Should we still observe the sabbath?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Galatians 4:21-31
21......Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

and shows that we are the sons of Abraham by the freewoman
22......For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23......But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
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.
25......For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26......But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27......For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28......Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29......But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30......Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31......So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

This is pretty clear to me, the law at mount sinai represented bondage, and those that are under bondage shall not be heir with those of the free woman.

And, once again, if you interpret that passage to mean the commandments of God are not to be obeyed, then you have completely missed Paul's point, have created direct contradictions with Paul's other writings (not to mention the rest of the new testament authors), and are literally promoting lawlessness. You are literally saying those who obey God are going to be lost while those who disobey God "in the name of Jesus" are the ones who will inherit eternal life.

How that doesn't seem to bother you is also, literally, beyond my comprehension.

Meanwhile, Galatians was addressed here ---> http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...5&postcount=38
and here ---> http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...3&postcount=41

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Galatians 4:21-31
21......Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

and shows that we are the sons of Abraham by the freewoman
22......For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23......But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
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.
25......For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26......But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27......For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28......Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29......But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30......Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31......So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

This is pretty clear to me, the law at mount sinai represented bondage, and those that are under bondage shall not be heir with those of the free woman.

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. "

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:

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:

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;)

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.

[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. "

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:

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:

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

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.

[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 good samaritan

Galatians 4:21-31
21......Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

and shows that we are the sons of Abraham by the freewoman
22......For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23......But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
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.
25......For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26......But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27......For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28......Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29......But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30......Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31......So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

This is pretty clear to me, the law at mount sinai represented bondage, and those that are under bondage shall not be heir with those of the free woman.

Amen, that is the same BONDAGE in the same context that we read in the same chapter as noted here:

Galatians 4:2-3
(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:


And that bondage includes:

Galatians 4:9-10
(9).. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
(10).. Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

Gentiles in that day had come to Judaism and then to Christianity in many cases, like Cornelius.

And the tutors and governors that were bondage were shown to be the LAW.

Galatians 3:24-25
(24).. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
(25).. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Amen, that is the same BONDAGE in the same context that we read in the same chapter as noted here:

Galatians 4:2-3
(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:


And that bondage includes:

Galatians 4:9-10
(9).. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
(10).. Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

Gentiles in that day had come to Judaism and then to Christianity in many cases, like Cornelius.

And the tutors and governors that were bondage were shown to be the LAW.

Galatians 3:24-25
(24).. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
(25).. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

1. The Galatians were not proselyte Jews who became Christians:
Galatians 4:8-9 KJV
Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. [9] But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

2. Cornelius wasn't a Jew either, but a God fearing Gentile:

Acts 10:1-2 KJV
There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, [2] A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

Acts 10:28 KJV
And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Acts 10:44-45 KJV
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. [45] And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 11:1-3 KJV
And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. [2] And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, [3] Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

Acts 11:18 KJV
When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

3. "Days and months and times and years" is NEVER used in Scripture to refer to God's Divine calendar, nor is it used in Jewish literature to describe the Divine Biblical calendar. The Biblical phrase is "holy days, new moons, and sabbath days" or some variation thereof. That is also the formula used in Jewish literature of the time to describe or refer to the sacred calendar. The phrase "days, months, times, and years" is unmistakably referring to a pagan calendar. This is further supported by the fact the Galatians (who had converted to Christ from paganism) were RETURNING to paganism as evidenced by their use of pagan time keeping systems.

4. This pagan calendar is associated with "the weak and beggarly elements" which is a phrase well known in the first century as referring to the elemental powers thought to direct and influence the affairs of men. Pagan calendars were devoted to these elemental powers (as evidenced in their survival in the modern Gregorian calendar with days and months assigned to various gods, equinoxes and solstices, the four seasons and their spans, etc). The Galatians were RETURNING to paganism, its superstitions, and its astrological time keeping systems.

If anyone wants to actually study the exegetical and historical data regarding what was going on in Galatia, I highly recommend "Pagan and Judeo-Christian Time-Keeping Schemes in Gal 4.10 and Col 2.16" by prof. Troy Martin. It can be found online but you will likely need a Cambridge pass or other institutional (seminary) pass, although at one time it was available as a pdf somewhere.

