Do you accidently contradict Rom 14 with Gal 4??

Thanks Bob for correcting me. You are right that Gal 4 appears to be about a return to pagan observences of dates.

While Gal 4 does not say this, I believe Romans 14 suggests that not allowing Christian liberty in this regard can be "taking them too far".

 

Very well said JD. I have tried to say this but you helped me understand it better. Thank you.

Gold Dragon I hope you read this. You are being led down a philosophical trail that ends up on Sinai.

I have never said allowing people to practice pagan worship is to be condoned. This is a rabbit trail around the issue of the words "elements" and "weak". Go back and read how this has progressed.

 

Sgt. Fury was a character employed by a DJ awhile back. Nino Griesmanelli, or "The Grease Man" is what he was called. The adventures of Sgt. Fury were Viet Nam flashbacks, usually filled with excessive violence and sexual inuendos, and at the time I took great delight in them.

Barring the unsavory aspects of the character, he was pretty hilarious, often taking a full throttle, "OH YEAH?, WATCH THIS" approach to ordinary situations that most would handle at an idle. It's usually my "profile" name when I play video games with my kids.

The OP presents an interesting topic. I hadn't given the two passages much comparative thinking prior to this. Bob obviously has. Good stuff.

 

Bob, you brought up a pertinent point in that the Galatians were tempted to return to pagan idolatry, while the Jews were tempted to continue in Jewish observances. The biggest difference in the two, and perhaps the key to solving this mystery, is that the Jewish observances had been ordained by God in the past, though not any longer required. The pagan rituals, however, had never been authorized by God, and were at their heart paying homage to demons.

The Jews living at the time of these letters had likely grown up under the Mosaic Law, and leaving those things behind would have been difficuly, I'm sure. The purpose of the Law being to bring the Jews to Christ, It would be far less "harmful" (for lack of a better word) for them to observe OT feast days than it would for Gentiles to return to the demon worship they had forsaken to become Christians.

That may help to explain the "give 'em a break" attitude of Rom 14, and the "you'd better not!" attitude of Gal 4.

 

If we look back to Gal 2 and 3, Paul discusses the influence of Judaizers there, as well. He even covers Peter's failure in caving in to the peer pressure of these false teachers when he stopped eating with the Gentiles. With the whole letter as the context of Gal 4, Paul seems to be telling those Gentiles, as well as us today, that there is no profit in observing either pagan rituals, or the Mosaic Law.

I do not imply that those today who worship on Saturday do so in an attempt to be justified by the Law, as the Galatians apparently were doing with circumcision, but with the examples in the NT of the disciples meeting for worship on Sunday, I don't see the point in it except a reluctance to concede the passing away of the OT. I don't doubt anyone's sincerity, but I don't see the point.

 

I noticed Matthew Henry says that the Galatians were admonished to not return to "ceremony", having previously been pagan in nature, but now the Judeaizers would lead them to Jewish ceremony.

The meaning, regardless, is clear - those that have trusted Christ are to continue in Christ and not turn to Moses. The writer of Hebrews severely warns Jews that cling to the Mosaic ceremonial shadows of Christ.

So how this applies to Rom 14, I'll have to think about it. Rom 14 deals with matters of conscience and since Jew were specifically forbidden to continue in sacrifices and such I have to assume they were not matters of conscience. Perhaps a Jew that had professed faith in Christ might continue in temple religion until he comes to understand the spiritual nature of New Covenant worship. In the interim, Rom 14 would apply.

No matter what, the Jews were to forsake temple worship, and gentiles were to forsake idol worship.

 

This may be one of those cases where the "first reader" principle needs to be applied. By this I mean that what was written may have had more significance to those to whom it was originally written, the first readers, than it does to us. The principle expressed in the text has application for all time, though the specific issue may not.

By way of example, consider Paul's instructions to those who had the gift of tongues in Corinth (1 Cor 14). The main principle in this passage IMO is this:

1Co 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

1Co 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

The issue at the time was the use (or misuse) of miraculous spiritual gifts. Those have long since past, (though some may argue to the contrary, as is their right), so the specific issue is not something we have to deal with today.

