The Decline of the Sabbath

[BobRyan]

So you are saying that the Bible point is "You ALL have to appear before the Lord at ALL annual feasts but you MEN have to appear before the Lord at these THREE feasts"???

And you are comfortable with that spin?

Ok - But you can see why most Bible scholars and commentaries would not go that path with you correct?

Now back to Rom 14.

Here you are arguing that those keeping ALL the days "observing EVERY DAY" are the Jews because they have to do it.

But the GENTILES are the one that are selectively "choosing ONE ABOVE the others" and observing the ONE but not the others?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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

So do those two passages contradict and override Lev.23, which calls ALL the days "holy convocations"?

No - the contradiction rests with those who imagine that no matter what Deut 16 and Ex 23 say - ALL were required to attend ALL of the annual holy convocation events in Israel. The point of Deut 16 and Ex 23 is that for SOME of those holy convocations they would not be required to travel to Israel and present offerings.

The point remains - they had a LIST OF DAYS and in some cases it is not doubted that as you suggest they observed ALL OF THEM. But even in the OT Deut 16 and Ex 23 show that they did not ALL always have to observe ALL the days in the LIST.

So no wonder the FIRST century primarily Jewish Christian church had to address this as more and more Gentiles joined the group and as more and more Jews started re-thinking whether they wanted to participate in ALL the days or "one above the others"

Eric
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).

You have missed the point entirely or are simply trying to divert it.

The point is to find a BIBLE CONTEXT for the LIST of days from which some are picking "ONE ABOVE THE OTHERS" and another person is picking "ALL OF THEM" to value (favor, honor) in observance.

The point is that SUCH A BIBLICAL LIST exists!

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.

If we say that your family must ALL appear in court ALL 5 working days this week -- we could have no sensible way to add "but on Mon-Wed-Friday the boys must show up"

I guess wild-imagination gets a big workout in your Bible study events Eric. I have no idea how you are able to spin and respin like that.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Ex 23 (NASB)
Quote:
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]:


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.

 

[Eric B]

So you are saying that the Bible point is "You ALL have to appear before the Lord at ALL annual feasts but you MEN have to appear before the Lord at these THREE feasts"???

And you are comfortable with that spin?

Ok - But you can see why most Bible scholars and commentaries would not go that path with you correct?

Now back to Rom 14.

Here you are arguing that those keeping ALL the days "observing EVERY DAY" are the Jews because they have to do it.

But the GENTILES are the one that are selectively "choosing ONE ABOVE the others" and observing the ONE but not the others?

in Christ,

Bob

No - the contradiction rests with those who imagine that no matter what Deut 16 and Ex 23 say - ALL were required to attend ALL of the annual holy convocation events in Israel. The point of Deut 16 and Ex 23 is that for SOME of those holy convocations they would not be required to travel to Israel and present offerings.

NOW, you finally acknowledge the point I have been making.
So the issue is, you have to PROVE that in Romans 14, "observance" referred to ONLY the male prilgrimmage, and not to the holy convocation required of all.

The point remains - they had a LIST OF DAYS and in some cases it is not doubted that as you suggest they observed ALL OF THEM. But even in the OT Deut 16 and Ex 23 show that they did not ALL always have to observe ALL the days in the LIST.

So no wonder the FIRST century primarily Jewish Christian church had to address this as more and more Gentiles joined the group and as more and more Jews started re-thinking whether they wanted to participate in ALL the days or "one above the others"

But there are TWO "lists" in consideration. the list of all seven feasts in Lev. 23, and this list of yours of only the days the males had to appear. You would need to show Paul referencing male pilgrimmages in Romans, but he doesn't he is very general regarding "observance" of "days".

You have missed the point entirely or are simply trying to divert it.

The point is to find a BIBLE CONTEXT for the LIST of days from which some are picking "ONE ABOVE THE OTHERS" and another person is picking "ALL OF THEM" to value (favor, honor) in observance.

The point is that SUCH A BIBLICAL LIST exists!

