Misused Texts #1

Introduction to Misused Texts on the Sabbath

0:04 The following message was preached Sunday, October 11th, 1998 to Emanuel Reformed Baptist Church of Sea-Tac, Washington. The speaker is Pastor Robert Martin. This message is the 14th in a series of 24 titled, The Christian Sabbath. We return today to our series on the subject of the Christian Sabbath.

0:29 And in this series so far, we have considered the teaching of the Old Testament and a good portion of the teaching of the New Testament. We have seen the creation of the Sabbath at creation. We have seen the Sabbath before the including of the Sabbath commandment in the Law of Moses. We have seen it under the Law of Moses in the teaching of the prophets looking forward to the New Covenant.

0:55 And we have seen it in the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now today we come to three texts in Paul's letters which some have interpreted as proving that under the New Covenant...

1:10 Under the New Covenant, no obligation remains to the people of God to keep Sabbath one day in seven days. There are three pivotal texts that if you read anti-sabbatarian literature, you will find these texts referred to over and over again as though they proved beyond question that no obligation whatsoever remains to the New Covenant people of God to keep Sabbath or to keep a day holy one day. I would like to begin by simply reading those three texts to you, and then today, this morning and evening, we will examine these texts to see if indeed this is a reasonable interpretation of them. The first is found in Romans 14, verses 5 and 6. Romans 14, verses 5 and 6. One man esteems one day above another.

2:12 Another? Another esteems every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. He that regards the day regards it to the Lord, and he that eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks, and he that eats not unto the Lord he eats not, and gives God thanks.

2:34 But the key is verse 5. One man esteems one day above another. Another esteems every day alike. Let each man...

2:43 Be fully assured in his own mind. And then Galatians chapter 4, verses 8 through 11. Galatians chapter 4, verses 8 through 11.

2:59 Howbeit at that time, not knowing God, you were in bondage to them that by nature are no gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how turn ye back to the weak and beggarly elements or principles whereunto you desire to be in bondage over again? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain.

3:39 And then the third text is found in Colossians chapter 2, verses 6-7. Colossians chapter 2, verses 16 and 17. Colossians chapter 2, verses 16 and 17. Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a feast day, or a new moon, or Sabbath, which are a shadow of the things to come, but the body is Christ's.

4:09 Now the argument that is commonly made from these texts is this. First of all, that Paul regarded the Sabbath in the same way that he did ceremonial distinctions between clean and unclean meat. And if that is so, it is argued, that that shows that the fourth commandment was ceremonial and not moral after all.

4:38 It is also argued that Paul abolished all distinctions, separating holy from common days, and makes all days alike for Christians, so that either every day is a holy day, that is, every day is a virtual Sabbath in which God is to be glorified, or no day is a Sabbath at all. It is further argued from these texts that by calling the Sabbath a shadow of things to come, that Paul represented the Sabbath as something that passed away with the coming of Jesus. These are the three pivotal texts found in Paul's letters that are appealed to time and time again to argue that the Christian has no obligation under the new covenant to keep Sabbath one day in seven. Now how shall we regard this interpretation of these texts, especially since we've seen nothing in all of the Old Testament, we've seen nothing in the New Testament, we've seen nothing in all of the teaching of Jesus Christ, indeed we've seen nothing in Paul's teaching concerning the moral law of God. We've seen nothing to prepare us for that kind of Sabbath doctrine from Paul.

6:02 Everything that we've seen from the beginning of Genesis 2, right through the Gospels, right through Romans 7, other passages in which Paul addresses the subject of the moral law, all that we have seen in the entirety of the Scriptures, has prepared us for a different doctrine, has prepared us for an affirmation of Sabbath keeping, not a denial of Sabbath keeping. Well, how are we to assess then these statements? We have to do something with them. They're found in the Word of God, and we must deal with them fairly and honestly.

6:38 Can this interpretation, the interpretation that is pressed on these texts by those who deny obligation to keep Sabbath, can, that interpretation, be sustained by the reading of the Scripture itself? And here I'm going to ask you to think carefully with me. I realize that throughout this series, I've been asking you to think carefully, to follow carefully. Well, here are three very, very difficult passages.

7:10 They are difficult passages, whether or not we come to them with the question we've come to them or not. They are difficult in their own right, but, here I ask, please follow with me. I have done everything I can legitimately to speak to you today as simply, as succinctly as I can. I ask you to think with me, and indeed to ask the question, is this anti-Sabbatarian interpretation, is it warranted by what Paul says in each of these passages?

Context of Romans 14:1-6: Receiving Weaker Brethren

7:44 Well, we're going to take them up one at a time. And first, I ask you to turn back to Romans chapter 14. Romans chapter 14, and again I will read, this time only the first six verses. Romans 14, verses 1 through 6.

8:02 Here the Apostle says, Him that is weak in faith, receive,

8:10 yet not for decision of scruples. One man has faith to eat all things, but he that is weak, eats herbs or vegetables, let not him that eats, set it not him that eats not. And let not him that eats not, judge him that eats. For God has received him.

8:34 Who are you that judges the servant of another? To his own Lord he stands or falls. Yea, he shall be made to stand, for the Lord has power to make him stand. One man esteems one day above another.

