Should we still observe the sabbath?

[mfblume]

Notice how this was conveniently ignored.

Originally Posted by mfblume

That's taking the wrong direction from the notes presented earlier. Again, as I have repeated, the commandments included many things that were shadows. Shadows are the types of antitypes.

You do not go to Jerusalem to keep the feasts required to include pilgrimage there, but to the GREATER MORE SPIRITUAL Jerusalem, do you not?

For the same reason that you already use to not go to Jerusalem for some feasts, I don't keep seventh-day sabbath. Just apply the exact same principle for your greater Jerusalem to the sabbath issue, and you should understand our point, whether you agree or not. Imagine your argument I quoted being applied to the thought of you not going to natural Jerusalem for feast keeping. Does your argument hold up against refusal to go to Jerusalem? If not, then your argument does not hold up against my view of sabbath

While Jerusalem is spiritual now and not natural, do you still go to natural Jerusalem while also "going to" the spiritual Jerusalem? ...as you claim we should still keep natural sabbath day as well as the spiritual version that is greater?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

For the sake of the readers, I'd like to point out Paul is NOT talking about two laws, nor is he talking about any particular sets of commandments, but IS talking about TWO COVENANTS:

"24......Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. "

And that was said after Paul spoke about bondage of those who keep days, months and years. While sabbath keepers try to insist that the bondage to the elements of the world in Gal 4:3 was paganism, Paul's context clearly shows it is Old Covenant LAW.

Galatians 4:1-5.. Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; ..(2).. But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. ..(3).. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: ..(4).. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, ..(5).. To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

The comparison Paul is illustrating plainly points to Old Covenant law by use of the pictures of children under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the Father.

Illustration:
*Heirs as children under tutors and governors
*They remain under tutors and governors until an appointed time.

Paul's lesson:
*"We" Israelites were in bondage to the elements of the world.
*They remained there until God sent forth Jesus Christ who was made under the same law in which they were under. He came to redeemed them that were under the Law.

Because verse 5 and its note of Israel intended to be redeemed from the Law in the same "breath" as having stated that Israelites were under bondage to the elements of the world in verse 2, were are meant to not violate that context and say that verse 2's elements of the law is something different than verse 5's Law. Anyone else would clearly see the point. However, it is understandable that law-keepers in the Church refuse to see it due to the cognitive dissonance that accompanies a long-held belief system that fears disobeying God. Had not Paul stated that it is not a sin to keep holy days and esteem some days above others, it would be a seriously crying shame to see these good people refuse to see the plain context of Galatians 3 through 4. However, Paul nevertheless said that such people may not be sinners but are weak in the faith (Romans 14:1). That is not a slur!

But God would indeed want people to become strong in the faith.

So, Paul is indeed not talking about two laws, but rather covenants. HOWEVER, what is being sidestepped is our claim that the Old Covenant is being equated and synonymized as LAW in Galatians 3-4.

The Law that BINDS is proved to be referred to as the elements of the world in an educational elementary sense of the term, as PLAINLY witnessed in Gal 3:23-24, where Law is called a schoolmaster that KEEPS UNDER and SHUTS UP in a bondage as 4:2 limits heirs under tutors and governors (the EXACT same illustration points as the schoolmaster!) , which Paul elaborates to indeed truly be OLD COVENANT LAW by rephrasing the same note of verse 3's elements of the world by saying Jesus came to redeem them that were under the law.

In Paul's words, redeeming Jews from under the Law is synonymous with saying children under bondage of the elements of the world were removed when the time appointed of the father arrived.

Paul said NOTHING about redeeming them from under paganism as Law-keepers insist that the elements of the world refers to, in his answer to the existence of Israel under the elements of the world which corresponds to the illustration's existence under tutors and governors.

Therefore, the BONDAGE under elements of the world corresponds to the BONDAGE under the OLD COVENANT from Sinai in verses 24-25.