5. WHATEVER Paul was arguing for and/or against, he most assuredly was NOT arguing against faithful obedience to and performance of the obligations mandated by commandments of God (see Romans 2, 6, 7, and 8 for example). Otherwise he is a hypocrite and preaches 1 thing in Rome and the OPPOSITE in Galatia.

Remember:

2 Peter 3:15-16 KJV
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; [16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

The issue in Galatia was NOT "should we obey God" or "should we follow the Bible". Rather, it was "must gentiles be circumcised in order to be part of the church of God". It was the issue of the basis of JUSTIFICATION being either grace or law, faith or works. NOT whether or not Christians should obey the commandments of God.

If that latter is correct, and the antisabbatarian view is right, then it is WRONG FOR CHRISTIANS TO OBEY GOD, FOLLOW THE BIBLE, OR DO WHAT GOD COMMANDED. The average antisabbatarian of course never follows their own reasoning out to its logical and natural conclusions, for obvious reasons, but that is in fact what is being argued by them (albeit unawares).

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1. The Galatians were not proselyte Jews who became Christians:
Galatians 4:8-9 KJV
Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. [9] But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
2. Cornelius wasn't a Jew either, but a God fearing Gentile:

He was a gentile fearing the God of the Old testament. His people were in idolatry and he left that to honour the God of Israel. He was not a Jew.


And the BODNAGE of paganism was similar tot eh bondage of Old Covenant life, which was a bondage to hold Jews under the PRIUSON WARDEN of Law until Jesus came. So gentiles who were not proselytes were leaving bondage to idols to go into bondage of law and the same general bondage was in both.

Because schoolmastery was noted to be LAW shutting up in a bondage the adherents til Christ should come. that is the context of Gal 4, next chapter, and the tutors and governors of LAW just as the bondage in Hagar's example speaks strictly of the bondage of the old covenant as Good Samaritan noted.

When the law was bondage in chapter 3 and the Old covenant was Hagar and a gendering to bondage later in chapter 4 and all that is sandwiched between the two is a bondage that gentiles were under, we know what that bondage was about. LAW.

Acts 10:1-2 KJV
There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, [2] A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

Acts 10:28 KJV
And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Acts 10:44-45 KJV
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. [45] And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 11:1-3 KJV
And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. [2] And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, [3] Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

Acts 11:18 KJV
When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.[
/qupte[]
I never said Cornelius was a Jew. He was a gentile in every sense of the word. BUT HE FEARED the Old Covenant God. Other gentiles actually became proselytes and became Jews, but my point was that GENTILES were involved in the bondage of law that Paul said was for the JEWS ALONE until Jesus came, when Paul wrote to gentiles in the church at Galatia.

3. "Days and months and times and years" is NEVER used in Scripture to refer to God's Divine calendar, nor is it used in Jewish literature to describe the Divine Biblical calendar.

That EXACT PHRASE may not have been used, but the exact phrase does no have to be used for it to refer to old covenant feasts.

Show me where that PHRASE is used in obvious reference to flatly stated pagan days. If you demand the exact phrase be used to indicate feasts of Israel before you believe it, then why do you not require yourself to have exact phrase in reference to pagan days in teh same Bible before you believe it?

The only ones who would say pagan days are the days, months and years in Gal 4 are those with a predisposition of law-keeping. Anyone else reading chapter 3's shutting up of Jews under law as a schoolmaster is over children would read Chapter 4's reference to tutors and governors and maintain that same context of LAW, and realize that the days and months were LAW's feasts and holy days. It's the same with Col 2, ... a person has to create a whole set of hoops to leap through rather than accept the plain reading of the truth that SABBATH SHADOWS correspond to the TRUE BODY casting those shadows of CHRIST! Only a drilled-in sabbath-keeper would reject the plain reading in favour of a distortion and series of hoops.

The Biblical phrase is "holy days, new moons, and sabbath days" or some variation thereof. That is also the formula used in Jewish literature of the time to describe or refer to the sacred calendar. The phrase "days, months, times, and years" is unmistakably referring to a pagan calendar. This is further supported by the fact the Galatians (who had converted to Christ from paganism) were RETURNING to paganism as evidenced by their use of pagan time keeping systems.