8:50 Another esteems every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. He that regards the day, regards it to the Lord. And he that eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks.

9:05 And he that eats not, unto the Lord he eats not, and gives God thanks.

9:12 Now it's very important in taking up this text and understanding the importance of what Paul says in verse 5 and 6. It's very important we understand the context of this statement. And the context is one in which the Apostle Paul is exhorting Christians to receive and continue fellowship with our weaker brethren. Him that is weak in faith, receive.

9:39 That is the foundational, that is the basic exhortation that comes out of the Apostle's mouth. Him that is weak in faith, receive. Now what is it about these weaker brethren that makes them, the weaker brethren? Well it is not because their faith in Christ is weak.

10:00 That is not the issue. But they are weak in faith in the sense that they lack faith, they lack assurance that they may do certain things which are in fact matters of Christian liberty. There's a certain area which the Bible says is an area of Christian liberty. That there is freedom to do it.

10:23 The weaker brother lacks faith, he lacks assurance, he lacks a clear conscience that he can do that which the scripture in fact says is an area of Christian liberty. The weaker brother has scruples. He has questions of conscience, he has restraints of conscience that restrain him from engaging in Christian liberty to the full. In his conscience he is not persuaded that he is free on the point in question.

10:58 In his conscience he is not persuaded that he is at liberty free to engage in the issue that is before him. In that he is the weaker brother. There is a legitimate area of Christian liberty. In that area he does not feel free.

11:16 He does not have faith to believe that indeed he is free. And therefore his conscience that lack of assurance that lack of faith that he can do what the scripture indeed says it is a liberty to do makes him the weaker brother. Now Paul says in this passage that we must receive such weaker brethren without without passing judgment on their restraining scruples. We are to receive them with open arms.

11:50 We are to regard them as brethren. We are to treat them as brethren without sitting in doubt. We are to treat them as brethren. We are to put them in judgment upon those scruples of conscience that restrain them from engaging in liberty to the full.

12:03 And here our English version struggled it seems with trying to translate what is a very difficult clause. The old American standard that I've read uses the translation not for decision of scruples. That doesn't really communicate much at the end of the 20th century. Maybe it did at the beginning of the 20th century but not at the end.

12:23 The New King James Version handles it the same way. Not to dispute over doubtful things. That is receive him that is weak in faith but not to dispute over doubtful things. Not to bring him into a framework where you are arguing and disputing over the things that differ between you.

12:45 The NIV perhaps comes a little closer to the sense of the original when it says without passing judgment on disputable matters. And then the New American Standard the freest of all of the translations at this point but perhaps closest to Paul's meaning says receive him that is weak in faith but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. Well my own understanding of the clause is that Paul is telling us that we must receive weaker brethren without entering into dispute with them about their scruples without passing judgment on them without condemning the religious scruples of conscience which keep them from doing what a Christian nevertheless is free under the terms of the New Covenant to do. The areas in dispute are areas of genuine Christian liberty. This passage does not extend to other issues. It does not extend to areas that are not areas of legitimate Christian liberty.

13:53 But in those areas where there is clear indication in the word of God this is an area of Christian liberty. If there is a brother that comes among us who has struggles of conscience in that area we are to receive him. We are to embrace him as a brother. But in embracing him as a brother we are not to choke him by our judgment of his opinions.

14:16 We are not to condemn him. We are not to pass judgment upon him for holding opinions in areas of Christian liberty if it is genuinely an area of Christian liberty. He is as free not to use that liberty as we are to use it. But that's the context.

14:34 Now in the verses that follow this opening statement in verse 1 Paul cites two examples of issues of difference between weaker and stronger brethren. He gives two examples that rise out of the circumstances of first century Christian life. And these are circumstances that may or may not have any direct relevance to our situation. These exact circumstances may not arise at all in our circumstances.

15:06 But in that first century religious context these were two cases two hot button issues. Now how Paul deals with them how he tells the Romans to deal with these serve as examples of how we are to relate to brethren in situations where we have differences on areas of Christian liberty. The issues themselves may never arise but the principles that he gives give us a framework within which to deal with one another in areas that arise in our context hot button issues on areas of Christian liberty. Well first of all there are two examples.

Example 1: Food Scruples in Romans 14

15:45 First of all a difference existed over scruples about eating. One man he says verse 2 has faith to eat all things but he that is weak eats all things. Let not him that eats said it not him that eats not let not him that eats not judge him that eats for God has received him. One man has faith to eat all things but he that is weak eats herbs or vegetables.

16:16 Now the difference existed over issues of what it was permitted as a Christian to eat. And from what Paul says here it's very difficult to reconstruct with absolute reconstruct with absolute certainty what the issue was. Some say that it's the same issue found in 1 Corinthians 8 1 Corinthians 10 the issue of whether it was permitted to eat meat that had been offered to a pagan God or offered to an idol beforehand. Right?

16:46 Some say that is the issue. Others say that the background is much more complex than that. That the man that is described here the issue the contrast is between the man who eats all things and the man who eats only vegetables. The contrast is not between the man who eats all things and the man who eats all things except that meat that he suspects has been offered to an idol.