And law-keepers insist on grasping at verse 8's reference to paganism when Paul was actually saying the bondage of paganism was being tarded for bondage under the Schoolmastery of Law.

[mfblume]

Were the laws of God incorporated as part of the covenant at Sinai? Yes.

Were they also incorporated as part of the New Covenant? YES:

Wrong. IN the way you are treating hat aspect of the prophecy, you are incorrect.

It is providential that Hebrews chapter 8 made reference to this very prophecy you cite, seeing as Hebrews 8 distinctly says a CHANGE IN LAW occurs between the two covenants.

Hebrews generally states that the Old Covenant is inferior to the New. On that we can all agree. But it says more than that.

The priests of Old Covenant Law are from the Aaronic Levitical line while Jesus is from the Tribe of Judah. Those old priests served under SHadows, including Colossian's 2's shadow of sabbaths (all sabbath days not a certain separate group of a few).

Speaking of Jesus acting as High Priest IN HEAVEN, we read:

Hebrews 8:4-5.. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: ..(5).. Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

So the New Covenant is better since it deals not with shadows but realities of which the shadows merely prefigured.

Hebrews 8:6.. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

After having mentioned a better covenant, Hebrews then introduces Jeremiah's prophecy that Esaias quoted.

And indeed Jeremiah did speak of putting the laws into our hearts in this New Covenant. However, Hebrews 7, written immediately before chapter 8 (of course), said this, which is meant to be kept in mind when reading chapter 8:

Hebrews 7:11.. If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

He is comparing the Old Covenant system with the new and speaking more words about Levi's tribal priests and Christ's order after Melchisedek.

And then we read this:

Hebrews 7:12.. For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

All of the Levitical institutions that were comprised of ordinances and ceremonies comprised a set of Law that was CHANGED. Of course, law-keepers will argue that the change of law simply refers to the law of priesthood, which would be a redundant statement. Every knows if priesthood was changed then the law of priesthood was changed, because the priesthood existed due to the specific law that priests from Levi would be the priests of the Old Covenant.

Law was changed. All that was ceremonial and ordinancial was changed.

Paul also wrote of the writing of Law in our hearts:

2 Corinthians 3:3.. Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

Circumcision is of the heart, not flesh as if cut by hands.

And the rest that sabbath day depicted was a shadow of the rest following the New Covenant creation when Jesus sat on the right-hand throne, to which throne we come and enter His rest by ceasing from our own labours as God did from His. Hence, we are seated with Christ on the throne upon which He sat after He worked the work of new creation (Hebrews chapters 4 and 10; Eph 1.)

The New covenant saw us leave darkness and come to Christ's Kingdom on Zion instead of leaving Egypt and coming to Law at Sinai. And as circumcision is of the heart by baptism into Christ and circumcision was abrogated for Titus until offence became an issue, otherwise leaving physical circumcision undone under normal circumstances in the church, sabbath day was a shadow of the rest of Christ's work of the cross. Hence, WRITTEN IN THE HEART involves more than just living the exact same ceremonies and ordinances, but also fulfilling, not destroying, the same ceremonies in the greater manner. Is physical circumcision required by our local lawkeepers, or have they traded and abandoned it for circumcision of the heart just as traveling to Jerusalem for some of the feasts was abandoned and traded for the New Jerusalem of the church?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Jeremiah 31:31-33 KJV
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord : [33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Hebrews 8:8-10 KJV
For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: [9] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. [10] For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Does the power of grace in the new covenant through the Holy Ghost cause a person to actually DO the things commanded in the law? YES:

Yes, but in the greater manner as you no longer go to Jerusalem for any feasts when Old Covenant Israel did!

Romans 2:13-15 KJV
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. [14] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: [15] Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

How can a Gentile BY NATURE keep the seventh day without having been told by reading a Law to do so? Paul is speaking about the righteousness of the law that is done by nature by some Gentiles without ever having consulted or read the Law of Moses, because it is referring to the MORAL aspects and not the ceremonial and those described as ordinances. Nothing BY NATURE can ever lead one to keep the distinct and particular SEVENTH DAY, proving that Paul was referring to keeping law by nature as you imply.

