Just one verse....

[RND]

It's interesting to note that the concept of "the ceremonial law" cannot be found in Galatians 4.

Well if you consider chapter four to be an extension of chapter three it shouldn't be that hard.

Instead, we find a reference to "the covenant that was from Sinai." The covenant that was from Sinai can be found in Exodus 19-20.

Those were the words of God's covenant with His people. The fault was found with the people, not the covenant.

Although I have heard this explanation, I notice that verses 37 and 38 don't specifically mention the seventh-day sabbath.

Verse 38 says that the Lord's sabbath (the seventh-day) was to be done in addition to these feasts, holydays.

Lev 23:38 Beside (in addition to) the sabbaths of the LORD, and beside your gifts, and beside all your vows, and beside all your freewill offerings, which ye give unto the LORD.

There are a number of convocations that come before verses 37 and 38 and the seventh-day sabbath is merely one of them.

Verse 39 offers clarity.

Nowhere in verses 37 and 38 is the seventh-day sabbath singled out as being separate from or in a different classification than the rest of the convocations.

Besides means "in addition to." Sabbath means the seventh-day sabbath.

You know BFA if you ever spent time around Messianic Jews like I have these things begin to become quite easy to understand. Try it. Go to a Messianic congregation sometime and ask these questions and I'm sure you'll get a whole host of some very interesting Bible studies! Besides (in addition to) most Messianics I've met are really cool!

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

How many other days of creation were 'sanctified and blessed'? Do you not think that maybe this rest day is important to God?

Adding to the obvious importance of the day, is RND's point that the blessing and sanctity was never rescinded. Why assume that this very special day of God's is now of none effect when there is not a single verse of scripture to support it?

Add, also, the historic role the Catholic church played in instituting the substitution of Sabbath worship to Sunday. The decalogue was not remiss in stating the fourth commandment as 'remember'... why would that one commandment be prefaced with the command to remember? Maybe because God knew it would become so lightly regarded in the future...

Just some food for thought....

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Well if you consider chapter four to be an extension of chapter three it shouldn't be that hard.

Chapter 3 does not include subclassification called "the ceremonial law." Rather, the context of Chapters 3 and 4 includes "the law that was added 430 years later" and "the covenant that was from Sinai."

Those were the words of God's covenant with His people. The fault was found with the people, not the covenant.

And yet the command was given to get rid of Hagar and Hagar represents the covenant that was from Sinai.

Verse 38 says that the Lord's sabbath (the seventh-day) was to be done in addition to these feasts, holydays.

Here's Verse 38:

38besides those of the sabbaths of the LORD, and besides your gifts and besides all your votive and freewill offerings, which you give to the LORD.
​

Notice that Verse 38 is discussing "sabbaths of the Lord." It's a plural use of the word. The sabbaths of the Lord include all of the convocations listed in verses 1-37. This verse does not make a distinction between one "sabbath of the Lord" previously listed and another "sabbath of the Lord" previously listed.

Verse 39 offers clarity.

Here's Verse 39:

39'On exactly the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the crops of the land, you shall celebrate the feast of the LORD for seven days, with a rest on the first day and a rest on the eighth day.
​

Like Verse 38, Verse 39 creates no distinction between "the sabbaths of the Lord" that are previously listed in Verses 1-37.

Besides means "in addition to." Sabbath means the seventh-day sabbath.

Verse 38 does not say "sabbath." It says "sabbaths of the Lord." The word "besides" follows an entire list of "sabbaths of Lord" found in verses 1-37.

You know BFA if you ever spent time around Messianic Jews like I have these things begin to become quite easy to understand. Try it. Go to a Messianic congregation sometime and ask these questions and I'm sure you'll get a whole host of some very interesting Bible studies!

I have! Thanks for the suggestion. I attended a Messianic synagogue off and on after stepping away from SDAism. It was a great experience. I also spent several years posting on an MJ discussion forum and made a number of friends there. One thing I learned through that experience is that MJs oppose the SDA position on dividing the laws into categories. They're also opposed to the SDA replacement theology that suggests that we are "spiritual Israel."

Messianics . . . are really cool!

I agree completely.