17:12 No, the issue seems to be between a man who is an omnivore who is free to eat everything feels himself free to eat everything and a man who feels it is his God-given responsibility to be a vegetarian. Now how this arose what the religious context was out of which that arose we don't know. But thankfully understanding the precise point of dispute isn't really necessary to our issue today. All we need to know is that the strong brother in eating all things is exercising his freedom in a legitimate area of Christian liberty.

17:52 In being an omnivore in being free in his conscience to eat anything and everything that could be classified as food he is exercising his freedom in a legitimate area of Christian liberty whereas the weak brother's conscience will only allow him to eat vegetables. Now is this as we read this passage Paul is this a legitimate area of Christian liberty? Is that really what the issue is at this point? Well the scriptures tell us that it is.

18:26 That this was an area where there was sufficient testimony found that would clear the conscience of a disciple of Jesus Christ. For example Jesus said to his disciples Mark chapter 7 verses 18 and 19 Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him? Because it goes not into his heart but into his stomach and is eliminated. Jesus is responding to the prejudices of the scribes and the Pharisees and he says to his disciples don't you understand don't you discern don't you perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him can't make him unclean because it goes not into his heart. Cleanness and uncleanness Jesus says at heart is an issue of the heart. It's not an issue of the stomach. And whatever goes into the stomach he says is eliminated.

19:24 It passes through the system but you're not defiled by it. This he said Mark comments making all Haul meats or making all foods clean.

19:37 The evangelist Mark had understood he had understood the implication of what Jesus said on that occasion that whatever had pertained before that day whatever had pertained in terms of the ceremonial laws of the Mosaic Code about clean and unclean meats Jesus is saying this no longer applies. That it no longer is a matter of clean versus unclean meats. Mark says this he said making unclean meats all things clean. Well elsewhere 1st Timothy 4 in verse 4 Paul says every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving for it is sanctified through the word of God and prayer. Nothing is to be rejected. If someone puts a big plate of pork barbecue in front of you don't push it away as though it's unclean. No, if you're thankful for it if you thank God for it in prayer it's clean.

20:40 Feel free to receive it. Well further on in Romans 14 in the larger context that we read earlier Paul says I know verses 14 and then verse 20 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of itself except to him that accounts anything to God. To be unclean to him it is unclean but of itself that plate of pork barbecue that ham sandwich though a Jew accustomed to the code of Moses a Jew might say I can't eat that because the law of Moses says it's unclean Paul says I am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of itself. Nothing wrong with that plate of pork barbecue unless you think there's something wrong with it. Then to you it is unclean. Verse 20 All things indeed are clean however it is evil for that man who eats with offense.

21:46 Alright so here's the context the stronger brother has understood the implications of Christ's teaching. The stronger brother has understood that in making all meats clean the stronger brother has understood that Christ has set him free has set him free from obligation to the old covenant ceremonial laws concerning clean and unclean meat. The stronger brother has heard the word of Christ he has understood the word of Christ his conscience has been set free by the word of Christ therefore as Paul says he has faith to eat all things. He has faith to eat the plate of pork barbecue with as much liberty with as much thankfulness with as much joy as he would a plate of kosher lamb. His conscience is free he's been liberated by the teaching of Christ. But now the weaker brother though Christ has set him free to do what his strong brother does he is in principle he is in fact as free as his stronger brother but though Christ has set him free to do what his stronger brother does he cannot do so because of his religious scruples.

23:11 So Christ has set him free. He cannot exercise that liberty with a clear conscience because he still has questions there are still doubts in his mind there are still scruples that restrain him from using what is in fact a liberty. Now we can ask the question why doesn't he see his freedom? Why doesn't he understand what his stronger brother understands?

23:36 Paul doesn't address that issue. The only explanation that he gives is to say that the man is weak in faith. He's weak in faith. Him that is weak in faith receives.

23:52 Now in that climate in that climate of a difference of opinion on an area of Christian liberty these two brothers this weak brother and the strong brother have to learn how to live together in the church. They are not free to take this and make it an issue of division. In the church of Jesus Christ. They have to learn to live together.

24:17 And each man if he gives full reign to the flesh if he gives full reign to his remaining sins will be tempted to respond wrongly to his brother. The strong will be tempted he will be liable to look with contempt upon his weaker brother because he can't see what I see. I see the liberty I have the words of Christ are plain Marcus said making all things clean. I see it why can't he see it?

24:48 The temptation of the strong brother is to look down his nose upon his weaker brother and to view him as somehow deficient. Somehow deficient perhaps in his mental capacity perhaps deficient in other things but the temptation is to look down your nose at that weaker brother. The weak brother is liable to look on his stronger brother as living in sin.

25:13 If I can't do this with a good conscience I don't understand how any one can.

25:19 You see the temptations of the strong and of the weak. What does Paul say to each of us? Verse 3 Let not him who eats that is the strong brother despise him who does not eat. Don't look down your nose at him.

25:35 And let not him who does not eat judge him to eat. Don't think that just because you can't do it with a good conscience that no one can do it with a good conscience. You are not the Lord of your brother's conscience. God has received him.

25:52 And then Paul goes on to warn those who sit in this kind of judgment on their brothers in areas of Christian liberty. He goes on to warn them that they are occupying a place that belongs only to God. Verse 4 Who are you that judges the servant of another? Who are you that judges the servant of another?