Romans 6:15-23 KJV
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. [16] Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? [17] But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. [18] Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. [19] I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. [20] For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. [21] What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. [22] But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. [23] For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 8:1-9 KJV
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. [2] For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. [3] For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: [4] That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. [5] For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. [6] For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. [7] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. [8] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. [9] But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

None of these things are violated by people who refuse to keep seventh day as a sabbath but instead recognize it as a shadow. The repeated explanation that law-keepers just won't acknowledge is that keeping the fulfillment of a Law's shadow is not breaking that shadow.

Again, why do you not go to Jerusalem to keep feasts? If you are comparing those who do not keep the seventh day sabbath and instead keep the greater sabbath of rest in the gospel, to people who BREAK LAW, then why are you not breaking law by refusing to go to Jerusalem to keep the feasts? I claim there is no difference!

2 Chronicles 30:13.. And there assembled at Jerusalem much people to keep the feast of unleavened bread in the second month, a very great congregation.

Feasts of Unleavened bread, Shavuot (Pentecost) and Sukkot (Tabernacles) required one to go to Jerusalem because they are pilgrimage feasts. What corresponding "pilgrimage" do those who refuse to go to Jerusalem make instead of the same lack of travel that they make for the other feasts that are not pilgrimage feasts?

Exodus 23:17.. Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD.

Exodus 34:23.. Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel.

Deuteronomy 31:11.. When all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.

That place that God chose was Jerusalem.

There are law-keepers who believe in Jesus as Messiah and strongly criticise those who keep the feasts but do not go to Jerusalem to do so, and compare them to Rehoboam who ordained that people could worship at Dan instead, like they criticize those who do not keep the seventh day sabbaths. According to the stricter sect, these sabbath keepers violate the law in the way that they accuse us of not keeping sabbath. The argument that says the greater does not mean we should abandon the lesser sabbath is contradicted by their refusal to go to Jerusalem which was a shadow of the New Jerusalem.

Esaias, I just want to append this post with a note to you that I do not lack any respect for you and your great explanations of scriptures. I enjoy reading many things you write and have learned much from them. But I simply think you're wrong on this issue, as I may be wrong in things that I currently cannot see as wrong.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Esaias

First of all, it is a non sequitur. The existence of a greater spiritual principle does not obviate a literal commandment, simply as a direct result of the principle's existence.

Secondly, and more importantly, Jesus refuted this notion directly:

Mark 7:9-13 KJV
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. [10] For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: [11] But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. [12] And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; [13] Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Is God greater than one's parents? Yes. So dedicating your money to God is a greater act than dedicating your money to your parents? Yes, according to the Pharisees. Therefore, they said the greater spiritual principle of worshipping God overrides the literal commandment to provide for your parents.

But Jesus called this "rejecting the commandment of God to keep human tradition" and "making the word of God of no effect by your tradition."

I have a question on this. Is there any evidence that this was based on any Scriptural principles (the idea of giving to God overriding wrongdoing), or did they just make it up whole cloth? I know you mentioned the (obviously tenuous) connection to giving to God being greater, but is there any actual Scripture that gives even a smidge of credence to this doctrine they held to?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jito463

I have a question on this. Is there any evidence that this was based on any Scriptural principles (the idea of giving to God overriding wrongdoing), or did they just make it up whole cloth? I know you mentioned the (obviously tenuous) connection to giving to God being greater, but is there any actual Scripture that gives even a smidge of credence to this doctrine they held to?

The only Biblical evidence of the Corban doctrine is in the Gospels where Jesus asserts it as hypocritical and contrary to the word of God. I don't know if any of the Apocrypha references it.