No; YOU'RE the one ignoring the context. You ADD the assumption of "the three days with male pilgrimmages ONLY" to the text, to support your "keeping some or keeping all but not keeping none". the clear Bible context is that Jews had special days that they ESTEEMed over all other days, while most Gentiles regarded all days as non-special, and neither side was to judge the other. You have to twist and turn and bring this "male pilgrimmages" argument in here even though it is nowhere even referenced in Romans, because it is the only way to excuse yourself for judging others for not observing a particular day.

If we say that your family must ALL appear in court ALL 5 working days this week -- we could have no sensible way to add "but on Mon-Wed-Friday the boys must show up"

I guess wild-imagination gets a big workout in your Bible study events Eric. I have no idea how you are able to spin and respin like that.

in Christ,

Bob

Don't try to play ignorant now. You already acknowledged the distinction between what ALL have to do on all days, and what SOME have to do on SOME of those days.
It would be more like five days your family has to appear at your local court, and on three of those days, the boys must also appear at Supreme Court.

 

[BobRyan]

1. The unbiased objective reader can easily see THE Biblical "list of holy days" the annual holy days approved in scripture - in Lev 23.

(Though apparently Eric believes that pounding on the pulpit would stop that simple observation)

2. The unbiased objective reader clearly sees in both Deut 16 and in Exod 23 that THREE OF THOSE annual holy days in that LIST - were mandatory for men to APPEAR before the Lord IN Jerusalem.

Hint: Though apparently this fact is lost on Eric -- The unbiased objectiver reader including the commentaries listed see this EASILY

3. EVEN if you take the failed conclusion that Jewish Christians would value ALL the Holy Days - holding ALL of them to be sacred and to be OBSERVED -- one can hardly argue that the Gentiles would necessarily insist on OBSERVING ALL of them. At best they would select ONE ABOVE the others to OBSERVE the one but NOT the others.

And hence - you have the RESULT seen in Romans 14.

This is nearly impossible to miss EVEN if we take the wild notion Eric offers us of insisting that the Jews would "OBSERVE ALL OF THEM" juding ALL of them to be sacred and not ONE ABOVE the others.

Sadly - Eric has to "pretend" that this is not incredibly obvious to the objective unbiased reader. But the fact is that there is no pulpit-pounding that can possibly obscure the text here.

I don't know where you can go with your argument at this point Eric. You seem to have run out of answers and the Bible is clearly not supporting your speculation at this point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Perhaps a more direct and obvious solution is that these texts are telling the truth Eric.

Quote:
Ex 23 (NASB)
Quote:
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]:


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.

And so that means that while some Christian in the early first century church might indeed value ALL OF THE DAYS - selecting ALL OF THEM to hold in high regard and s to OBSERVE them -- there is clear precidence for some who would select at least THREE OF THEM ABOVE the others even in the OT.

And in NT times perhaphs even selecting ONE of them ABOVE the others.

It is easy to see how that would the case for these Biblically established LIST of annual holy days.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

Your argument is all speculation. "while some might...there is a clear precedent...". Meanwhile, what does the TEXT of Rom. 14 actually SAY? It mentions NOTHING about gentiles might keep only the three male pilgrimmages, or even better yet. just ONE of the holy days? Why would they? Gentiles influenced by the Jews would be persuaded by them to keep ALL seven days, and other who were not influenced by them would keep NONE of them (hence, no day would be esteemed over another, and thus all days would be esteemed alike.
The Gill commentary even mentions the days being "shadows". If they were shadows, then wouldn't ALL of them no longer be mandatory? Your argument seems to suggest that the three pilgrimmage days were still mandatory. If they were not still mandatory, why would Gentiles, or anyone, according to Paul' instruction keep them "over" the other four days? Why would they keep only one of them over the other six? While the principle Paul was teaching would allow a person to do this, you are trying to make it some specific instance of days, rather than general. Why does the actual text not mention this? These are the questions you must answer, instead of calling someone else's argument failed, and repeating the same commentary, which no one is disputing. You have no argument at all here, and as usual, substitute tough talking to the other side. How can you think to be so right when you are clearly making the Bible say whatever you want it to say?

 

[BobRyan]

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.

OK so in your view that would be "ALL must appear before me on ALL these Annual holy days - but three times a year the males must appear before Me on 3 of these annual holy days" (as strained as such an interpretation would be....)

So that means that using your view when you read Romans 14 those who "observe ALL of the days" those who highly value and highly regard THEM ALL "every day" in that list of holy days have to be the Jews.

