Observing pagan holy days Gal 4, --vs-- observing Bible approved Holy days Rom 14

[BobRyan]

In Gal 4 - Paul speaks to former pagans , newly converted to Christianity - and proceeds to condemn a "return again" to the observance of pagan holy days.

6 Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba! Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.​

8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles, to which you want to be enslaved all over again? 10 You meticulously observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.​

​

Paul is not allowing even one observance of a pagan holy day in Gal 4 - for the former pagans newly turned to Christianity.

However in Rom 14 - Paul condemns anyone who would condemn a Christian for keeping anyone of the Bible approved annual holy days of Lev 23. He who observes the say observes it for the Lord

Rom 14

5 One person values one day over another, another values every day. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and the one who eats, does so with regard to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and the one who does not eat, it is for the Lord that he does not eat, and he gives thanks to God. 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.​

​

10 But as for you, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or you as well, why do you regard your brother or sister with contempt? For we will all appear before the judgment seat of God. 11 For it is written:​

“As I live, says the Lord, to Me every knee will bow,
And every tongue will give praise to God.”​

Vs 10 condemns anyone who would judge someone for observing one of those annual holy days in Lev 23 - but does not go so far as to condone observance of pagan holy days as we see in Gal 4.

 

[BobRyan]

1 Cor 8 gives more examples of issues that former pagans (newly turned Christian) have in their understanding of what is right vs wrong

Now concerning food sacrificed to idols, ...​

​

4 Therefore, concerning the eating of food sacrificed to idols, we (Jews) know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us (Jews) there is only one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.​

​

7 However, not all people have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, (newly converted gentiles) eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 Now food will not bring us close to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. 9 But take care that this freedom of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone sees you, the one who has knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will his conscience, if he is weak, not be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? 11 For through your knowledge the one who is weak is ruined, the brother or sister for whose sake Christ died. 12 And so, by sinning against the brothers and sisters and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to sin.

 

[Soyeong]

In Gal 4 - Paul speaks to former pagans , newly converted to Christianity - and proceeds to condemn a "return again" to the observance of pagan holy days.

6 Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba! Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.​

8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles, to which you want to be enslaved all over again? 10 You meticulously observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.​

​

Paul is not allowing even one observance of a pagan holy day in Gal 4 - for the former pagans newly turned to Christianity.

It should be absurd to interpret Paul as speaking against following Christ's example of obeying God's law in accordance with what God has commanded as if Paul were an enemy of God. In Galatians 4:8, it refers to those who formerly did not know God and God's law is His instructions for how to know Him (Exodus 33:13), so he could not have been referring to those who were formerly obeying God's law and who were now returning to it. So I agree that it is referring to former pagans newly turned to Christianity.

However in Rom 14 - Paul condemns anyone who would condemn a Christian for keeping anyone of the Bible approved annual holy days of Lev 23. He who observes the say observes it for the Lord

Rom 14

5 One person values one day over another, another values every day. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and the one who eats, does so with regard to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and the one who does not eat, it is for the Lord that he does not eat, and he gives thanks to God. 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.​

​

10 But as for you, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or you as well, why do you regard your brother or sister with contempt? For we will all appear before the judgment seat of God. 11 For it is written:​

“As I live, says the Lord, to Me every knee will bow,​

And every tongue will give praise to God.”​

Vs 10 condemns anyone who would judge someone for observing one of those annual holy days in Lev 23 - but does not go so far as to condone observance of pagan holy days as we see in Gal 4.

The topic of Romans 14 stated in the first verse is in regard to how to handle disputable matters of opinion, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow God, so nothing in the chapter should be interpreted is being in regard to following what He has commanded. A disputable matter of opinion is concerning and issue for which God has given no command because where God has given a command, human opinion must yield. For example, in Romans 14:2-3, they were judging and resenting each other over the issue of whether only vegetables should be eaten, which is not something that God has commanded.