It should be noted that the word corban is a common Hebrew scriptural term meaning a sacrificial offering. It primarily refers to animal sacrifices especially whole burnt offerings. Apparently, the Pharisees in Jesus' day taught that if a person's money was dedicated to God, it counted as a sacrificial offering. As such, it belonged to God and could not be used for ordinary purposes, including taking care of parents. I do not know the exact reasoning or arguments they used, but I think they must have been based on Lev 27:28-29.

As for giving to God overriding wrongdoing, Tobit 12:9 asserts that giving alms delivers from death and purges all sins. Ecclesiasticus 3:30 says that alms make an atonement for sins. So during the intertestamental period these writings seem to provide the germ of the idea later developed by the Pharisees.

The Cambridge Bible commentary says this:
11. If a man shall say] Literally it runs, If a man shall say to his father or his mother, That, from which thou mightest have been benefited by me, is Corban, that is to say, a gift, or offering consecrated to God, he shall be free, and ye suffer him no longer to do aught for his father or his mother. A person had merely to pronounce the word Corban over any possession or property, and it was irrevocably dedicated to the Temple. Our Lord is quoting a regular formula, which often occurs in the Talmudic tracts Nedarim and Nazir. Others would give to the words an imperative force, Be it Corban from which thou mightest have been benefited by me, i. e. “If I give thee anything or do anything for thee, may it be as though I gave thee that which is devoted to God, and may I be accounted perjured and sacrilegious.” This view certainly gives greater force to the charge made by our Lord, that the command “Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death” was nullified by the tradition.

The Pulpit Commentary says this:
The word "corban" is a Hebrew word, meaning "that which is brought near," "a gift or offering to God." Hence, figuratively, the place where these offerings were deposited was called the "corbanas," or, "sacred treasury" (see Matthew 27:6, κορβανᾶν). Hence to say of anything, "It is Corban," was to say that it had a prior and more sacred destination. And when it was something that a parent might need, to say, "It is Corban," i.e. it is already appropriated to another purpose, was simply to refuse his request and to deny him assistance, and so to break one of the first of the Divine commandments. Thus the son, by crying "Corban" to his needy parents, shut their mouths, by opposing to them a scruple of conscience, and suggesting to them a superstitious fear. It was as much as to say, "That which you ask of me is a sacred thing which I have devoted to God. Beware, therefore, lest you, by asking this of me, commit sacrilege by converting it to your own uses." Thus the parents would be silenced and alarmed, choosing rather to perish of hunger than to rob God. To such extremities did these covetous scribes and Pharisees drive their victims, compelling a son to abstain from any kind offices for his father or his mother.

Ellicott says this:
The train of thought which led them to so startling a conclusion would seem to have been this: to divert to lower human uses that which has been consecrated to God is sacrilege, and therefore a man who turned all his property into a Corban was bound not to expend it on the support even of his nearest relations. But the time of fulfilling the vow of consecration was left to his own discretion, and no one had a right to call him to account for delay. With this loophole, the Corban practice became an easy method of evading natural obligations. It might be pleaded in bar of the claims of nearest relationship, and yet all the while the man might retain the usufruct of his property, and defer the fulfilment of his vow to the last hour of life. It would seem, indeed, that this casuistry went still further, and that the consecration might be only relative, as stopping the claims of this or that person, and expiring when they passed away.

Barnes Notes:
If he had once devoted his property once said it was "corban," or a gift to God - it could not be appropriated even to the support of a parent. If a parent was needy and poor, and if he should apply to a son for assistance, and the son should reply, though in anger, "It is devoted to God; this property which you need, and by which you might be profited by me, is "corban" - I have given it to God;" the Jews said the property could not be recalled, and the son was not under obligation to aid a parent with it. He had done a more important thing in giving it to God. The son was free. He could not be required to do anything for his father after that. Thus, he might, in a moment, free himself from the obligation to obey his father or mother.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Yes, but in the greater manner as you no longer go to Jerusalem for any feasts when Old Covenant Israel did!

