The Decline of the Sabbath

Yes, the evaluation being done in vs 5 is for the PURPOSE of OBSERVANCE in vs 6.
The person who evaluates days, and judges one as special OVER another thus "OBSERVES" the day, and the one who evaluates the days, to all be alike, is the one who "DOES NOT" observe "the day".
That's how the words in the two verses connect; even though they are still two different words with two different meanings. Still nothing about any "list of days".

 

The one who values ONE ABOVE another ABSERVES the one and does NOT observe the other.

The one who VALUES THEM ALL -- observes ALL

There is NO "VALUES NONE" of the days in Romans 14.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Again, you're assuming "value" equates "observe", but again, every single one of us VALUES every single day: --in some way or another. Some value certain days as special, (and thus "observe" them) and some don't. Those who don't therefore place very little "value" on all days, and therefore, "every day alike", even though that "value" is low. That is the sense being conveyed there, and why "alike" was added.

 

GE:

Lk12:23a, Life is more than meat. Ro14:17, The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy, in the Holy Ghost, for HE (the Holy Spirit) that in these things (righteousness and peace) SERVETH CHRIST (the Holy Spirit witnesses of Christ) is well-pleasing to God and notable among men."

My point is (Paul's), that food and drink received importance among the believers of the day more than we could imagine! 'Days' were of next importance to the food and drink of religious 'value'. And all and everything else was of no value unless to the service of Christ in meekness.

 

#1 nothing in the text speaks of those who "value no day" nor of those who "observe no day".

#2. in the one case a person "values ONE day in the list ABOVE another" -- and so OBSERVES the one VALUED but not the others for they are not VALUED.

#3. In the other case one person "VALUES THEM ALL" and so "OBSERVES" all that are VALUED.

in NO case does Paul address the person who "VALUES NO DAYS" and so "OBSERVES NO DAYS" in that Lev 23 list of annual holy days.

Obviously.

in Christ,

 

1) Read again what I said. I didn't say that anybody VALUEd NO days, but I in fact denied that and said that everyone "values" every day one way or another; either "high" as a special day they "observe" religiously, or low, as any regular day.
You're still confusing "value" and "observe".

2) There is no "list" mentioned. Just days in general. And while it is true that a person valuing a day over another means "observing" the day in this case; where the argument lies is that:

3) Paul nowhere explains that "what a person values he observes". everyone values or esteems every day as either a special, holy day, or as just a regular day. "holy day" versus "regular day" is an "ESTEEM"ING or JUDGMENT. It's only the person who values one ABOVE another who "observes" it. So Paul starts off speaking comparitively of the preferences people may or may not have for certain days, and then he takes a case of a hypothetical day one person observes that another does not. The fact that two totally different words are used for "esteem" and "observe" shows this transition. There is no license to imagine discussion of a "list" of days that is nowhere mentioned.

And don't forget, if it was a "list" of annual days only, you are one of those who "observes NO[ne of those] days".

 

I don't deny that I am not observing ANY of the annual holy days in the LEV 23 list. But that was not the PROBLEM Paul had to deal with --

The real problem was between those who selected ONE ABOVE the other days observing IT but did NOT OBSERVE the others -- -compared to those who VALUED ALL OF THEM and so OBSERVED ALL.

IF I could wrench bend and twist the text and context around to say "some are like Bob and they do not VALUE any of the annual days of LEV 23 while SOME OTHERS DO value one above the others" then I would be happy to do it sir. I can not bring myself to such an abuse of the text! OTHERS seem to have no problem at all with it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Problem is, there was no practice of keeping only some of the holy days, and being judged for not keeping all. Jews kept them all, gentiles either did not keep them, or were influenced by the Jews who did keep them.
All we see is a distinction between some who observe certain days as special, and others who esteem all days as the same.

 

That is not true at all.

There were THREE mandatory days out of the list in Lev 23 that Jews were required to keep the others were pretty much optional.

The GENTILES we SEE IN The synagogues WORSHIPPING with the Jews in Acts 13 EVEN in cases where Christian EVANGELISM is the focus!

The GENTILES have their issue with Jewish Christians submitted to the JEWISH COUNCIL in Acts 15 to decide the matter. Clearly the CREATOR the Scriptures - the MESSIAH was all coming FROM Jewish Teaching, Scripture, etc TO the Gentiles -- Christ HIMSELF was a Jew.

For your argument to work - your premise had to hold water - it does not.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Where in the world do you get that?

Lev. 23 (NKJV)
1 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘The feasts of the LORD, which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations, these are My feasts.

4 ‘These are the feasts of the LORD, holy convocations which you shall proclaim at their appointed times.

37 ‘These are the feasts of the LORD which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire to the LORD, a burnt offering and a grain offering, a sacrifice and drink offerings, everything on its day— 38 besides the Sabbaths of the LORD, besides your gifts, besides all your vows, and besides all your freewill offerings which you give to the LORD.

I do not see any option for not observing all the feasts of the LORD. Isreal was commanded to keep them all.

 

As usual - my references are all from non-Sabbath keeping Bible commentary authors.

(I believe this level of objectivity is in some cases available to those who take the opposing view - but seldom seen on these boards)



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.



