Why the weekly Sabbath (Saturday) is the Lord's Day, in the Bible

[BobRyan]

Are you certain Rom14 points to Lev23? Do you have any Scripture that is more definitive re: this?

Gal 4 condemns even one observation of a pagan day.
Rom 14 defends any and all observances of the Bible approved days and condemns anyone who would judge someone or keeping one.

That means we only have the Lev 23 list of Bible approved days for observance.

Since the Sabbath command begins Lev23, why is it also not OK to consider Sabbath as one's conscience allows?

Certainly everyone has free will. But in the NT we are told that breaking one is to break all of the ten Commandments in James 2.

There is no case in the NT where someone says they are refusing to observe one of the Ten - take the weekly Sabbath for example - and the response is "that is just fine".

To get to that one needs a lot of inference - since there is no actual instance of it in scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

There is quite a bit of context in Gal3 and Gal4 speaking of Jews and being under law. The immediate context of Gal4:8 certainly speaks of the ones who are not gods by nature, but IMO it's not this simple and there is more to the days, months, and years in Gal4:9.

Gal 4 speaks specifically to former pagans tending to return to observances of their pagan worship days.

Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.​

​

8 But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods.​

Paul reminds us in 1 Cor 8 that the statement above is exactly the condition of the former pagans.

Gal 4: 9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.​

In Rom 14 Paul defends any and every observance of the Bible -approved days.. and in Gal 4:10 he condemns any and every observance of pagan days.

 

[BobRyan]

That section in English starts:
But every Lord's day gather yourselves together,

are you sure that is the same thing as "the Lord's day is week-day-1"? Because that is what you "need it to say" if you are looking for something that says the term "Lord's day" means "week day 1" to NT writers. Clearly you do not have it.

And worse -- you have to contend with some inconvenient facts in that document

"Chapter 14 opens up with one of the most controversial phrases in the entire Didache. Without any introduction or explanation, the Didache states that the community will be gathered together on “the day of the Lord.” This is not presented in command form but rather assumes that the audience knows exactly what this term means and is well aware of the practice. The Apostolic Constitutions renders this in command form: “Gather together, without fail” (7.30)."

"Although the opening words of chapter 14 are usually translated into English as “the day of the Lord” or “the Lord’s day,” the Greek is more ambiguous. Kuriaken de kuriou is a redundant phrase that can be translated literally as “Lord’s of the Lord,” which is something to the effect of “Lord’s day of the Lord” or “the Lord’s own day.” Some scholars have suggested that this is a Semitism based upon the Torah’s phrase “Sabbath of the LORD,” where the Didache replaces “Sabbath” with “Lord’s” to mimic the Hebrew designation."

Not absolutely certain, no. But it probably is.

Probably not - since it is not the greek phrase we see in Revl 1:10 for "The Lord's day" as even you admit in your post.

Kuriaken de kuriou is not what we find in Rev 1:10 for "Lord's day" -- no "probably " about it.
Kuriaken de kuriou -- is not the greek for "the Lord's day is week-day 1" -- no probably about it.

In Rev 1:10 we have "Lord's day" and the Greek in Rev 1:10 is κυριακη ημερα

It goes on to talk about gathering and breaking bread

Indeed and Sabbath would be a great candidate since 1 Cor 11 says that "as often as you break this bread you do show the Lord's death ( which as everyone knows - was on Sabbath) till He comes"

as a kind of sacrifice.

The early church was known for gathering on the first day and celebrating Communion/Mass.

Not in the first century.

The only text in the NT for a weekly "Every" week worship service in Acts 18:4 "Every Sabbath" they gathered for gospel preaching to both gentiles and Jews - in the Synagogue

You envite endless opportunities to post the inconvenient details when you don't read all the post that you are replying to

 

[BobRyan]

A clear pattern begins to emerge when comparing this with other early Christian writings. Are you interested in looking at those together?

Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 133 - New International Reader's Version

A song for those who go up to Jerusalem to worship the LORD. A psalm of David. How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in peace! It’s like the special olive oil that was poured on Aaron’s head. It ran down on his beard and on the collar of his robe. It’s as if the dew of...

www.biblegateway.com

I find actual scripture to be more to the point -- the Word of God "to be used for doctrine " 2 Tim 3:16.