The overlying principle, that of orderly edification, still applies.

The first readers of Rom 14 had lifetimes of Jewish ceremony and culture to work through. Again, these things had in the past been authorized by God. They had believed and obeyed the gospel, and were no longer Jews in a religious sense, having become Christians. Nationally, they were still Jews, and different nations have different customs and observances.

For them to forsake so many things that were peculiarly Jewish would have put them at odds with friends and family, even more so than recognizing Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah. Once again, the Jewish feasts, etc had at one time been sanctioned by Jehovah, and their purpose was to bring to remembrance national events and to point to the Messiah. There would be no sin in continuing to remember these things.

Seeking justification through their observance would be a problem, though, thus the warnings against such elsewhere.

The Galatian Gentiles had not been Jews, would not be recalling Jewish national events, and did not need to take on any "Jewish characteristics" at all. Their former religious rites had never been authorized by God, and often consisted of wickedness, anyway, so for them to either seek justification in the Law, or to return to their former ways would have been sin.

They were complete in Christ, as any and all can be today. There is no need nor logic in seeking authority for religion in the OT when the NT is far superior, and far simpler. Though many OT principles still apply, men today are not under that covenant.

 

GE

I like the opposite understanding. See some other posts and threads where I have contributed. See also 'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace', http://www.biblestudents.co.za

Paul clearly concludes he (and) like his fellow Jews when they were 'under the Law' of OT-sanctity, were - just like 'you', Galatians - heathen! Heathens "in bondage under the first principles OF THE WORLD"! A miss is as good as a mile - 'bondage' is 'bondage'. The Jews (and Paul's) bondage always was just like that of total idolatry.
But this was what Paul discussed BEFORE he approached the actual Galatians situation. In 4:10 and on, the problem no longer is that of the (never mentioned but) SUPPOSED (only) 'Jewish' problem of the previous verses. Now Paul is specific: It is ALL, pagan and heathen - non-Jewish - IDOLATRY! Even where he speaks of circumcision Paul talks of the pagan thing. The text does not even suggest that if Judaism were supposed, it would be anything but raw audacious pagan idolatry which at no stage in its existence could remotely be associated with OT Law.

 

It means, Romans 14 and Galations 4:10 on have NOTHING to do with one another.

 

Bob, in response to a couple of the points you made concerning Passover and the Sabbath.

I'm not sure this is a sound basis for determining what is authorized under the NT. It actually gets into another discussion, but at the risk of changing the topic, I would contend that we are not at liberty to do something just because it is not specifically forbidden by the NT.

Closer to the point, I would point out that Gentiles were discouraged from bringing themselves under the bondage of the Law, which includes all OT observances. (I am under the assumption that you are not Jewish by nationality.)

In the Ten Commandments God told the Israelites to remember the Sabbath. This covenant was not offered to the whole world.

Exo 19:4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
Exo 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
Exo 19:7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.
Exo 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

God offered this covenant to Israel, and they accepted. It was at this time when God made know to them His holy sabbath.

Neh 9:13 Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments:
Neh 9:14 And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant

God did sanctify the sabbath in the beginning, as you said, but man was not made aware of it until He came down on Mt Sinai. It was a command of God given to a specific people. Unless one were a part of that group, ther is no point in keeping the command.

God commanded Noah to build an ark. The command was for a certain person, at a certain time, for a certain purpose. There would be no point in anyone since then obeying that command of God. That's all I meant in saying there was no point in it.

The commandment to keep the sabbath was for a certain group, at a certain time, for a certain purpose. I see no point in anyone obeying that command of God since the OT of which it was a part has been done away with.

 

I propose Bob Ryan be given the rank of Knight of the Forum, and be dubbed "Sir Posts-a-lot".

 

Sgt Fury

"The commandment to keep the sabbath was for a certain group, at a certain time, for a certain purpose. I see no point in anyone obeying that command of God since the OT of which it was a part has been done away with."

GE

May I ask what this has got to do with heading of this thread?

"... since the OT ... has been done away with."???? Are you a Christian; a Protestant; a Roman Catholic; even a pentecostal? I ask, because none of these hold the OT 'has been done away with'!