So Romans 14:5-10 is speaking against judging each other over days that they esteemed as a matter of opinion, not about God's holy days. For example, it was a common practice in the 1st century to fast twice a week and to judge those who didn't esteem those days for fasting even through it was not something that God commanded (Luke 18:12). The reason why we are to keep God's holy days is not because man esteemed them as a disputable matter of opinion, but because God commanded His people to do that and what is holy to God should not be profaned by man.

 

[BobRyan]

So Romans 14:5-10 is speaking against judging each other over days that they esteemed as a matter of opinion, not about God's holy days. For example, it was a common practice in the 1st century to fast twice a week and to judge those who didn't esteem those days for fasting even through it was not something that God commanded (Luke 18:12). The reason why we are to keep God's holy days is not because man esteemed them as a disputable matter of opinion, but because God commanded His people to do that and what is holy to God should not be profaned by man.

The topic of Romans 14 stated in the first verse is in regard to how to handle disputable matters of opinion, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow God, so nothing in the chapter should be interpreted is being in regard to following what He has commanded.

True that Paul is not saying something like "God said - do not take God's name in vain and some people choose to follow that command while others do not. Let each one enjoy is own decision".

But there were things optional -- for example not all of the Lev 23 annual convocations were mandatory for all of Israel. Only 3 were mandatory before the cross for all men in Israel.

Even after the cross in Acts 21 Paul goes into the non-Christian Jewish temple "and take a vow" along with some other Jewish Christians. Clearly that was not "mandatory" it was elective. They chose to do it.

But but in the context of Gal 4 condemning even one observance of a pagan holy day - we see that the "observes every day" statement in Rom 14 cannot be an approval of observing the pagan days of Gal 4.

 

[DamianWarS]

In Gal 4 - Paul speaks to former pagans , newly converted to Christianity - and proceeds to condemn a "return again" to the observance of pagan holy days.

6 Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba! Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.​

8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles, to which you want to be enslaved all over again? 10 You meticulously observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.​

​

Paul is not allowing even one observance of a pagan holy day in Gal 4 - for the former pagans newly turned to Christianity.

However in Rom 14 - Paul condemns anyone who would condemn a Christian for keeping anyone of the Bible approved annual holy days of Lev 23. He who observes the say observes it for the Lord

Rom 14

5 One person values one day over another, another values every day. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and the one who eats, does so with regard to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and the one who does not eat, it is for the Lord that he does not eat, and he gives thanks to God. 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.​

​

10 But as for you, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or you as well, why do you regard your brother or sister with contempt? For we will all appear before the judgment seat of God. 11 For it is written:​

“As I live, says the Lord, to Me every knee will bow,​

And every tongue will give praise to God.”​

Vs 10 condemns anyone who would judge someone for observing one of those annual holy days in Lev 23 - but does not go so far as to condone observance of pagan holy days as we see in Gal 4.

this is a very odd way of interpreting Rom 14. Normally this is seen as resolving disputes among opinions of negotiable things like what day is correct or what food is correct, etc... which would broadly speaking be against your understanding of the passage essentially saying whatever you do (on whatever day, or whatever you eat, etc...) do it for Christ. Yet, somehow you have read this to discriminate against worship on certain days, and I assume also discriminate on what we eat. Do you have any sources to back up this understanding of the text?

 

[DamianWarS]

In Gal 4 - Paul speaks to former pagans , newly converted to Christianity - and proceeds to condemn a "return again" to the observance of pagan holy days.
6 Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba! Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles, to which you want to be enslaved all over again? 10 You meticulously observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.Paul is not allowing even one observance of a pagan holy day in Gal 4 - for the former pagans newly turned to Christianity.

the passage does not condemn days (which Rom 14 speaks more into) it condemns returning to being "slaves to those which by nature are not gods". This is more about motivation than it is about days of the week or specific acts. Our posture of "worship" is consistent with our culture's interpretation of posture of worship and is more of a social construct. Worship in a church today probably does not look like worship in a church 2000 years ago. For example, it may have been dishonorable to wear shoes whereas in a modern context, it may not be dishonorable and encouraged to be safe. That doesn't make shoe-wearing good or bad but if we choose to ignore how people perceive these things or how our own heart perceives these things then we violate our own conscience which means our heart has corrupted motivations or mixed systems that cannot reconcile to God.