But I understand why you might need to go some place other than the actual Bible to make your case.

 

[BobRyan]

Hi SB,

I will just leave it out there my own understanding regarding, God's Sabbath rest.

"God sabbath rest" on the 7th day in creation week is the same sabbath rest that the Gospel is offering us

Was God offering forgiveness of sin, the new birth, adoption into the family of God in Gen 2:1-3 to sinless newly-created Adam and Eve?

Or were sinless Adam and Eve worshiping the one true God in Gen 2:1-3 -- in the Sabbath made for mankind" -- without any rebellion , and already created sinless perfect children of God in your POV??

But, since they (israel generation in wilderness) Heb 10:11 Did not enter into "God's Sabbath rest" due to disobedience and unbelief of the Gospel message unlike those who obeyed or believe. God then declare on "oath" that they (Israel "generation in wilderness") shall never enter my Rest"

1. Israel actually did go into Canaan - only the group 20 and older did not go to Canaan.
2. Moses appears with Christ in glory before the cross even happens - in Matt 17 (so also did Elijah). They were fully saved under the gospel not at all accused of "unbelief".
3. The Heb 11 list of faithful believing saints is exclusively from the OT including Moses and those of Israel after the time of Moses.

You appear to be missing some details in your summarized statement

4. For all eternity after the cross all mankind will be keeping Sabbath "from Sabbath to Sabbath" in the New Earth Is 66:23

 

[GDL]

Gal 4 condemns even one observation of a pagan day.

That's certainly one POV.

Gal 4 speaks specifically to former pagans tending to return to observances of their pagan worship days.

Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.8 But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods.
Paul reminds us in 1 Cor 8 that the statement above is exactly the condition of the former pagans.

Gal 4: 9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.

Galatians was written to the churches in Galatia. Paul is talking about an awful lot of Jewish things. Is he talking only to Gentiles? I'll back up a bit:

NKJ Gal3:22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

• "all" seems like all men - not just pagans

23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.

• Who was kept under guard by law - Jews or all men?

24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

• Jews or all men?

25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

• Jews or all men?

26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

• Jews or all men?

27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

• Jews or all men?

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

• Jews or all men?

29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

• Jews or all men?

NKJ Galatians 4:1 Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all,

• Jews or all men?

2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father.

• Jews or all men?

3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world.

• Jews or all men?
• Why children who had been enslaved under the "stoicheia [of] the kosmos" and why not just repeat what he said in 3:23 re: under law?
  • Stoicheion: basic components/parts of something, something foundational, basic/elementary principles, any first thing in a row (various Greek lexicons)

4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

• Jews or all men?

6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"

• Jews or all men?

7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

• Jews or all men?

8 But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods.

• Jews or all men?

9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?

• Jews or all men?
• Wasn't Paul's concern that they were desiring to be under law? (Gal4:21)
• Paul had earlier said (Gal4:3) "we" were enslaved under the elements of the world - if "we" means Paul included, then Paul was also enslaved under the elements of the world when he was a child/under law/not yet an heir
• Weak = Asthenēs: limiting, ineffective
• Beggarly = Ptōchos: Poor/destitute/lacking [in something], lacking in spiritual worth/value, relatively worthless, powerless [to accomplish], deficient – they accomplish nothing – they make nothing better
• Stoicheion: basic components/parts of something, something foundational, basic/elementary principles, any first thing in a row (various Greek lexicons)

10 You observe days and months and seasons and years.

• Jews or all men?

11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.

• Jews or all men?

IMO:

• This is a little tricky to just be considering Paul is talking only to "former pagans" - he's including himself in at least some of these points including being enslaved under the basics of the world - the limiting & powerless basics of the world - like days and months and years - things of "under law" (Gal4:21)
• Are observing calendar issues important to our being perfected (Gal3:3)?
  • Or are they the limiting & powerless [to accomplish something] basics of the world that Paul having been "under law" had been enslaved to as an Israelite [grown up] child until Christ came and made him a son?
• What also gets a bit tricky is considering if Gentiles were ever "under law" or if they were "in law" per Rom3:19 and this put them in essentially the same enslaved condition as the Jews re: the limiting & powerless basics of the world until Christ came
• This could lead to what Paul really thinks about the "freedom we have in Christ Jesus" (Gal2:4)

 

[BobRyan]

That's certainly one POV.