Adam Clark’s commentary

Chapter 14
In things indifferent, Christians should not condemn each other, 1. Particularly with respect to different kinds of food, 2-4. And the observation of certain days, 5,6. None of us should live unto himself, but unto Christ, who lived and died for us, 7-9. We must not judge each other; for all judgment belongs to God,

Verse 5. One man esteemeth one day above another
Perhaps the word ημεραν, day, is here taken for time, festival, and such like, in which sense it is frequently used. Reference is made here to the Jewish institutions, and especially their festivals; such as the passover, pentecost, feast of tabernacles, new moons, jubilee, Jew still thought these of moral obligation;.
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ro&chapter=014

[/quote]

Jamieson Fausset Brown

http://www.studylight.org/com/jfb/view.cgi?book=ro&chapter=014

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.

 

Thank you, TC.

Bob forgets that all we have in the text in discussion, is DAYS, being "esteemed" and "observed". Nothing about male pilgrimmages.
Why doesn't the text then just say "some men observe every annual day, and some observe only the pilgrimmages"?

I have told you this every time we have had this discussion. Each of the annual days was a sabbath, or at least had annual sabbaths associated with them. These were to be "observed" by ALL (including females), by following the general rules for sabbath observance, plus whatever additional commands associated with it, whether a male pilgrimmage, or unleavened bread, or sacrifices or living in tabernacles. You have absolutely NO warrant to turn "observe" in Romans into a reference to the pilgrimmage only; (on top of making it the same as the word "esteem"). You are just adding more and more to the text that is JUST NOT THERE!

Even Clarke's commentary does not exclude the weekly sabbath. He said "especially the festivals", which he specified as parts of "Jewish institutions" and "observance of days".

Your having to define "observance" as only a "pilgrimmage", shows you do not have any kind of argument.

 

That is what I like about Eric -- he squirms until he has no room left at all!!

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.

 

#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.

 

I'm not squirning; you're just ignoring the truth nd pretending it has not been shown to you.

So they did not have to observe the Passover (Nisan 14th, which was SEPARATE from the days of unleavened bread, though Henry calls the whole period "Passover"), the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Last Great Day? Are you sure you want to claim that? LEt's go back to Lev.23. There, God calls ALL of them "holy convocations", (v.2), and then reiterates individually that they are holy convocations: Feast of Trumpets: v24; Day of Atonement: v27; Last Great Day: v36. And the Passover was established in Ex.12, where it also was a separate event of "the whole assembly".
Where does God say that these other four days were optional? Let alone, where does Paul say that in contrast to the three being mandatory?
So the three days had a pilgrimmage of males, and you equivocate the concept of "mandatory" as referring to the pilgrimmage only, yet all of those days were "holy convocations", to be OBSERVED in ONE WAY or another by ALL.

You are really straining to prove your point.

Well I don't say that you can't keep the sabbath, or that you are going back under the Law if you do. Just don't judge others for not keeping it. THAT's what brings you back under the Law. But you have to fight tooth and nail to rewrite this chapter to say something that never existed, because your whole MO would fall if you admitted its plain meaning.

 

I have already showed you that all Isreal was commanded to observe all the feasts of the LORD from Leviticus 23. You read what you want into the scripture intead of simply believing the scriptures as they are written. I do not care how many commentators you cut and paste from, I only care what the Bible says. Commentators are not infallible.

 

The flaw in your response is that Deut 16:16 and Ex 23 are not "Bible commentaries that can be ignored"



Quote:
Deut 16:16
Quote:
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.

Having said that - you have unwittingly made the case worse by your argument -- because you insist that in the TWO cases we have

1. Those who OBSERVE ALL -- (and you say this is the only option for Jews)
2. Those who observe ONE ABOVE the others (which according to your logic COULD only be done by Gentiles since Jews have to OBSERVE ALL)

Did I miss something??

in Christ,

Bob

 

Ex 23 (NASB)
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.


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.

You guys seem to continually insist that we ignore these texts "as if this part of scripture is just unninspired Bible commentary" and then say "Jews would ALWAYS be observing EVERY day in the LIST of Lev 23 days".

Which means the ONLY ones (in YOUR model) that COULD have been "selecting ONE of the days to observe ABOVE the others so as NOT to observe the OTHER days when selecting the ONE day they CHOOSE" would be Gentiles!

Does that really make your case better??

Why do you argue that?

in Christ,

Bob

 

So do those two passages contradict and override Lev.23, which calls ALL the days "holy convocations"? You are the one who ignores Lev.23 (except to bring it into Rom.14; then you trash it in favor of both commentaries and these other passages). But we are not to use one passage to try to get around another. They must harmonize. And the harmony in this case is simple. All of the days are holy convocations for all, and three of them include a special appearance of the males. No contradiction at all. One is a subset of the other. And it is ALL a form of "OBSERVANCE" of the days. Yet you have absolutely no scriptural warrant to claim "observance" is the male pilgrimmage only. Your side just made that up when confronted with Rom.14, because it was the only way to get around it.

If Deut.16 and Ex.23 are supposed to be your biblical answer, and "are not commentaries to be ignored" and prove your point on their own, then why do you keep quoting the commentary to prove your interpretation of those passages? Why can't you let the scriptures stand on their own?

The irony is that the commentaries do not even prove that Paul was referencing ONLY the pilgrimmages in Rom.14. You paste both of them together, but one is only pointing out the annual days (which we have not denied are part of what Paul is talking about), and the other is only pointing out the pilgrimmages (which are part of the "observance" of the days).

Nowhere do they even tie the pilgrimmages with Rom.14.

 

The males appearing before the LORD three times a year was a part of keeping those days specified. It does not mean that they can ignore the other feast days - they are all holy convications per Leviticus 23.