Example 2: Day Observance in Romans 14 and the Ceremonial Law

26:16 You have placed yourself in a place that is not yours. That's God's place. Now at verse 5 Paul comes to the second area of difference. And we must understand that in coming to that second area of difference he is treating it exactly the way that he is treating the first area.

26:36 The principles are the same. The issues are the same as the difference between eating clean and unclean food. At verse 5 he comes to the second area of difference between the strong and the weak. This time not over scruples having to do with food but scruples about the religious observance of certain days.

27:00 And of course here we come to the issue that has brought us to this text. Look again verse 5. One man here's the second example one man esteems one day above another. Another esteems every day alike.

27:18 Let each man be fully assured in his own mind he that regards the day regards it to the Lord. And then going back to the illustration of eating showing that this is all part of the same fabric. These are things that are alike in kind. He says he that regards the day regards it to the Lord.

27:39 He that eats eats to the Lord for he gives God thanks. He that eats not unto the Lord he eats not and gives God thanks. He doesn't expand the idea about the day. He could have said to fill out the analogy he that regards the day regards it to the Lord and he gives God thanks for the day.

27:57 He that does not regard it regards it not to the Lord and he gives God thanks for his liberty not to do so. It's the same issue you see. It's part and parcel of the same fabric.

28:09 Now at first when we come to verse 5 it seems hard to know which view was held by the weak and which view was held by the strong brother. But it appears that the weak brother esteemed one day above another. He esteemed one day above another while the strong brother esteemed every day alive.

28:32 Now my reason for saying this instead of viewing the matter the other way around I think it would be very improper to say that the strong brother esteemed one day above another whereas the weak brother esteemed every day alive. You see if we come to this passage with our Sabbatarian principles the temptation is going to be to say well those who would hold to the Sabbath must be the strong brother and it's only the one who sees every day alive that must be the weak brother. That's not the context. That's not the passage.

29:02 Hold on. The weak brother is the man who esteems one day above another and the strong brother esteems every day alive. And my reason for saying this is because as I've already indicated Paul regards these as examples of the same kind of thing. That is both are examples of things in which the strong brother exercises his freedom in an area of legitimate Christian liberty whereas the weak brother though Christ has freed him to do what his strong brother does can't do so because of his religious scruples.

29:43 And apparently in this case the weak brother believed himself bound to observe certain religious days to observe certain days as holy while the strong brother believed himself under no obligation to observe those days.

30:01 Each does what he does as unto the Lord but their consciences have different judgments concerning their duties in this matter of observing these days whatever these days are.

30:15 Now as with the first case cited and here please follow with me carefully as with the first case cited as with the case of eating or not eating so here we can't reconstruct with absolute certainty the background as to the as to what the difference in days was. Paul does not tell us per se which days he has in mind.

30:40 If you look at the text he simply uses the word day. He doesn't use any other term to describe the days he has in mind. We are to assume that those to whom he writes understood what he was referring to we are to assume that there is something in the context that is going to help us to sort out which days he has in mind. He does not tell us which days he has in mind per se but he does give us a category.

31:10 He does give us a category and brethren it is in giving us that category that he directs us to the proper interpretation of his words here. The issue is ceremonial. That's the category. The issue is ceremonial in the same way that the issue about eating food was ceremonial and not moral.

31:33 It is a critical point.

31:38 The issue is ceremonial in the same way that the issue about eating meat the issue of the difference between clean and unclean meat was ceremonial. It was a matter of the ceremonial law. It was not a matter of the moral law of God. And one of the main reasons we know this is not just from the case of clean and unclean that Paul cites first.

32:02 It's not just from the fact that he cites a ceremonial issue first but we know this because the question of obeying or disobeying the moral law of God is never made anywhere in the Bible a matter of Christian liberty.

32:20 On issues of ceremonial import only Paul speaks in terms of Christian liberty when it comes to the moral law of God. When it comes to the Ten Commandments never anywhere in the Scripture is what the Bible has to say about the moral law never is the issue of whether I obey or disobey the moral law of God made a matter of Christian liberty so that one may either do or not do what is commanded in the moral law as a matter of freedom before God. That is never the teaching of the Scripture anywhere. And if Paul is teaching that here he is going against the flow of the entire teaching of the rest of the Scripture.

33:01 Whether we honor mother or father is that ever in the Scriptures made a matter of Christian liberty?

33:09 Whether we worship only one God or worship many gods is that ever anywhere in the Scriptures made a matter of Christian liberty?

33:19 Whether we commit adultery or steal or bear false witness or murder are those things ever made anywhere in the Scriptures a matter of Christian liberty?

33:31 The moral law of God is never discussed in the context in the Scripture of discussing Christian liberty.

33:38 Our liberty stops at the point of the moral law of God.

33:42 The issue here is not the moral law. The issue is the ceremonial law. That's what the first example is exclusively about. And that's what the second example is about as well.

33:55 And if these examples are in the same category, as indeed they are, if they are matters concerning the ceremonial law, not the moral law, then this means that the days that Paul has in mind were days required by the ceremonial law of the Old Covenant, but not by the moral law.

