Do you accidently contradict Rom 14 with Gal 4??

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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.

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

 

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.

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.

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 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".

 

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

 

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

 

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