Again, prove to me that exact phrase refers to pagan days. Context of Paul from chapter 3 says different! And you have ignored the "YOU"-Gentile contrast with the "WE/US" reference to Jews in contrast to Gentiles in the whole overall context as well.

Good Samaritans' reference to the OLD COVENAT Hagar and HAGER BONDAGE is undoubtedly the bondage that Paul refereed to in speaking of days, months and years.

Galatians 4:9-10
(9).. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
(10).. Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.


...is the same as:

Galatians 4:24
(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.


...is the same as...

Galatians 3:23
(23).. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

4. This pagan calendar is associated with "the weak and beggarly elements" which is a phrase well known in the first century as referring to the elemental powers thought to direct and influence the affairs of men.

Error.

ELEMENTS are basic POSITIVE and GOOD necessary things. And LAW was a set of ELEMENTS as in ELEMENTARY. A person has to leap through hoops of mental gymnastics to say it is paganism. The context in chapter 3 is LAW. the context at the end of chapter 4 with Hagar is LAW, and the context of Gal 5:1 is LAW in speaking of circumcision.

Galatians 5:1-3
(1).. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
(2).. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
(3).. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

Law-keepers ignore all of this obvious context.

Pagan calendars were devoted to these elemental powers (as evidenced in their survival in the modern Gregorian calendar with days and months ass

It is not elemental POWERS. It is ELEMENTS which are necessary building blocks. Paul would never refer to paganism as ELEMENTS and true and good and necessary BUILDING blocks to bring people to Christ. But after Christ comes, a student under schoolmastery of law LEAVES the elementary things. ELEMENTS is considered correctly as ELEMENTARY in the schooling sense since Paul explicitly USES SCHOOLING to work his context of thought.

It is ELEMENTARY AS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL due to the context of law as a schoolmaster in ch 3, and tutors and governors MAINTIANING THAT CONTEXT in chapter 4, where we read this elementary schoolmastery of tutors and governos, Law, is bondage, JUST AS THE OLD COVENANT was explicitly shown to gender to BONDAGE, without one thought of ANY statement anywhere in the entire context of anyone MINGLING PAGANISM WITH OLD COVENANT as law-keepers must force the context to say.

Where do we read any note of mixing law with paganism? We only read gentiles were once pagans! We read NOTHING of MINGLING. When Paul spoke of bondage of shutting up and keeping under of the jews in LAW they were BINDING terms and bondage terms in the Greek under a WARD, or WARDEN. In fact, chapter 3 BEGINS by speaking of receiving Spirit by LAW (not law mingled wioth paganism) or by faith.

Chapter 3 is law versus grace.

Chapter 4 is law versus grace.

Chapter 5 is law versus grace.

3 mentions receiving Spirit by law or faith.

3 mentions law as a schoolmaster for Jews before Christ came.

4 mentions tutors and governors or 3's LAW as schoolmaster.

4 mentions elements that bind using 3's schoolmaster that kept under and shut up the Jews with Law, indicating an ELEMENTARY SCHOOLLING thought of the term ELEMENTS, not some extrabiblical reference to ELEMENTAL POWER of pagans that Paul never mentioned at all.

4 mentions days, months and years IN THAT CONTEXT of law's elementary school. In fact LAW is synonymous with OLD COVENANT in ch 4 where Paul explicitly stated that HAGAR represents the OLD COVENANT FROM SINAI that GENDERS TO BONDAGE. He did not say it only genders to bondage if one mixes it with paganism.

Ch 5 says be loosed and not bound under LAW with cirucmcision etc. .... NOT with LAW PLUS PAGANISM.

Law-keepers wrest Gal 3-4 worse than anybody else in christendom.

igned to various gods, equinoxes and solstices, the four seasons and their spans, etc). The Galatians were RETURNING to paganism, its superstitions, and its astrological time keeping systems.