34:20 You see the point? If the issue is ceremonial and not moral, then that means that just as the meat, just as the food issue had to do with things required by the ceremonial law, but not the moral law, so the days that Paul has in mind when he writes are days that are required by the ceremonial law, but not days required by the moral law.

Distinguishing the Weekly Sabbath from Ceremonial Days

34:46 And what were the days required by the ceremonial law? And not by the moral law. Well, the days in question were the fast days, the festivals, the three yearly feasts that every Israelite was to come up to Jerusalem to observe. The days in question were the fast days and the feasts established under the provisions of the Old Covenant ceremonial law, but not the Sabbath day commanded in the fourth commandment of the moral law.

35:17 Very important, crucial distinction often missed when people come to this passage and say, well, Paul says, one man esteems every day above another, another esteems the stronger brother every day of life. Well, that must mean there is no Sabbath under the New Covenant. Well, wait a minute. Back up.

35:38 Paul is not dealing with the moral law. He's dealing with the ceremonial law. Christ indeed freed his New Covenant people from the ceremonial requirements of the law of Moses. It is they that were types and shadows imposed until the time of reformation, Hebrews 9 and verse 10.

35:57 In doing so, in freeing his people from the ceremonial law, he freed us from obligation to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. He freed us from obligation to keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread. He freed us from obligation to keep the Feast of Pentecost. He freed us from obligation to keep the monthly Feast of the New Moon.

36:16 He freed us from those obligations. Those things had been established on the basis of the ceremonial law alone.

36:25 But that has nothing to do with the weekly Sabbath which was established at creation on moral principles and which was included in the law at Sinai in the moral law.

36:42 It has nothing to do with the weekly Sabbath. The weekly Sabbath was not established by the ceremonial law. It was established by God at creation on moral principles and then made part of the moral law at Sinai when the fingers of God engraved it on tablets of stone.

37:03 Very important distinction, brethren. Paul is not here saying that keeping or not keeping the Sabbath is a matter of Christian liberty. He's not saying that. That's not the issue.

37:17 The question again of obeying or disobeying the moral law of God is never anywhere in the Bible made a matter of Christian liberty.

37:25 And if indeed we try to regard any of the other of the Ten Commandments as a matter of Christian liberty, we clearly see that that can't be so.

37:36 Again, those who worship other gods, those who make graven images, those who take God's name in vain, those who dishonor their parents, those who murder and steal and commit adultery and bear false witness and covet, are they exercising their legitimate Christian liberty? The Bible says they're sinning.

38:00 So we ask the question,

38:03 a man who regards every day alike in the way that the anti-sabotarians would interpret this passage, who does not keep the Sabbath holy as God commands, is that man exercising his Christian liberty? The Bible says he's sinning.

38:23 He's sinning. It is not an area of Christian liberty.

38:30 And to say, as some want to say from this text, that every day under the new covenant now is a holy day,

38:39 that every day is now a virtual Sabbath in which God is to be glorified is a very ill-conceived way of interpreting Paul's words, another esteems every day alike.

38:52 I ask you the question, was not every day since the creation, every single day since God made the world, has not every day since the creation been a day in which God was to be glorified by the way men used that day?

39:08 Well, surely every day has been a day to glorify God. If that's the definition of a virtual Sabbath, then indeed every day has been a virtual Sabbath in that sense.

39:18 And on that point, the new covenants made no difference.

39:23 If every day under the new covenant is a day to glorify God, then every day under the old covenant was a day to glorify God, and every day since the creation was a day to glorify God. And yet, from the beginning, God established one day in seven as a Sabbath, nonetheless.

39:41 So if every day is a virtual Sabbath, apparently a real Sabbath was still needed.

39:48 If every day is a virtual Sabbath, and that is to discharge us from duty to keep Sabbath, then why did God ever establish the Sabbath to begin with?

40:00 The point of fact calling every day a Sabbath begs the question, because those who argue this way don't regard every day as a Sabbath. In fact, they don't observe any day as a Sabbath of sacred rest, but regard all seven days in the same way as days on which they do their works and pleasures. That's reality.

Professor Murray's Commentary on Romans 14

40:23 Before leaving Romans 14, I would like to read just a paragraph from Professor Murray's comments on this text.

40:31 He says, Paul was not insistent upon the discontinuance of ritual observances, that is, ceremonial observances of the Levitical ordinances. He wasn't insistent that people had to stop observing certain aspects of the ceremonial law, as long as the observance was merely one of religious custom and did not compromise the gospel.

40:57 He himself circumcised Timothy from considerations of expediency, but in a different situation he could write, Behold, I, Paul, say to you that if you are circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.

41:12 He could circumcise Timothy as long as the issue wasn't the gospel. But when he comes to write to the Galatians, who are being urged that you must be circumcised after the law in order to be saved, Paul says, if you allow yourselves to be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.

41:32 And ceremonial feast days, Professor Murray says, fall into the category of which the apostle could say. One man seems one day above another, another seems every day alike. And here speaking to the context of that first century religious life, many Jews would not yet have understood all the implications of the gospel, and would still have had a scrupulous regard for these mosaic ordinances.