A friend of mine came to serve Christ during the Jesus movement of the 70s, he like many others was a hippie and wore jeans, had long hair, and played loud music, classic hippie stuff. After responding to Christ's call upon his life he would worship at the front of the church wearing the same clothes, to him it was a message of freedom in Christ, not a message of protest or a message of his old life. Jeans to him was an honorable thing towards God and a consistent message of the freedom Christ gave him from sin, it was not a returning to his old ways, but to another it in fact may be, and they need to give up some of their old customs to serve God.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

In Gal 4 - Paul speaks to former pagans , newly converted to Christianity - and proceeds to condemn a "return again" to the observance of pagan holy days.
6 Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba! Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles, to which you want to be enslaved all over again? 10 You meticulously observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.Paul is not allowing even one observance of a pagan holy day in Gal 4 - for the former pagans newly turned to Christianity.

the passage does not condemn days (which Rom 14 speaks more into) it condemns returning to being "slaves to those which by nature are not gods".

It specifically mentions both.

10 You meticulously observe days
7 you were slaves to those which by nature are not gods.

They were "returning once again" to a few pagan practices regarding those "days" which were observed in honor of those false gods which "were by nature not gods at all"

For example, it may have been dishonorable to wear shoes whereas in a modern context, it may not be dishonorable and encouraged to be safe. That doesn't make shoe-wearing good or bad

Not even remotely the topic in Gal 4

In Gal 4 it is about losing salvation "I fear I may have labored over you in vain" when it comes to observing pagan days..

And of course it is pretty easy for everyone to see that a former pagan -- now Christian -- that begins to 'turn back again' to the worship of those things that are "not god at all" in the observance of certain pagan "days" -- would be a pretty big problem for a "Christian".

Paul's "I fear I may have labored over you in vain" is clearly justified in that regard. Obviously.

Shoe wearing... not so much.

 

[BobRyan]

this is a very odd way of interpreting Rom 14. Normally this is seen as resolving disputes among opinions of negotiable things like what day is correct or what food is correct

Romans 14 allows one to "regard one day above the other days" in the Bible approved list of days... Lev 23.
Or it allows for "regarding them all" in context of the Bible approved list of days - in Lev 23.

What it does not allow for is the observance of even one of the pagan days of Gal 4 - because the observance of even one of them was deemed by Paul as a return to paganism and the loss of Christian faith.

 

[DamianWarS]

BobRyan said:

In Gal 4 - Paul speaks to former pagans , newly converted to Christianity - and proceeds to condemn a "return again" to the observance of pagan holy days.
6 Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba! Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles, to which you want to be enslaved all over again? 10 You meticulously observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.Paul is not allowing even one observance of a pagan holy day in Gal 4 - for the former pagans newly turned to Christianity.

It specifically mentions both.

10 You meticulously observe days
7 you were slaves to those which by nature are not gods.

They were "returning once again" to a few pagan practices regarding those "days" which were observed in honor of those false gods which "were by nature not gods at all"

Not even remotely the topic in Gal 4

In Gal 4 it is about losing salvation "I fear I may have labored over you in vain" when it comes to observing pagan days..

And of course it is pretty easy for everyone to see that a former pagan -- now Christian -- that begins to 'turn back again' to the worship of those things that are "not god at all" in the observance of certain pagan "days" -- would be a pretty big problem for a "Christian".

Paul's "I fear I may have labored over you in vain" is clearly justified in that regard. Obviously.