Wrong. There has been a change in the law of sacrifice and offering (as I already pointed out), so the instructions to go to Jerusalem et al are part of that law of sacrifice and offering which has been changed due to the change in the priesthood from Levi to Melchizedek. The problem is you aren't keeping the Sabbath in any "greater manner" you simply aren't keeping the Fourth Commandment AT ALL, in any manner. Remember the Sabbath DAY to keep IT holy. The Fourth Commandment has nothing in it about sacrifice and offering, Jerusalem, or the Levitical priesthood.

How can a Gentile BY NATURE keep the seventh day without having been told by reading a Law to do so? Paul is speaking about the righteousness of the law that is done by nature by some Gentiles without ever having consulted or read the Law of Moses, because it is referring to the MORAL aspects and not the ceremonial and those described as ordinances. Nothing BY NATURE can ever lead one to keep the distinct and particular SEVENTH DAY, proving that Paul was referring to keeping law by nature as you imply.

What does "by nature" mean? I think you believe it means they just instinctively do it without ever having heard about it. Like a baby "by nature" will attempt to latch on and suckle on its mother. But I think you are in error.

We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
(Gal 2:15)

Since being a Jew requires circumcision, then how is a person a "Jew BY NATURE"? Paul speaks of those who are Gentiles "by nature":

And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
(Rom 2:27)

So being a Gentile, or being a Jew, can both be "by nature", even though being a Jew requires somebody to make a decision (namely, circumcision of the flesh). I would suggest to you that doing "by nature" means they do it from within, from the heart, as a consequence of who they are (believers), and is not about some kind of instinctual urges that are not the result of any kind of moral instruction.

Because if what you are saying is true, then we have a rather big problem. Namely, that people who instinctively - without any prior moral instruction - do certain things, are the people who are "circumcised in heart" and who "shew the work of the law in their heart". Which means anyone who practiced sin in their lifetime is excluded. Conversion to Christ requires instruction, it is not something that results from a "natural instinctive urge". So you basically would have all conversions from a life of sin to be spurious!

(Please think a moment about what I am saying here, your statement goes way beyond Sabbath keeping, and goes to the heart (!) of what the new covenant consists in. You are literally saying the new covenant is the result of an instinctive natural urge or force, and thus is entirely involuntary. I do not think you have thought through the implications of your assertion here about "by nature".)

Esaias, I just want to append this post with a note to you that I do not lack any respect for you and your great explanations of scriptures. I enjoy reading many things you write and have learned much from them. But I simply think you're wrong on this issue, as I may be wrong in things that I currently cannot see as wrong.

As frustrated (and frustrating!) as I get sometimes in these discussions, I also respect the fact that you are certainly reasoning and explaining your position. I just think you are wrong in separating the Fourth Commandment from the Ten.

Let me also say, in the very earliest days of my Christian life I was exposed to and used a lot of the same kinds of arguments I see on a daily basis here. It was prayerful, deeper study that showed me those arguments are fatally flawed and do not make sense, create contradictions, etc. I believe the Fourth Commandment is valid for Christians today because it makes sense to me, and the counter arguments don't make sense to me. I hope that makes sense? lol I mean, I don't think your arguments are flawed because I am a Sabbath keeper. It's literally the other way around, I think the anti Sabbath arguments are flawed, THEREFORE I am a Sabbath keeper.

And what I have seen in these discussions is an issue that goes way beyond the Sabbath issue. It gets into the whole subject of theonomy, salvation, the very purpose for Christ coming, and the original intent God had when creating man (and thus it gets into eschatology as well). I think the anti Sabbath position is part of a larger package of errors.

And then there is the historical side. While the historical record doesn't ESTABLISH doctrine, it certainly PROVES certain things. History proves that trinitarianism was a later post apostolic development. History also proves that "going to church on Sunday" was a later post apostolic development. History also proves that BOTH had their origins in the same group - Rome and Alexandria. To put it simply, if the anti Sabbath arguments were correct, then I would expect history to demonstrate things OTHER than what it plainly and admittedly demonstrates (I mean admitted by all informed sides of the Sabbath debate).