42:00 Of such scruples, we know Paul to have been thoroughly tolerant, and they fit the precise terms of the text in question. There is no need to posit anything that goes beyond such ceremonial observances. To place the Lord's Day, the weekly Sabbath, in the same category is not only beyond the warrant of exegetical requirements, but brings us into conflict with principles that are embedded in the total witness of Scripture.

42:30 An interpretation that involves such contradiction cannot be adopted. Thus, the abiding sanctity of each recurring seventh day as a memorial of God's rest in creation and of Christ's exaltation in His resurrection is not to be regarded as in any way impaired by Romans 14 and verse 5.

42:56 Those who raise Romans 14 and verse 5 and say, ah, here we see how Paul sets the Sabbath aside, simply have misread their Bibles. Paul does no such thing.

Context of Galatians 4:8-11: Legalism and Self-Justification

43:10 But now there is a second text, and this much more briefly, Galatians chapter 4, we'll take up the third text tonight, but consider with me Galatians chapter 4 verses 8 through 11.

43:25 Here the Apostle says, Howbeit at that time not knowing God, ye were in bondage to them that by nature are no gods. But now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how turn ye back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments or principles whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again. Ye observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain.

43:55 Now this is one of the most difficult passages in all of the book of Galatians to try to sort out. Again, I ask you to think with me. I realize that this is difficult material, but please stay with me, think with me. And I think the place to begin is to recognize that Paul has now moved, when he comes to Romans 4, he has now moved to a case in which the question of Christian liberty is no longer part of the picture.

44:25 He has now come to a passage, he has now come to a context in which the issue of Christian liberty, that was the issue in Romans 14, but he has come now to a text in which the issue of Christian liberty is no longer part of the picture. Unlike Romans 14, 5, where he says, one man esteems one day above another, another esteems every day alike, let each man be fully assured in his own mind, there is the question of the issue of liberty. Here he says, you observe days and months and seasons and years, I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain. The issue is changed.

45:07 The issue is different. The issue is no longer whether weak Christians are using their Christian liberty to the full. No, the issue is whether these Gentile believers have been bewitched by the Judaizers. The issue is changed.

45:30 It has changed radically. It has changed dramatically.

45:34 And if these Galatian believers have now embraced observing certain stipulations of the law of Moses as necessary to their being saved, if they, in addition to the merits of Christ, have decided that we would be justified,

45:51 the issue has changed. It's a different context. You can't compare Romans 14 and Galatians 4 as though they're talking about the same thing. They're not.

46:04 Now, through Paul's preaching of Christ and the gospel, the Galatians have come to know the true God.

46:12 Prior to this, they were pagans. They were worshippers of idols who followed the principles of idol religions. But now, through the preaching of Christ and the gospel, the Galatians have come to know the true God. They have come to know the true method, by which men are made right with God, the true method of justification, which is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

46:39 And before the gospel came to them, Paul tells them, your condition was one of ignorance and servitude. At that time, verse 8, he says, not knowing God, that is, your condition was one of ignorance, you were in bondage. Your condition was one of servitude. To them, that by nature, are no gods.

47:04 But Paul now, because of the news that has come to him, because the news has come that they've begun to embrace the peculiar doctrines of the Judaizers, Paul is now perplexed by their attitude, so much so, that he says, who has bewitched you?

47:23 They appear to have been, as it were, a great cloud come over their judgment. Who has bewitched you? Verse 9, he says, but now, after you have known God, been delivered from ignorance, or rather, are known by God, how is it that you are turning again to the weak and beggarly elements or principles to which you desire again to be in bondage?

47:51 I'm perplexed. I don't understand you. You don't make any sense, he says. You're acting as though you've been bewitched.

48:00 You have been delivered out of ignorance. You have been delivered out of servitude to those which are not God's, and now you show every indication of desiring to go back into a religion just like you lived.

48:15 And I'm worried about you. I'm afraid for you, because if you do this, Christ will profit you nothing. So that's the issue.

48:26 And notice the phrase that he uses there in verse 9. How is it you are turning again to the weak and beggarly elements or the weak and beggarly principles that you desire to which you desire again to be in bondage.

48:42 Here is a reference to the principles or the rudiments of their old religious beliefs.

48:50 To the rudiments, the principles that were found in the paganism that they followed before the gospel came to them. And to those principles to which he says, in some sense, you are willingly returning by receiving the doctrine of these Judaizers. Now what does he mean? Well, what he is saying is, you know, is that their old view of self-justification, of being their own savior, and the view of God that went with them, of a God who will be pleased if we simply give him enough of our own works to please him.

49:29 But in no sense a God of grace or sovereign grace. No, a view of God that goes with that idea of self-justification is as different from the God of the gospel as the gospel is to that view of self-justification. Now he says, in going now to this doctrine of the Judaizers, you are backtracking to a religion that is like the religion you left. You are going back to a religion of self-salvation, a religion of self-justification.

49:59 You are going back to a view of God that is antithetical to the gospel. The God that you will have to embrace to take up the law as the instrument of your self-salvation is not the God of the Bible. He is as much an idol as the idols that you have been worshipping.

50:19 He says to them that in going back these old religious views, he says, are weak and beggarly. They are weak, he says, because they have no power to save you. They are beggarly in the sense that they are unprofitable. They have nothing to offer you but bondage.