Galatians was written to the churches in Galatia.

Agreed and they had the same dynamic as the church in Corinth where former pagans had become Christians and Paul addresses that situation in both Gal 4 and 1 Cor 8 as noted in the quotes of scripture in my post that you may have missed.

Galatians was written to the churches in Galatia. Paul is talking about an awful lot of Jewish things. Is he talking only to Gentiles?

No not "just to gentiles" ... As in the case of Romans and the first letter to the Corinthians Paul addresses many different issues and several groups in each letter.

I am simply point out that in the Gal 4 case -- part of that chapter is helpful where I note his statement about former pagans being condemned for returning to their pagan holy day observances since in Rom 14 NO day among the Bible approved list of days could be condemned. It helps to clarify that point in Rom 14.''

As for the idea that Paul could not possibly address gentiles in the book of Galatians (a gentile church).


Gal 1 "To the churches of Galatia:" (clearly that group include a few gentiles -- to say the least)


In vs 13-14 Paul writes as if they are all gentiles -- and he is the one lone Christian Jew in this discussion.

Gal 1: 13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. 14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.​

​

​

In Gal 2 - Paul again makes a strong case that he positions his letter "as written to gentiles"

​

Gal 2:3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), 5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.​

​

That statement above would make no sense at all to a Jewish audience as if they were the only intended recipients. So any Christian Jews in Galatia surely knew that the letter included a lot of Christian gentile recipients.

 

[BobRyan]

If we say that the early church can be trusted to pick out the scriptures,

1. Paul said his writings were already accepted as scripture in 1 Thess 2.
2. Peter points out that same thing regarding Paul's letters in 2 Peter 3.
3. Luke uses the term "IN ALL THE SCRIPTURES" in Luke 24 because he knew his readers were NOT saying "Hey - I don't think we know what the scriptures are... I don't think we know what the term - ALL the scriptures - means".
4. even the ECFs did not claim that they were coming up with scripture for the first time - but rather that they were simply admitting what the church had already deemed to be holy scripture.

Even so - not one case of someone with a new testament of more than 27 books - and you and I probably both know that Didache is not one of them.

 

[expos4ever]

We keep getting the same flawed argument that Romans 3:19 teaches that all are under the Law. Yes, all are deemed sinners. And yes, all mouths are thereby shut. But how is it not painfully obvious that this does not require us to believe that all are under the Law of Moses?

Suppose there is a law against kicking puppies in the United States and nowhere else. But it is easy to imagine that the action of one’s conscience is sufficient to let every non-American human being know that it is a sin to kick puppies.

And suppose, horrid thought that it is, all humans have, in fact, kicked a puppy.

That’s it! That makes the case – we can then say that although only Americans are “under the law against kicking puppies”, all human beings are deemed guilty of kicking puppies.

It, is of course, telling that those who argue that Romans 3:19 teaches that all are under the law remain conveniently silent on the fact that Paul’s wording is “those under the law”. Normally, the word “those” picks out a subset as in:

Those who are late to class……

Those who achieve a grade of B and above……

Those who persevere………..

By contrast, does it make sense to say these things?:

Those bachelors who are unmarried……

Those human beings with a nose…..

Those adult giraffes over 1 foot tall…..

No, these sentences do not make sense, precisely because all bachelors are unmarried, all human beings have a nose, and all adult giraffes are over 1 foot tall.

The obvious point being this: if all human beings are really under the Law, why does Paul refer to those under the law?

 

[GDL]

Agreed and they had the same dynamic as the church in Corinth where former pagans had become Christians and Paul addresses that situation in both Gal 4 and 1 Cor 8 as noted in the quotes of scripture in my post that you may have missed.

I did see your 1Cor8 comment. But Paul is speaking of food & idols in Corinth, which he's not talking about in Galatia.

No not "just to gentiles" ... As in the case of Romans and the first letter to the Corinthians Paul addresses many different issues and several groups in each letter.

I am simply point out that in the Gal 4 case -- part of that chapter is helpful where I note his statement about former pagans being condemned for returning to their pagan holy day observances since in Rom 14 NO day among the Bible approved list of days could be condemned. It helps to clarify that point in Rom 14.''