If anyone wants to actually study the exegetical and historical data regarding what was going on in Galatia, I highly recommend "Pagan and Judeo-Christian Time-Keeping Schemes in Gal 4.10 and Col 2.16" by prof. Troy Martin. It can be found online but you will likely need a Cambridge pass or other institutional (seminary) pass, although at one time it was available as a pdf somewhere.

I'm sure it can convince an eskimo to buy a freezer, too. READ THE CONTEXT OF PAUL's WORDS as I outlined above.

5. WHATEVER Paul was arguing for and/or against, he most assuredly was NOT arguing against faithful obedience to and performance of the obligations mandated by commandments of God (see Romans 2, 6, 7, and 8 for example). Otherwise he is a hypocrite and preaches 1 thing in Rome and the OPPOSITE in Galatia.

Paul was plainly speaking of a bondage of law that was necessary ONLY BEFORE JESUS CAME, that was an entire system of SHADOWS until the BODY that cast those shadows brought the true sabbath rest and the true passover and the true reality of the shadowing days, months and years.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The issue in Galatia was NOT "should we obey God" or "should we follow the Bible". Rather, it was "must gentiles be circumcised in order to be part of the church of God". It was the issue of the basis of JUSTIFICATION being either grace or law, faith or works. NOT whether or not Christians should obey the commandments of God.

A closer look at Galatians, part 1.

Let's look more closely at what the issue(s) was/were in Galatia, shall we?

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
(Gal 3:1-5)

The issue is receiving the Spirit (ie becoming a Christian, being "saved") by either the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith. This is the same issue addressed by Paul throughout Romans. The subject is NOT "as a Christian are you supposed to obey the commandments of God, or no?" The subject is "does justification come by the works of the law or by faith?"

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
(Gal 3:10-12)

What does this mean? Does this mean that the man who obeys God is cursed? NO. It means that the man who seeks to be justified by his deeds ("works of the law") is under the curse, BECAUSE "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in ALL THINGS which are written in the book of the law to do them." In other words, if a person is going to be justified LEGALLY (by the works of the law) he can NEVER EVER VIOLATE ANY LAW OF GOD WHATSOEVER. If you go to court, charged with a crime (violating the law), to be "proven innocent", that is, to be justified legally, you have to show that you did not in fact violate the law. Granted, the American legal system demands the prosecution show beyond a reasonable doubt that you DID violate the law, but IF they show you did in fact violate the law, you CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED or acquitted. So it is with God, if you did in fact violate the law of God you cannot be justified. The only way to get justified is to receive a PARDON, which means it is acknowledged that you did in fact violate the law but the powers that be are going to FORGIVE the transgression and set aside the punishment due.

So anybody seeking to be justified by the law (that is, by the deeds of the law, seeking to be declared righteous or innocent due to their performance of the law) will fail, because the very law they seek to be justified by condemns them for their violations of the law. They have in fact violated the law, "all have sinned". So they are under the curse (the punishment, the condemnation, the sentence due to transgressors).

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
(Gal 3:13-14)

Now notice what we have in fact been redeemed from. It is "the curse of the law". We have not been redeemed from any moral obligation to obey God. If you are charged with a crime, and are given a pardon, you have been redeemed from the punishment of law. Does this mean you are now free to go out and break the law from now on? OF COURSE NOT. It doesn't mean you are "Free from the law" in the sense of being free from obligation to be law abiding (obedient). It means you have been freed from the PUNISHMENT DUE TO CONVICTED TRANSGRESSORS.

Keep this in mind: we have been redeemed from the CURSE of the law. We have not been redeemed from the moral obligation to obey God.

Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
(Gal 3:15-18)

A promise was made to Abraham and to his seed. This was a covenant God made with Abraham in Christ. "The law" came 400 hundred years later. Does this mean that prior to the coming of this "law" that there were no commandments of God? NO:

And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
(Gen 26:4-5)

So then what "law" was added 430 years after the promise made to Abraham? It is not the laws of God, that is, His commandments, statutes, His "charge". It was the covenant made at Sinai.