50:42 You go back to them thinking, here is the way of salvation. He says, no, these principles are weak and beggarly. They are impotent and unprofitable.

50:56 They cannot save you. They have nothing to offer you except the bondage from which you have been liberated.

51:04 Right? You see the general gist. For those who had escaped from the ignorance and spiritual slavery of heathenism, their religion was weak and beggarly. It was impotent and unprofitable.

51:18 Now the Judaizers are urging them to adopt a method of justification and a view of God that is a method of self-justification, a view of a God who is not a God of saving grace.

51:32 They are urging them to adopt a religion that at that point or at those points is just like the heathenism that they've abandoned.

51:42 Paul says, I'm afraid of you.

The 'Weak and Beggarly Elements' and the Law's Misplacement

51:45 And you see, what makes this so attractive to the Galatians who now have embraced the scriptures, what makes it so attractive is that this Judaized religion has a place in it for the law of God.

52:00 The problem is though, they've put the law of God in the wrong place.

52:06 That's what makes it so attractive to them. Is this not the law of Jehovah? The true and living God? Well, yes it is.

52:15 But Paul says, you've got that law in the wrong place in your religion.

52:20 That law was given to show you your sin. That law was given to bring you to Christ. It was never given to you so that you could save yourself.

52:30 It was never given so that you would turn away from the God of grace.

52:36 And from the gospel of his son.

52:40 And for that reason, the religion of the Judaizers, because it required men to save themselves by securing their own righteousness by keeping the law, for that reason, that religion was just as weak, just as beggarly, just as powerless to save and unprofitable as the paganism from which they had lived. It brought them back into bondage to save themselves.

53:08 Now that this is the correct view of Paul's argument is clear from the fact that Paul uses, a very rare word, but uses it in two places in this context. We've seen how he has used it in verse 9 to refer to the principles of a paganism that was powerless to save. He also uses it in the context in verse 3 through 5 to speak of the law of Moses which likewise was powerless to save. Consider again, or consider now, Galatians 4 verse 3.

53:45 So we also, when we were children, were held in bondage under, and here's the same word, the elements or the rudiments or the principles of the world. Same word that he uses when he says, how do you turn back to the weak and beggarly elements, principles, rudiments. The same term. The same issue.

54:06 But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth his son, born of a woman, born under the law that he might redeem them that were under the law that we might receive the adoption of sin. What is he saying? He is saying that the rudiments of the world are the law from which Christ redeems his people.

54:30 That when the law is used that way, it is just like the principles of paganism. He makes the connection. I'm not making this up in my head. He makes the connection in the context.

54:44 Now you've been very patient. You see, all this brings us to appreciate then what Paul says in verses 10 and 11. About days.

54:54 Alright, look now at verses 10 and 11. You observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain.

55:09 Now whatever Paul means by their observing days and months and seasons and years, whatever he means specifically, this practice is part of their adopting the religion and the views of the Judaizers.

55:26 This is not something they've picked up from their pagan past and reintroduced. This is something that they're now adopting from these men who are coming and saying it is necessary not only that you believe in Christ, but that you keep the law of Moses and be circumcised in order to be saved.

55:45 Now he says, you observe days and months and seasons and years. Here's something that they've adopted from the Judaizers. It is part of their taking up the law of Moses as the instrument by which they will secure a righteousness of their own to supplement the righteousness of Christ so that they can in the end be saved. The righteousness of Christ we've got to add our own by keeping the law.

56:12 Here's how we do it. Here's part of how we do it. Observing the days and seasons and years of the Mosaic Code.

56:21 And indeed it is not really by observing it, it is by scrupulously observing it. The term translated observe in our English versions literally means to observe carefully. It suggests a rigid observance of these days and months and seasons and years.

56:40 That's the context you see. That's the issue. The issue is they've taken these things up, they've taken these days and months and seasons and years, they've taken these things up, appointed in the law of Moses in order to gain personal merit before God and to place God in their debt so that he will save them.

57:02 That's the context. That's the issue. And that's why Paul says, I'm afraid for you.

57:09 You have turned the God of grace into a different God.

57:13 You've taken his law and put it in the wrong place in your religion.

57:19 I am afraid for you in taking up the law of Moses in this way. You are entangled again in a yoke of bondage.

57:28 You are entangled again in an impotent and in an unprofitable religion that can't save you. I'm afraid for you, Paul says.

57:37 If you do this, if you view it this way, if you look upon the law this way, you're going to perish. That's the issue.

Identifying the 'Days, Months, Seasons, and Years' in Galatians 4

57:49 But now, what days?

57:53 What months? What seasons? What years?

57:57 Paul, nowhere in our text, uses the word Sabbath.

58:02 If you take out your concordance, look up the word Sabbath, this is not one of the texts that will come up.

58:09 He nowhere uses the word Sabbath, but I don't object to acknowledging that the Jewish Sabbath is included under the word days.

58:18 I don't object. Under the word days, months, seasons, and years, I don't object to the idea that Paul here is indeed speaking of the Jewish Sabbath, that is, the Sabbath of the Mosaic legislation. John Brown says the phrase days probably refers to the Jewish Sabbath and the great day of expiation, that is, the day of atonement. Months to the festivals of the new moons.