Shoe wearing... not so much.

there is a lot of context surrounding "days" and the point is more about a desire to continue pagan practices and a salve of their old ways. You may argue that x day is pagan for a people 2000 years ago, or maybe 1500 years ago, or even 500 years ago but we don't live then and are not motivated the same way. For the most part, those "pagan" aspects are lost in history, and even if they do still exist they exist in completely different forms. This is because pagan gods are not real so their practices are not sustainable and will not endure, so what was once practiced is lost, perhaps it is revived again from never in the same way because there is no author of these practices keeping them in check. they will move and change as cultures move and change.

The church in fact has a lot of pagan forms in it from the layout mirroring Roman systems to obelisk steeples then there is how we treat certain objects like the bible or a cross pendant, not all traditions are the same but commonly these objects are treated as objects of hidden power. Biblical Christians worshiped in homes and most of the systems we see in organized churches today look nothing like they did in the bible and are influenced by outside systems. There is no need to call them pagan even if their origins may have pagan influences, this includes special days. We can take the good values and redeem them for Christ as typically many practices are good and wholesome. For example, this is what we see with the date for Christmas, more of a redeemed version of a pagan winter solstice. Santa is the least of our worries, he's far more Christain than most of the other stuff, from trees to garland, to mistletoe all very pagan.

if a pagan group were in the habit of feeding the poor as their spiritual act of worship this shouldn't mean we need to ban feeding the poor or call it a pagan practice nor should we discourage someone coming from this group to continue feeding the poor. Or if they were in the habit of wearing pink it shouldn't mean we should ban pink and call anything pink pagan. That's just silly, and there are many acts that are redeemable for Christ, what's important is what's coming from our heart and if wearing pink brings up all these pagan desires into your heart then, of course, don't do it. But there is nothing you have brought up that would indicate any sort of pagan practice or desire is happening so there is no issue. if you want to identify a pagan practice then identify it, don't say 1500 years ago pagan practices were happening because that would mean you are preaching to people 1500 years ago. What does it mean today? then apply that to the verse.

Romans 14 allows one to "regard one day above the other days" in the Bible approved list of days... Lev 23.
Or it allows for "regarding them all" in context of the Bible approved list of days - in Lev 23.

What it does not allow for is the observance of even one of the pagan days of Gal 4 - because the observance of even one of them was deemed by Paul as a return to paganism and the loss of Christian faith.

yes, that's the odd part, do you have sources to back up that interpretation? Lev 23 doesn't support that interpretation it's just superimposed over it. Do you happen to follow a Hebrew lunar calendar too because a lot of Lev 23 would require that? there's far more to Lev 23 than the Sabbath, and if you're suggesting those are the only days we may follow then I'm afraid we are too distance to be able to have a meaningful conversation. Is not the day Christ rose from the dead a worthy cause to celebrate? That's the meaning behind Sunday worship and it has biblical precedence that is outside of pagan influences.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

In Gal 4 - Paul speaks to former pagans , newly converted to Christianity - and proceeds to condemn a "return again" to the observance of pagan holy days.
6 Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba! Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles, to which you want to be enslaved all over again? 10 You meticulously observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain. Paul is not allowing even one observance of a pagan holy day in Gal 4 - for the former pagans newly turned to Christianity.

It specifically mentions both.

10 You meticulously observe days
7 you were slaves to those which by nature are not gods.

They were "returning once again" to a few pagan practices regarding those "days" which were observed in honor of those false gods which "were by nature not gods at all"

there is a lot of context surrounding "days" and the point is more about a desire to continue pagan practices and a salve of their old ways.

IT is specifically about their old pagan practices observing certain pagan days.

10 You meticulously observe days
7 you were slaves to those which by nature are not gods.

They were "returning once again" to a few pagan practices regarding those "days" which were observed in honor of those false gods which "were by nature not gods at all"

So severe an error was that "observance" that Paul adds "11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain"

By contrast Rom 14 defends every single day observed because they are from the Bible-approved set in Lev 23.