Did you miss my points re: the elements of the world that seem to be a commonality between Paul under law and the [potential] former pagans you're suggesting? I'm questioning the line of reasoning that days, months, seasons/times, years are pagan because they are being equated to the elementary basics of the world that are powerless to accomplish [what's being accomplished in this era]. A very quick search shows this use of the same word in Gal4:10 used here:

• NKJ Leviticus 23:4 `These are the feasts of the LORD, holy convocations which you shall proclaim at their appointed times.

If Paul has been enslaved to the elementary things of the world as a Jew under law, and he's concerned about believers going back to that, why can't they be Jewish Christians who are also being "Judaized" to go back to Israel's infancy/childhood under law/a guardian?

Certainly, calendar issues could be set aside as no longer being meaningful in Christ. The feasts in part pointed to what Christ would and did fulfill and in part to what God's calendar of events to be fulfilled looks like. It's all known now in Christ. So, what good are they in perfecting us, which is Paul's concern in Galatians?

I know this can head into questions about positions re: Sabbath. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

As for the idea that Paul could not possibly address gentiles in the book of Galatians (a gentile church).


Gal 1 "To the churches of Galatia:" (clearly that group include a few gentiles -- to say the least)


In vs 13-14 Paul writes as if they are all gentiles -- and he is the one lone Christian Jew in this discussion.

Gal 1: 13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. 14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.​

You've misunderstood me if you think I've said he's not talking to Gentiles. I think he's clearly talking to both Jews & Gentiles in the churches of Galatia. It's the focus on former pagans I was addressing and assuming you meant Gentiles by that phrase. So I'm adding Jews per context and questioning you interpretation of the calendar issue being pagan. Context seems to be saying that whether Jew or Gentile, prior to Christ the focus was on the basics. Since Christ it's time to move on to perfection as sons and heirs. It's time to think of things above as commanded (Col3:2).

I can just as easily use Rom14 to substantiate what I'm considering here in Gal4 as you can to support your view (which I think is incorrect): Whether it be calendar issues or food issues, the thing being accomplished now in this time of raising adult sons, is the perfecting of consciences under the Great High Priesthood of Jesus Christ something that could not be done under the Mosaic Law with its Priesthood and sacrifices (Heb9). This is part of the reason Paul is so protective of the conscience as in 1Cor8. This all has to do with the writing of law on hearts and making a functional conscience in Christians (Rom2 & Heb9).

So, idols are nothing (1Cor8), the calendar is not an issue (Gal4), food is not an issue "for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." (Rom. 14:17 NKJ).

I don't think we received the message. I don't think the elementaries are an issue anymore. I think we're supposed to have learned them and have moved on. I think we're arguing about milk in the sandbox:

• NKJ Heb5:8-14 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. 9 And having been perfected (teleioō), He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, 10 called by God as High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek," 11 of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles (stoicheia - same in Gal4:3, Gal4:9) of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe (nēpios - same word in Gal4:3). 14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age (teleios - adjective & same base word as Heb5:9 verb used for Jesus. Also same used in perfecting the conscience in Heb9. Also commanded of us in Matt5:48 per Jesus), that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

 

[GDL]

The obvious point being this: if all human beings are really under the Law, why does Paul refer to those under the law?

He doesn't, because he doesn't say "under" law in Rom3:19.

Also, how is it failed analysis to view the 2 clauses as equated? The Law speaks to the [men] in (within the limits of) the law for this purpose: so, every mouth can be closed, and all the world can be liable to God. IOW all mouths & all the world are/is liable to God because all men with mouths in all the world are within the limits of law.

 

[HIM]

It seem you are disconnecting Isaiah 56:6 from v 7-8 and if 7-8 are fulfilled, than verse 6 would be as well, I‘m sure I am misunderstanding, which I was hoping you would clarify.

The gentiles were not ministered to and gathered unto Him as God intended until after Christ's Asension.

Sabbath blessings did you take note of verses 8? God through Isaiah says He will gather others to him beside those those who are gathered unto him. That was not fulfilled in Isaiah's time. It was not fulfilled until after Jesus' Asension through the ministry of Paul..

Isa 56:7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.
Isa 56:8 The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

So you don't think the New Covenant is fulfilled for some?