In that case those who conversely "Value ONE of the days ABOVE another" could not be the Jews as in Ex 23 or Deut 19 but would have to be among the Gentile Christians because in your view no Jew could be doing that.

As much as I don't agree with what you are saying - I still don't see how your solution gets you out of the weekly Sabbath and I don't see how it gets you to thie "Value NO DAY" in the list of Lev 23 as the topic of Romans 14.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[TC]

I think you are just being obtuse and misrepresenting what other people say on purpose. You just don't like it that the Bible calls all the feasts of the LORD holy convications and commands the Israelites to observe all of them.

 

[BobRyan]

I am simply pointing out that the direction you are taking here - does not solve your problem in Romans 14 and I do that by showing what happens when we insert your "all Jews OBSERVE EVERY day" idea into the text.

I think the objective unbiased reader can easily see that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

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.

GE:

Weekly Sabbaths were not included. The esteem or regard of days - whether by 'krinoh' or 'phroneoh' - was not the issue in this Scripture. As pointed out before, everybody 'observed' the 'days'. The real issue was people's attiude, of all things, about "food and drink". I haven't seen anybody react to the point.

I would not generalise and say the 'days' involved all or any Jewish feasts. As far as I make out, only the Passover answers all the indications. E.g., wine was either drunk or not drunk. Just with the Passover wine was not drunk. With Passover certain days were esteemed above the other esteemed days, the three first days namely, the seventh of Unleavened Bread (or eighth day, Day of Preparation included), and the fiftieth day from the third first day (of First Sheaf Wave Offering). Then only on Passover the eating of meat co-incided with the abstention from wine.

But to say it again, this was not the real problem. Therefore the Sabbath couldn't have had anything to do with it.

 

[Eric B]

Food and drink was ONE problem Paul addresses in the chapter, and observance of days was ANOTHER. BOTH were issues Christians judged one another over, and THAT was the issue of the Chapter, not just "an attitude about food and drink". Paul does not say "By observance of days, I mean eating food and drink on one or the other".

That seems to be similar to the tactic used by those who believe the annual days are still in effect (such as Armstrongism). They can't allow for the text to be addressing even the annual days, so they somehow claim it is about "fasting", IIRC. but the issue is clearly JUDGING. Funny how there's all these different ways to interpret this passage by sabbatarians.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

"the issue is clearly JUDGING" Eric B.

I put it another way, calling it an 'attitude' -- yes, too mildly! Of course you are quite right about that!

But nowhere in 13 to 15 do we read about any 'judging' another over 'days observed'. You claiming so are wrong. It's not there. But there is a judging condemned by Paul regarding food and drink! And there are other places in the Scriptures about this very 'issue', like Lk12. You are an opponent of God's Sabbath Day; funny how you wandle your way out, even though there in this Scripture is nothing to escape from! A guilty conscience perhaps? Not 'funny', but ironic!

 

[Eric B]

Gee, another one changing the meaning of the text, and also judging another's motives.
Why should I have a guilty conscience, when the test in question clearly says I am not to be judged for not esteeming one day over another or observing the day?

In 13-15, he is summarizing what he has been discussing since v.1. The whole CONTEXT is things people do differently from others, and judge them over. That is BOTH "food and drink, and observance of days. The whole chapter stands together. He earlier mentioned "judging" in v.4 also. v.5 is not to be torn out of the passage, because it mentions something other than food and drink. People judge over food and drink, and they judge over days, and both practices are a "stumblingblock". Is that hard to understand?

You are the one "wandling" your way out of something--the clear meaning of the text, in order to justify your JUDGING another over a day of observance. I have no reason to oppose your sabbath; especially when you have before said I would not even have to cease my job. Stop judging people's motives!

 

[BobRyan]

Food and drink was ONE problem Paul addresses in the chapter, and observance of days was ANOTHER. BOTH were issues Christians judged one another over, and THAT was the issue of the Chapter, not just "an attitude about food and drink". Paul does not say "By observance of days, I mean eating food and drink on one or the other".

True.