We see now that the discussion is not about moral obligation to obey God's commandments, statutes, or laws, but is about obligation to the Sinaitic covenant. The inheritance (receiving the promise made to Abraham in Christ) is not "through the law". That is to say, it is not through the Sinaitic Covenant. This does not mean that inheritance of the promise rules out obedience to God's commandments. It means that inheritance is not based upon the performance of the Sinaitic law covenant. Which is to say it is not by the deeds or works of the law that one is justified (declared righteous, declared to inherit the promise given to Abraham). This was already covered and made clear just above, and clearly does NOT mean Christians are given license to dispense with the revealed will of God any more than a criminal being pardoned and given a place in society means they may henceforth dispense with obedience to the law of the land.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

A closer look at Galatians, part 1.

Let's look more closely at what the issue(s) was/were in Galatia, shall we?

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
(Gal 3:1-5)

The issue is receiving the Spirit (ie becoming a Christian, being "saved") by either the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith. This is the same issue addressed by Paul throughout Romans. The subject is NOT "as a Christian are you supposed to obey the commandments of God, or no?" The subject is "does justification come by the works of the law or by faith?"

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
(Gal 3:10-12)

What does this mean? Does this mean that the man who obeys God is cursed? NO. It means that the man who seeks to be justified by his deeds ("works of the law") is under the curse, BECAUSE "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in ALL THINGS which are written in the book of the law to do them." In other words, if a person is going to be justified LEGALLY (by the works of the law) he can NEVER EVER VIOLATE ANY LAW OF GOD WHATSOEVER. If you go to court, charged with a crime (violating the law), to be "proven innocent", that is, to be justified legally, you have to show that you did not in fact violate the law. Granted, the American legal system demands the prosecution show beyond a reasonable doubt that you DID violate the law, but IF they show you did in fact violate the law, you CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED or acquitted. So it is with God, if you did in fact violate the law of God you cannot be justified. The only way to get justified is to receive a PARDON, which means it is acknowledged that you did in fact violate the law but the powers that be are going to FORGIVE the transgression and set aside the punishment due.

So anybody seeking to be justified by the law (that is, by the deeds of the law, seeking to be declared righteous or innocent due to their performance of the law) will fail, because the very law they seek to be justified by condemns them for their violations of the law. They have in fact violated the law, "all have sinned". So they are under the curse (the punishment, the condemnation, the sentence due to transgressors).

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
(Gal 3:13-14)

Now notice what we have in fact been redeemed from. It is "the curse of the law". We have not been redeemed from any moral obligation to obey God. If you are charged with a crime, and are given a pardon, you have been redeemed from the punishment of law. Does this mean you are now free to go out and break the law from now on? OF COURSE NOT. It doesn't mean you are "Free from the law" in the sense of being free from obligation to be law abiding (obedient). It means you have been freed from the PUNISHMENT DUE TO CONVICTED TRANSGRESSORS.

Keep this in mind: we have been redeemed from the CURSE of the law. We have not been redeemed from the moral obligation to obey God.

Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
(Gal 3:15-18)

A promise was made to Abraham and to his seed. This was a covenant God made with Abraham in Christ. "The law" came 400 hundred years later. Does this mean that prior to the coming of this "law" that there were no commandments of God? NO:

And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
(Gen 26:4-5)

So then what "law" was added 430 years after the promise made to Abraham? It is not the laws of God, that is, His commandments, statutes, His "charge". It was the covenant made at Sinai.

We see now that the discussion is not about moral obligation to obey God's commandments, statutes, or laws, but is about obligation to the Sinaitic covenant. The inheritance (receiving the promise made to Abraham in Christ) is not "through the law". That is to say, it is not through the Sinaitic Covenant. This does not mean that inheritance of the promise rules out obedience to God's commandments. It means that inheritance is not based upon the performance of the Sinaitic law covenant. Which is to say it is not by the deeds or works of the law that one is justified (declared righteous, declared to inherit the promise given to Abraham). This was already covered and made clear just above, and clearly does NOT mean Christians are given license to dispense with the revealed will of God any more than a criminal being pardoned and given a place in society means they may henceforth dispense with obedience to the law of the land.

So you are saying the Sinaitic covenant is not Gods law. Well, The sabbath is part of the sinaitic covenant and not the promise of Abraham.