[good samaritan]

We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
(Gal 2:15)
Since being a Jew requires circumcision, then how is a person a "Jew BY NATURE"? Paul speaks of those who are Gentiles "by nature

It makes more sense to me that he is referring to ethnicity and ancestry, not circumcision. Jewish people have Jewish children. The 8 day old will inivitably be circumcised, but that is not what is meant. I am sure Jews feel that they are born Jews. It is not like they feel some day in their lives they became saved in Judaism.

Matthew 3:9
And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

This pride was precedented on ancestry. Circumcision was a given but it was not the point of “nature”. If so, I don’t think nature would have been the word chosen.

[Amanah]

Did the Apostolic Church observe Sabbath and Holy Days.
Great article linked below.

https://www.cgi.org/did-the-apostoli...-and-holy-days

In an article entitled “Pagan and Judeo-Christian Time-Keeping Schemes in Gal 4.10 and Col 2.16” (New Testament Studies, Vol. 42, No. 1, Jan. 1996), Troy Martin makes the following observations:

“The references to time in Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians exclusively reflect the adoption of a Jewish calendar. Even in a place like Corinth, Paul speaks of the first day from Sabbath (1 Cor 16.2), not the day of the sun. He builds an elaborate argument based upon the festivals of Passover and unleavened bread (1 Cor 5.6-8) in order to exhort the Corinthians, ‘Let us keep the festival’ (1 Cor 5.8). Although the temporal references in Paul’s letters are sparse, 1 Corinthians provides strong evidence for the Pauline adoption of the Jewish practice that marked time by festivals and Sabbaths.

“In addition to 1 Corinthians, the portrait of Paul and Christian communities in the book of Acts demonstrates that Christians adhered to the Jewish calendar. Paul enters the synagogue at Antioch of Pisidia on several Sabbaths and proclaims the Gospel (Acts 13.14, 44). According to Acts, it was Paul’s custom to enter the synagogue on the Sabbath, and in Thessalonica he reasoned for three Sabbaths from the Scriptures (Acts 17.2). Paul addresses the community at Troas on the first day from Sabbath (Acts 20.7). Concerning feasts, Paul sails from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread (Acts 20.6) and intends to arrive in Jerusalem by the feast of Pentecost (Acts 20.16). The portrayal of Paul in Acts supplies clear evidence that Christians mark time by the segments of festivals and Sabbaths” (Id. at 108-109, emphasis added).

The temporal references contained in the book of Acts and the epistles of Paul are exclusively from the Jewish calendar. This indicates that the early apostolic church—both Jew and Gentile—regulated their religious celebrations around the weekly seventh-day Sabbath and the annual festivals named in Leviticus 23—the “festivals of the Lord.” In addition, the scriptural evidence suggests that early Christians did more than simply adopt the Jewish calendar. These festival celebrations had a distinctively Christian significance ands meaning to the apostolic church. Despite the long passage of time from the days on the apostles, God’s Sabbath and festivals still hold deep relevance and meaning to Christians today, who are exhorted to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).



Author: David Miller

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

These festival celebrations had a distinctively Christian significance ands meaning to the apostolic church. Despite the long passage of time from the days o(f) the apostles, God’s Sabbath and festivals still hold deep relevance and meaning to Christians today, who are exhorted to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).



Author: David Miller

I have never understood why Christians would prefer to follow a religious calendar based on Roman Catholic and pagan practices (Christmas, Easter, Halloween, etc) while rejecting God's calendar. I mean, the festivals of Jehovah are literally Divinely Inspired, God given, and God honouring. They are light years away from Christ-Mass, Santa, Yuletide, Samhain/Halloween, and Easter bunnies, and Day-of-the-Unconquerable-Sun aka Mithra aka Baal.

Even if one thought that God's calendar was no longer mandatory, still why would one prefer paganism to something God Himself had established? Makes no sense.