58:42 Times or seasons to annual feasts such as Passover, Pentecost, Feast of Tabernacles, years to the sabbatical year and the year of Jubilee.

58:51 I will concede for the sake of argument, that Paul here, though he doesn't use the word Sabbath, means Sabbath under days. At least that's part of what he means.

59:00 But now, if we concede that Paul has the Jewish Sabbath, the Sabbath under the law of Moses in view, when he speaks here of observing days, are we not conceding then that Christians have no obligation to keep Sabbath at all?

59:16 Haven't I just given the whole thing away?

59:20 Well, there are some who say yes. Henry Alford, in his commentary, puts it this way. He says, quote, Notice how utterly such a verse is at variance with any and every theory of a Christian Sabbath, cutting at the root as it does of all obligatory observance of times as such. Alford says, well, if you admit that this word days includes the Sabbath, if you admit that, then how utterly this verse is at variance with any and every theory of the Christian Sabbath.

59:58 You see, that goes far, far, far, far beyond. What Paul teaches in this class.

60:05 The subject of the perpetuity of the Sabbath is not before Paul's mind at all.

60:13 Moreover, he doesn't here object to observing holy days, months, seasons, and years as such.

60:23 He never says it is sinful for you to observe these days. It is sinful for you to observe these seasons and months and years. He never says that.

60:35 In fact, apparently he observed Jewish feasts on at least two occasions after he writes Galatians.

60:45 His objection is solely against observing such seasons in an effort to save oneself.

60:54 Fundamental issue, brethren. He's not saying it is wrong to keep the Feast of Pentecost. At the end of his third journey, he was hurrying to Jerusalem to get to the Feast of Pentecost himself.

61:09 He won't leave Corinth to the end of the Days of Unleavened Bread.

61:16 Paul was not objecting to keeping these feasts as a matter of Christian liberty.

61:26 He wasn't objecting to keeping the Jewish Seventh-day Sabbath as a matter of Christian liberty either.

61:32 But if you're doing it to save yourself, he says, I fear for you. That's the issue. That's the only issue. His objection is against viewing the Sabbath, keeping the Sabbath, keeping the Feast as works meriting God's favor in justification.

61:52 He's not condemning keeping the Lord's Day as part of the Christian's rule of life.

61:59 It's a very different issue.

Conclusion on Galatians 4 and Introduction to Colossians 2

62:03 The Christian is still obliged to keep the moral law. The Christian is still obliged to keep the Ten Commandments, including the Sabbath day, as a rule of duty, though not as a way of salvation.

62:18 When you read a text like this, you have to read it in its context. It's the most basic principle of all Bible interpretation. And in the context, the single issue is they're viewing this as the way that they're going to save themselves. And Paul says, never!

62:35 That's anathema!

62:37 That's not the gospel I preach to you.

62:42 If that's your view, I fear for you, because Christ will not be part of your scheme to save yourself.

62:53 John Eady says, the true theory of a Christian Sabbath or rather Lord's Day is not in the least involved in the discussion.

63:03 He's absolutely correct. Ellicott remarks in commenting on Alford's overstatement of the case, it can scarcely be considered exegetically exact to urge this verse against quote, any theory of a Christian Sabbath when the apostle is only speaking of legal and Judaizing observances. That is only speaking of observance of these days in a legal way that is in a way to secure a legal standing before God as justified when the issue is simply how the Judaizers were using the day, not how others might have used the day without their views as a matter of Christian liberty.

63:44 The text has nothing to do whatsoever. With the creation Sabbath,

63:50 with the moral law of God,

63:54 with the Lord's day of the church of Jesus Christ, there is not a thing to do.

64:02 Now there is one other text and we will take that up tonight. If you turn with me there I will simply read it. I want you to be thinking about this text. If you would please read the second chapter of Colossians.

64:15 Indeed, it would be profitable to read the entirety of the book of Colossians but please read at least the second chapter of Colossians for here Paul does use the term Sabbath.

64:27 Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or Sabbaths which are a shadow of the things to come but the body is Christ. God willing tonight we will take that passage up and see what it says and does not say about the subject of the Christian Sabbath.

64:52 Brethren, let us pray.

65:00 Our Father, we thank you for your word and we do thank you Lord for your grace to us in granting the privilege of having the word in our language that we might be able to read it and might be able to pour over it. We pray Father that by your grace that we might be careful in our reading of it that we would not read into it things that are not there. We pray Father that you would help us to deal with your word on sound principles and that you would help us oh Lord to read from it that which you have placed there. We pray especially when we come to difficult passages such as these.

65:40 We pray Lord that you would help us to be especially careful knowing how easily it is to be led astray. Father we do thank you for your word. We thank you oh Lord that it is a light to our pathway. We thank you Lord for its instruction on the issue of the Sabbath.

65:57 We pray that in the remainder of this day, in the remainder of this the Lord's day, that we would keep it in the way that you have appointed it and would honor you in all things. We thank you Lord Jesus Christ you who are the Lord of the Sabbath. We thank you for all that you have done to enable us to enjoy this day as the servants of God. We thank you especially for your saving grace.

66:21 We thank you for your blood shed for us and we praise you for your kindness and mercy. For it is in Christ's name that we pray. Amen.