You may argue that x day is pagan for a people 2000 years ago

Certainly Paul seemed to think so.

, or maybe 1500 years ago, or even 500 years ago but we don't live then and are not motivated the same way.

The point is that Rom 14 was not endorsing "every day" because Gal 4 clearly shows that in Paul's context he did not approve of everyone of them being observed.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

Romans 14 allows one to "regard one day above the other days" in the Bible approved list of days... Lev 23.
Or it allows for "regarding them all" in context of the Bible approved list of days - in Lev 23.

What it does not allow for is the observance of even one of the pagan days of Gal 4 - because the observance of even one of them was deemed by Paul as a return to paganism and the loss of Christian faith.

yes, that's the odd part, do you have sources to back up that interpretation? Lev 23 doesn't support that interpretation it's just superimposed over it.

IT is in the text

5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it.

 

[DamianWarS]

IT is specifically about their old pagan practices observing certain pagan days.

So what days exactly are you protesting or implicitly calling "pagan" that Christians should not follow?

 

[DamianWarS]

BobRyan said:

Romans 14 allows one to "regard one day above the other days" in the Bible approved list of days... Lev 23.
Or it allows for "regarding them all" in context of the Bible approved list of days - in Lev 23.

What it does not allow for is the observance of even one of the pagan days of Gal 4 - because the observance of even one of them was deemed by Paul as a return to paganism and the loss of Christian faith.

IT is in the text

5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it.

I'm referring to your interpretation of the text, Lev 23 doesn't give us insight on that. Do you know what I mean when I asked for a source to back up your claim?

 

[BobRyan]

So what days exactly are you protesting or implicitly calling "pagan" that Christians should not follow?

In Gal 4 Paul informs us that some of those former pagans - turned to be Christian were "returning again" to some of their pagan practices , observing certain pagan days.

In Rom 14 the Bible approved days are strongly defended by Paul even though observance of those pagan days in Gal 4 is condemned.

Paul did not "name the days".

 

[BobRyan]

I'm referring to your interpretation of the text, Lev 23 doesn't give us insight on that.

Lev 23 gives us 'insight' on the Bible-approved days observed by the people of God according to scripture.

Do you know what I mean when I asked for a source to back up your claim?

do you know what I mean by pointing to scripture as the source??

 

[DamianWarS]

In Gal 4 Paul informs us that some of those former pagans - turned to be Christian were "returning again" to some of their pagan practices , observing certain pagan days.

In Rom 14 the Bible approved days are strongly defended by Paul even though observance of those pagan days in Gal 4 is condemned.

Paul did not "name the days".

I'm actually looking for something more specific. Paul is addressing an audience 2000 years ago. But what is your point in a modern context? Just boradly that we shouldn't be observing pagan holidays? Or did you have something specific in mind?

 

[DamianWarS]

Lev 23 gives us 'insight' on the Bible-approved days observed by the people of God according to scripture.

do you know what I mean by pointing to scripture as the source??

I'm not sure what 'insight' is supposed to mean in context. It's a common word but your use of quotations suggests an uncommon meaning, if it was a dig at my post then please let's respect each other better. in any event Lev 23 is not a source for your interpretation, it is a source for holidays that Hebrew's followed. You then are superimposing it over the text. The link is missing and that's the problem.

Romans 14 allows one to "regard one day above the other days" in the Bible approved list of days... Lev 23.
Or it allows for "regarding them all" in context of the Bible approved list of days - in Lev 23.

This is the part that is lacking a source. You are inserting a parenthetical "in the Bible approved list of days" to the word "days" which has caused you to seek out Lev 23 to qualify what "days" means. Since the text does not say this, what is your reason for adding this? I'm sorry I can't take your word for it alone, a scholarly source would carry more weight and it would give myself the benefit of understanding the argument better. Lacking this source suggests this is not a respected position.