Eric
That seems to be similar to the tactic used by those who believe the annual days are still in effect (such as Armstrongism). They can't allow for the text to be addressing even the annual days, so they somehow claim it is about "fasting",

I am not familiar with that argument but I do agree that the list of days referenced in Romans 14 has to be the "Bible list" given in Lev 23 of annual holy days -- days that were "to be observed".

Some Christians apparently observed all of them and others observed one day ABOVE the others.

The issue is still as you say - about judging others in these purely optional post-cross observances of annual holy days.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Gee, another one changing the meaning of the text, and also judging another's motives.

Why should I have a guilty conscience, when the test in question clearly says I am not to be judged for not esteeming one day over another or observing the day?

In 13-15, he is summarizing what he has been discussing since v.1. The whole CONTEXT is things people do differently from others, and judge them over. That is BOTH "food and drink, and observance of days. The whole chapter stands together. He earlier mentioned "judging" in v.4 also. v.5 is not to be torn out of the passage, because it mentions something other than food and drink. People judge over food and drink, and they judge over days, and both practices are a "stumblingblock". Is that hard to understand?

You are the one "wandling" your way out of something--the clear meaning of the text, in order to justify your JUDGING another over a day of observance. I have no reason to oppose your sabbath; especially when you have before said I would not even have to cease my job. Stop judging people's motives!

GE:

Paul says why do you judge your brother; he doesn't say why do you judge days. Immediately he follows on saying one man esteemeth one day above another, another man esteemeth every day like the other. Nobody judged any brother for esteeming of these days they all esteemed, but differently.
Then Paul expressly states that the Kingdom of God is "not meat or drink". So that explains why and what for the brothers condemned one another. If "Both practices were a stumbling block", Paul would have said so. The stumbling block was not days observed; it was days differently observed. That should be clear enough. And it at once clearly is no case of the Sabbath being observed or not observed. Stick to your own principles - admirable principles (refer your conversation with mmann) - not to read into the text what you would like to find in there.
'Wangle' it should have been.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Eric B:

"I have no reason to oppose your sabbath; especially when you have before said I would not even have to cease my job. Stop judging people's motives!"

GE:

You wouldn't? Then why call the Sabbath of the Lord your God (too), 'your' - that is, 'my' - 'sabbath'? If you don't have a motive about the Sabbath, then your motive is one of negativity. Objectivity without involvement somehow is impossible, and you know that deep down. If you have a positive feeling about something then it surely will manifest. I have not noticed it yet re the Sabbath with you. Who am I to expect anything, anyway! It is between you and your own Saviour - Whom I also hold dear for mine. But I don't hesitate to be an enthusiast for the Lord's Day because it is an enthusiasm for Truth, and for the Truth of Jesus Christ. Epsecially within the context of the ongoing conflict between this Truth and the lie of Sunday worshipping in the Church of Christ. It cannot be a stale state of affairs.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BobRyan:

"Some Christians apparently observed all of them and others observed one day ABOVE the others."

GE:

Not 'some'; 'apparently' i.e., obviously, everybody (in the Church of Rome) regarded / esteemed / observed / kept holy somehow, these specific days, obviously, the various days and/or outstanding, 'head'-days, of Passover.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Eric B:

"That seems to be similar to the tactic used by those who believe the annual days are still in effect (such as Armstrongism). They can't allow for the text to be addressing even the annual days, so they somehow claim it is about "fasting" ..."

GE:

I think it a most important aspect to keep in mind for understanding just this 'issue' and Scripture, namely that it reflects the bridging period in the development of the New Testament Church. Those who teach these 'days' should still be observed haven't come further than this intermediate phase. They also - more importantly - have not yet learned that whosoever Feast Christ through keeping the one and only Lord's Day Sabbath of the Lord your God for evermore, Feast all Old Testament Feast-'Days' -- 'IN HIM'.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:

"judging others in these purely optional post-cross observances of annual holy days."

GE:

There is only, "a keeping of the Sabbath still valid for the People of God" - that indispensible, life-necessary, "spectre of things a coming", namely, of "the Body of Christ's Own ... growing with the growth of God", "wherein no one you let yourselves be judged!" NOTHING, 'optional' about any of the two; the old was to make way for the new, once for all and totally. We keep ALL OT feasts who in these last days are in Christ keeping the Seventh Day God thus concerning through the Son did speak.