place where Paul (or any Bible author) says that the Word of God is “worthless” and “pertaining to that “which by nature is not God”.

Rather – when it comes to abuses of the Word of God – Paul speaks of God’s Word as “Holy Just and Perfect” and as “condemning the sinner” – it is not the Law or the Word of God that he condemns – it is always the sinner that IT condemns. Yet some Christians today – want to so much to abolish Christ the Creator’s Law – that they are willing to turn the text of Gal 4 as it addresses the pagan lifestyle of the gentiles in Galatia and their practices – and attribute to God – the authoring of paganism..

10 you observe days and months and seasons and years.

NOTE: . This pagan practice is also condemned in the OT

Lev 19: 26 You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor observe times (KJV).

Bible scholars have long recognized the pagan system being referenced here.

Martin Luther "Almost all doctors have interpreted this reference as concerning the astrological days of the Chaldeans"

A commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, rev, trans, [London: James Clarke, 1953], 392

Troy Martin agrees with Luther
“In 4.8 Paul mentions the former pagan life of the Galatian Christians. In 4.9, he asks them how they can desire their former life again. He then proposes their observance of the time-keeping scheme in 4.10 as a demonstrative proof of their reversion to their old life…Considering only the immediate context of Gal 4.10 the list must be understood as a pagan temporal scheme”

“Pagan and Judeo-Christian Time-keeping Schemes in Gal 4:10 and Col 2:16” NTS 42 (1996):105-119 ( p 113) Troy Martin


R. A. Cole “it is not necessary…to see any Jewish influence in these Galatians; in all forms of paganism there is some form of ‘casting horoscopes’, with consequent ‘lucky’ and ‘unlucky’ days”

(The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary,, R. A. Cole. TNTC [London: Tyndale, 1969], 119)

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
S. Mitchell writes “the major obstacle which stood in the way of the progress of Christianity, and the force which would have drawn new adherents back to conformity with the prevailing paganism, was the public worship of he Emperor. The packed calendar of the ruler cult dragooned the citizens…into observing days, months, seasons and years which it laid down for special recognition and celebration”

S. Mitchell, Anatolia; Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor, Volume 2 The rise of the Church (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), P. 10.

</font>[/QUOTE]Even authors that “insist” on using Gal 4 as a method to attack Christ the Creator’s memorial of His creative act – and given as His holy day in Gen 2:3 (a blessing for all mankind Mark 2:27) – admit that their blind use of 4:10 as a reference to God’s Ordinances in His Word – is merely a preference not a fact dictated by the text.

:”They (the days, months, seasons and years) could equally well of course refer to the quasi-magical observances that we know to have been rife in Ephesus and presumably in other parts of Asia Minor too (Acts 19:19) Heterodox Jews as well as pagans certainly practices these arts as we see from Acts 19:”

The Rev. Cannon R. A. Cole, M.Th, Ph.D. The Letter of Paul to the Galatians (Inter-Varsity Press, 1965, 1989) P. 165)

Even those that presume that the only influence on the Galatian Christians are Jews – hoping even to limit it to orthodox Jews we find..

“Apparently on account of their pagan background, the Galatians, as aptly stated by W. Rordorf, ‘could only discern in the particular attention paid by the Jews to certain days and seasons nothing more than religious veneration paid to stars and natural forces’ “

Samuel Bacchiocchi Ph.D, The Sabbath in the New Testament, Biblical Perspectives 1995, p 122
(Graduate from Gregorian Pontifical University – Summa Cum Laude

Willy Rordorf Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church (Philadelphia, 1968), p133

#1 The Greek term for "observe" in Gal 4 is NOT the term used in Romans 14 that is also translated "observe". Rather in the unique Gal 4 case it means" to "watch with evil intent" and refers to something like the astrology practices seen today.

Lev 19 describes it in other Bile translations as –

26 "`Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood; neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe omens.(KJ21)
26You shall not eat anything with the blood; neither shall you use magic, omens, or witchcraft [or predict events by horoscope or signs and lucky days].(AMP)

So “instead” of the Gal 4 text addressing the popular notion of “obeying God’s Word when you don’t really have to if you don’t feel like it” – the Gal 4 text is condemning “observe” as in the pagan practice “...to inspect alongside" (i.e. to note insidiously). Where "Insidious" can be to "intended to entrap or beguile", or "stealthily treacherous or deceitful.
#2. God's Word did not command His people to "observe seasons or months".

#3. Using another word for “observance” -- The "observances of days" is mentioned in Romans 14 and the "Condemnation" there is against anyone who would "condemn" the "observances". Bending Gal 4 to point at the very practices employed in Romans 14 is a abusive example of eisegesis.

#4. In this case months and seasons are lumped in with days. The indication of a pagan system of practice is clearly - and repeatedly brought to view. Nothing here is ordained by God - established by God - given by God as a practice for God's people. It is utterly condemned as originating from pagan worship alone.

#5. Paul says this is “a return” and that they are “enslaved all over AGAIN” – these gentiles, these converted pagans – were never Jews. They are not returning to “salvation by keeping the Law of God” as something they “used to do”. This is simply “another” problem Paul is identifying among the Galatians that is in “Addition” to their problem with Judaizers


11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

Here is the ultimate proof - this is a practice never to be defended (so it is not anything like the practices being defended in Romans 14) . It is a practice that invalidates the gospel, salvation lost for those who engage in returning to those pagan systems of worship - pagan practices.