 

[HIM]

I don't think there's much of anything in Romans that doesn't touch on law in some way. Romans is bookended (Rom1:5; Rom16:26) with Paul saying his mission is to bring the nations to faith-obedience and Rom15:18 speaks of Christ making the nations obedient through Paul. Law is a factor under discussion in Romans in regard to this faith-obedience.

Leaving out the chapter breaks, Rom13:9-10 is about law and fulfillment of law and continues into Rom14 in how to treat one another in light of the summary commandment from Lev19:18. It's also about the conscience which has much to do with law being written on hearts, and about judging one another and appearing before the judgment seat of Christ where law will be a factor.

Gal 4 condemns even one observation of a pagan day.
Rom 14 defends any and all observances of the Bible approved days and condemns anyone who would judge someone or keeping one.

That means we only have the Lev 23 list of Bible approved days for observance.


Certainly everyone has free will. But in the NT we are told that breaking one is to break all of the ten Commandments in James 2.

There is no case in the NT where someone says they are refusing to observe one of the Ten - take the weekly Sabbath for example - and the response is "that is just fine".

To get to that one needs a lot of inference - since there is no actual instance of it in scripture.

Chapter 13's context is the law in respect to love. Chapter 14 is about disputing opinions with those who are weak in the faith about things that are not of the law but opinions. Nowhere in the Pentateuch is it stated we should only eat herbs. Verse 2 sets the context.

(NET) Rom 14:1 Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions.
Rom 14:2 One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables.

(EBR) Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in his faith, receive ye,––not for disputing opinions:––
Rom 14:2 One, indeed, hath faith to eat all things, whereas, he that is weak, eateth herbs:

 

[HIM]

That's certainly one POV.

Galatians was written to the churches in Galatia. Paul is talking about an awful lot of Jewish things. Is he talking only to Gentiles? I'll back up a bit:

NKJ Gal3:22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

• "all" seems like all men - not just pagans

23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.

• Who was kept under guard by law - Jews or all men?

24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

• Jews or all men?

25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

• Jews or all men?

26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

• Jews or all men?

27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

• Jews or all men?

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

• Jews or all men?

29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

• Jews or all men?

NKJ Galatians 4:1 Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all,

• Jews or all men?

2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father.

• Jews or all men?

3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world.

• Jews or all men?
• Why children who had been enslaved under the "stoicheia [of] the kosmos" and why not just repeat what he said in 3:23 re: under law?
  • Stoicheion: basic components/parts of something, something foundational, basic/elementary principles, any first thing in a row (various Greek lexicons)

4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

• Jews or all men?

6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"

• Jews or all men?

7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

• Jews or all men?

8 But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods.

• Jews or all men?

9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?

• Jews or all men?
• Wasn't Paul's concern that they were desiring to be under law? (Gal4:21)
• Paul had earlier said (Gal4:3) "we" were enslaved under the elements of the world - if "we" means Paul included, then Paul was also enslaved under the elements of the world when he was a child/under law/not yet an heir
• Weak = Asthenēs: limiting, ineffective
• Beggarly = Ptōchos: Poor/destitute/lacking [in something], lacking in spiritual worth/value, relatively worthless, powerless [to accomplish], deficient – they accomplish nothing – they make nothing better
• Stoicheion: basic components/parts of something, something foundational, basic/elementary principles, any first thing in a row (various Greek lexicons)

10 You observe days and months and seasons and years.

• Jews or all men?

11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.

• Jews or all men?

IMO:

• This is a little tricky to just be considering Paul is talking only to "former pagans" - he's including himself in at least some of these points including being enslaved under the basics of the world - the limiting & powerless basics of the world - like days and months and years - things of "under law" (Gal4:21)
• Are observing calendar issues important to our being perfected (Gal3:3)?
  • Or are they the limiting & powerless [to accomplish something] basics of the world that Paul having been "under law" had been enslaved to as an Israelite [grown up] child until Christ came and made him a son?
• What also gets a bit tricky is considering if Gentiles were ever "under law" or if they were "in law" per Rom3:19 and this put them in essentially the same enslaved condition as the Jews re: the limiting & powerless basics of the world until Christ came
• This could lead to what Paul really thinks about the "freedom we have in Christ Jesus" (Gal2:4)

Elements of this world would include the Book of the Law. The issue isn't what is written in it in respect morality but the ministry. God never chose a ministry of parchment and tables of stone. That was not His intention on Mt. Sinia. The people cried out for it through fear due to their conscience condemning them. They said Moses speak to us not God lest we die. IT WAS ALWAYS TO BE FROM THE HEART THROUGH HIM.