BFA

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

They're also opposed to the SDA replacement theology that suggests that we are "spiritual Israel."

That's not very suprising... kind of the same response you'd expect from the Catholic church regarding the role of the Papacy in Revelation... doesn't mean it's not true.

 

[RND]

Chapter 3 does not include subclassification called "the ceremonial law." Rather, the context of Chapters 3 and 4 includes "the law that was added 430 years later" and "the covenant that was from Sinai."

This is the rub in another thread. As you know Adventist (as well as other churches and theologians) believe that the Ten Commandments were spoken before being written. Sin is the transgression of the law. The law that was "added" was because of....you guessed it, transgression. That must mean that there was a spoken law being transgressed for the written to come into being. Just like many Adventist's I believe Galatians 3 talks about both laws and Galatians 4 adds wonderful clarification as to how the promise came into being.

And yet the command was given to get rid of Hagar and Hagar represents the covenant that was from Sinai.

The "promise" did not come from Hagar and in the context of Chapter 3 we can see what Paul was referring to.

Here's Verse 38:

38besides those of the sabbaths of the LORD, and besides your gifts and besides all your votive and freewill offerings, which you give to the LORD.
​

Notice that Verse 38 is discussing "sabbaths of the Lord." It's a plural use of the word. The sabbaths of the Lord include all of the convocations listed in verses 1-37. This verse does not make a distinction between one "sabbath of the Lord" previously listed and another "sabbath of the Lord" previously listed.

This is where a concordance really comes in handy.

sabbaths = shabbath = intensive from 'shabath' (7673); intermission, i.e (specifically) the Sabbath:--(+ every) sabbath.

Here's Verse 39:

39'On exactly the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the crops of the land, you shall celebrate the feast of the LORD for seven days, with a rest on the first day and a rest on the eighth day.
​

Like Verse 38, Verse 39 creates no distinction between "the sabbaths of the Lord" that are previously listed in Verses 1-37.

Verse 39 is simply describing the feast of tabernacles.

Verse 38 does not say "sabbath." It says "sabbaths of the Lord." The word "besides" follows an entire list of "sabbaths of Lord" found in verses 1-37.

Get out your concordance. It states differently.

I have! Thanks for the suggestion. I attended a Messianic synagogue off and on after stepping away from SDAism. It was a great experience. I also spent several years posting on an MJ discussion forum and made a number of friends there. One thing I learned through that experience is that MJs oppose the SDA position on dividing the laws into categories.

And?

They're also opposed to the SDA replacement theology that suggests that we are "spiritual Israel."

Not all, but most. That doesn't mean much to me however. Messianics would disagree with a number of denominations in that case.

I agree completely.

Glad we agree on something.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

This is the rub in another thread. As you know Adventist (as well as other churches and theologians) believe that the Ten Commandments were spoken before being written. Sin is the transgression of the law. The law that was "added" was because of....you guessed it, transgression. That must mean that there was a spoken law being transgressed for the written to come into being. Just like many Adventist's I believe Galatians 3 talks about both laws and Galatians 4 adds wonderful clarification as to how the promise came into being.

I accept that this is your opinion. My personal opinion is that, just as God has always been, so there have always been principles that fit within the mind of God. These principles existed before the law was added and they continue to exist since the seed came. This does not, however, suggest that every God-given command is meant to be for all people through all of time. For example, many of us agree that God-given commands relating to animal sacrifices, passover, wearing tzitzit and circumcision were not meant for all people through all of time.

Galatians 3 discuss the law that "was added 430 years" after Abraham. I believe these laws are recorded in books such as Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

The "promise" did not come from Hagar and in the context of Chapter 3 we can see what Paul was referring to.

I suspect that the key to understand Chapter 4 is in understanding what Hagar represents. According to Paul, she represents the covenant that was from Sinai.

This is where a concordance really comes in handy.

The context is also quite handy. There are a number of sabbaths listed in Leviticus 23. The author even describes them as such.

Get out your concordance. It states differently.

I haven't found anything that alters Verse 38 to suggest a specific "sabbath" (singular). Rather, all translations render the verse as "sabbaths" (plural). These sabbaths are listed in verses 1-37.

Glad we agree on something.

Let's celebrate.

BFA