The speculation that Paul defended this practice is Romans 14 as a practice not to be condemned - only shows the lengths to which some will go to launch an attack on the creator's own holy day (made holy by him when he created earth) - as he calls it the Sabbath day (not merely leaving it with a day-number God tells us the 7th day is the Sabbath of God).

Of course the fact that the Jews themselves - who lived in these pagan centers - had begun to incorporate these pagan practices into the Hebrew faith, only made the problem more difficult for gentile Christians.

See the clear teaching in Gal 4 that this is the "lost state" not a statement about the "Spiritual holy just and true Law of God" in its "unholy, unjust, untrue, unspiritual" form of "elemental things that pertain only to The World" and not god at all.
It is precisely "because" Paul always holds the Law of God to be "Spiritual" where man is "sinful" and to always be "Holy Just and true" where man is rebellious and to always be binding so that we are to be "DOERS of the LAW are justified before God" Rom2:13 that Paul can say "Do we then abolish the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31. How embarrassing for those doctrines that say "Yes! we DO abolish the Law of God - Now we just keep the commandments of Christ - a New Law not that old Law of God".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

A short follow on to Gal 4 from Eric's reference -

#1. No text says that the Word of God is bondage.

#2. Gal 3 points out that the Law condemns ALL and that "Scripture places all under sin". Making God's LAW and Scripture - interchangeable. Indeed they are "The Word of God"

#3. Gal 04 references the practice of gentile Christians before their conversion of worshipping that "which is not god at all" and practices pertaining to the "Weak and beggarly things of this world".

#4. God's Word, God's Law, Scripture is never referenced as "a weak and beggarly thing" in all of scripture - much less by Paul.

#5. God's Word never says that obedience to the Word of God "is a form of slavery":.

#6. God's Word never says "the New Moons feast days are made for mankind" - no are they included in the 10 commandments nor are they included in the pre-cross institutions given to mankind. "Whatever else" you may think of them.

#7. God's Word presents Christ the Creator's 7th day Sabbath as "Made for mankind" and "included" in the "10 commandments" as "continued even after the 2nd coming" in the New Earth and as "given before the sin of Adam" to all mankind.

#8. Christ the Creator's Holy day is never called "that which pertains to the weak and beggarly things of this world" in the NT or the OT.

#9. God's commandments are valid in the pre-cross NT text of MAtt, Mark, Luke John even by the most abusive doctrinal structures today. "Not repeated means deleted" fails there at the very start.

#10 instead of saying "Our faith now declares Scripture God's Law to be of the weak and beggarly things of this World and obedience to it is returning to paganism" - Paul says "Do we then abolish the Law Of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the LAw of God!" Rom 3:31

#11. Instead of saying "Being a DOER of God's LAW" is an optional choice and you should NOT expect others to obey it -- Paul says "IT is NOT the HEARERS of God's Law that are JUST before God but the DOERS will be Justified" Rom 2:13

Obviously this is a far cry from the eisegetical approach to Gal 04 that would claim that the "weak and beggarly things of this world" consist of a Christian who pays attention to the Law of God - because someone like Paul has said to him "IT is NOT the HEARERS of God's Law that are JUST before God but the DOERS will be Justified" Rom 2:13

#12. Christ said "If you LOVE Me KEEP My commandments" John 14:15 and John "continues" to show that same obligation in 1 John 2 and in Rev 12. Instead of turning and saying "no wait! To do as Christ commanded is now the Weak beggarly thing

 

[Eric B]

But, what do YOU say, Ignatius means with his use of "sabbatidontes" - "NO LONGER sabbatidzontes"?
Don't you -like the Sundaydarians- say Ignatius speaks of "no longer keeping THE SABBATH" (Seventh Day)?

I'm not sure. I assumed it mean no longer keeping the Sabbath. But then I have heard how "Lord's Day" is a mistranslation ("lordly", or "the Lord's life"). So who knows. I have never studied the fathers that extensively. What Ignatius said doesn't matter, because he and those after him must be subjected too the Bible.

But most important, what do YOU, make of Hb.4:4-5, that says, "GOD, THUS, concerning the Seventh DAY did speak, And God the Seventh DAY, RESTED"? -No Eric B, your sophistry is transparent, like your whole argument restated above, that you actually DENY your own standpoint that you do not have anything against God's Law, because your whole argument is directed against the "keeping of the Sabbath DAY" commanded in the Fourth Commandment.

More attacks! Once again, YOU yourself do not keep the day according to "the Law"! You have spiritualized it away as much as I may have, into something completely different from what the Law commanded. You have even said something like it is a different Law; a Christian one, and not the OT one, or something like that, IIRC. Only difference is you go to church on the day, and thus "recognize" it a bit more. But that is not KEEPing it by RESTing in the literal fashion you all insist. Once again, you even said one could even work their job on it, and you use a computer for debates on it. So don't come with your accusations, because your position is closer to my position on Heb. than to other sabbathkeepers.

I'll never speak another word about this subject WITH YOU!

Great. This whole argument is fruitless.