Exod 20:19 And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.


So after 40 years God tried again. For it is He that sanctifies. He said through Moses before they entered into the promise land in Deut 29,30 that he was making a Covenant with them BESIDES the one He made with them on Mt Sinai, Horeb. He states that He would place His statutes, and commandments contained in the Book of the Law. His very Word in the hearts and mouths so they could do it. Notice the judgements are not included,

Deut 29:1 These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.

Deut 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.


Deut 30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
Deut 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
Deut 30:12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deut 30:13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deut 30:14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

 

[HIM]

Gal 4 condemns even one observation of a pagan day.
Rom 14 defends any and all observances of the Bible approved days and condemns anyone who would judge someone or keeping one.

That means we only have the Lev 23 list of Bible approved days for observance.


Certainly everyone has free will. But in the NT we are told that breaking one is to break all of the ten Commandments in James 2.

There is no case in the NT where someone says they are refusing to observe one of the Ten - take the weekly Sabbath for example - and the response is "that is just fine".

To get to that one needs a lot of inference - since there is no actual instance of it in scripture.

Elements of this world would include the Book of the Law. The issue isn't what is written in it in respect morality but the ministry. God never chose a ministry of parchment and tables of stone. That was not His intention on Mt. Sinia. The people cried out for it through fear due to their conscience condemning them. They said Moses speak to us not God lest we die. IT WAS ALWAYS TO BE FROM THE HEART THROUGH HIM.

Exod 20:19 And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.


So after 40 years God tried again. For it is He that sanctifies. He said through Moses before they entered into the promise land in Deut 29,30 that he was making a Covenant with them BESIDES the one He made with them on Mt Sinai, Horeb. He states that He would place His statutes, and commandments contained in the Book of the Law. His very Word in the hearts and mouths so they could do it. Notice the judgements are not included,

Deut 29:1 These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.

Deut 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.


Deut 30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
Deut 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
Deut 30:12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deut 30:13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deut 30:14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

 

[Leaf473]

Probably not - since it is not the greek phrase we see in Revl 1:10 for "The Lord's day" as even you admit in your post.

Kuriaken de kuriou is not what we find in Rev 1:10 for "Lord's day" -- no "probably " about it.
Kuriaken de kuriou -- is not the greek for "the Lord's day is week-day 1" -- no probably about it.

In Rev 1:10 we have "Lord's day" and the Greek in Rev 1:10 is κυριακη ημερα

Early Christian writers tend to use κυριακη when referring to the first day of the week. That's what I found so far. We can explore it together, if you wish

 

[Leaf473]

Indeed and Sabbath would be a great candidate since 1 Cor 11 says that "as often as you break this bread you do show the Lord's death ( which as everyone knows - was on Sabbath) till He comes"

The early church was also known for gathering on the first day. Again, we can explore that together, if you wish
____________
Also, Jesus didn't die on the seventh day Sabbath, did he?

 

[Leaf473]

Not in the first century.

Depends who you ask. Some scholars date the Epistle of Barnabas as early as 74.

 

[Leaf473]

I find actual scripture to be more to the point -- the Word of God "to be used for doctrine " 2 Tim 3:16.

But I understand why you might need to go some place other than the actual Bible to make your case.

Which takes us back to my original post in this subthread; if you trust the early church do identify the scriptures, it is consistent to trust it to properly interpret the Sabbath.

 

[Leaf473]

1. Paul said his writings were already accepted as scripture in 1 Thess 2.
2. Peter points out that same thing regarding Paul's letters in 2 Peter 3.
3. Luke uses the term "IN ALL THE SCRIPTURES" in Luke 24 because he knew his readers were NOT saying "Hey - I don't think we know what the scriptures are... I don't think we know what the term - ALL the scriptures - means".
4. even the ECFs did not claim that they were coming up with scripture for the first time - but rather that they were simply admitting what the church had already deemed to be holy scripture.

Paul and the other apostles probably thought of the lxx as scripture. The lxx has a different list of scriptures than the one 66 book Bible that most Protestants use.