"One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 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. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks." (vs. 5-6)
We have already given Commentary on verses 1-4 of Romans chapter fourteen and on verse one of Romans chapter five. On the two above verses I have already given Commentary. See chapter fifteen in our series (here).
Does Paul, in the above words, condone keeping religious diets and observing holy days? Does he legitimize such for Christians under the new covenant? Or, does he condemn such? Or, is he neutral on the point?
Is Paul's position one that says: Observing religious diets and holy days are not commanded by God in the new testament period. yet if a believer thinks God still delights in his people keeping those observances then it is okay and beneficial? I find that explanation of what Paul says hard to believe. Such a view in effect says that Paul saw no harm in keeping holy days and religious diets. Yet, as we have seen, Paul has much to say on the subject and always taught that such things are out of place under the new covenant.
"So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ." (Col. 2: 16-17 nkjv)
"But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. 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? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain." (Gal. 4: 8-11 nkjv)
It is hard to argue that Paul is strictly alluding to law keeping Jews when he speaks of those who consider observing religious diets, holy days, feasts, Sabbaths, etc., for surely he includes religious Gentiles (who were mostly polytheistic), and probably has them chiefly in mind. In my former commentary on Romans 14: 5-6 I affirmed this and cited other Bible commentators who agreed. In that chapter I wrote the following on the Galatian's passage:
"Are these words chiefly addressed to converted Jews or converted Gentile pagans? This is an important question in understanding what class of religious practice the apostle alludes to when he refers to "observing days, months, times, and years." The Jews, by the direction of God, had a religious calendar. But, polytheistic Gentiles also had such. Is one or the other, or both, condemned by the apostle? The same question may be asked about the "impotent ones" of Romans 14. As was shown in the previous chapter, it is unlikely that the apostle had Jewish (Torah) observances in mind, in Romans 14, seeing he mentions religious vegetarianism, which the Torah did not promote. He seems rather to be alluding to Gentile (pagan) rituals and observances."
The Galatian churches were overwhelmingly composed of converted Gentiles. When he asks why "turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage" the descriptive language and phraseology seems more appropriate of those who came out of polytheism rather than Judaism, although the religious general principle of belief or practice the apostle is denouncing and rejecting as part of the new covenant applies to both Judaism and Polytheism.
In that same chapter I cited these words from other Bible teachers and commentators:
"Interestingly, Paul connects a return to religious observance of "days, months, times, and years," as a return "to the weak (impotent) and beggarly elements" that put one into "bondage." What does he mean by "the weak and beggarly elements"? Forerunner commentary says that the expression is "referring to the demonism they had been involved in prior to their conversion." It also says: "The Gentile Galatians were observing certain days, months, seasons, and years that had nothing to do with God's holy days..." Commentator David B. Grabbe says - "The "days and months and seasons and years" of verse 10 do not refer to God's holy days, but rather to pagan, Gentile holidays that the Galatians observed before conversion in service to "those which by nature are not gods," as verse 8 says." Further, he says - "Thus, the "days and months and seasons and years" is not something Paul wrote in reference to the law of God or even to Judaism. Instead, they are something apart from both of them."
Yes, Paul addresses the Galatians as those who observed such holy days and religious diets, for he says that they once served "those which by nature are not gods." That is a reference to Gentile polytheism.
"In those places, in the Pauline epistles, where Paul speaks of observing religious dietary laws and religious days, it is in the context of pagan observances, not in the context of Torah observances. This was the case in I Corinthians chapter eight, the case in Galatians chapter four, and in this passage, again addressed chiefly to converted pagans."
What does Paul mean when he says that religious diets and holy days in the old testament were "a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ"? Paul wrote similarly to the Hebrews, saying "The Law had a shadow of good things to come, not the very image (or, substance) of the things” (Heb. 10: 1). Christians have the substance and old testament believers had a shadow of that substance, or as it is stated in the Book of Hebrews, the old testament's various rites and ceremonies were figures, types, symbols, examples, of what is now a reality in Christ under the new covenant.
Wrote John Gill in his commentary:
"Which are a shadow of things to come,...By Christ, and under the Gospel dispensation; that is, they were types, figures, and representations of spiritual and evangelical things: the different "meats and drinks", clean and unclean, allowed or forbidden by the law, were emblems of the two people, the Jews and Gentiles, the one clean, the other unclean; but since these are become one in Christ, the distinction of meats is ceased, these shadows are gone...The "holy days", or "feasts" of the Jews, the feasts of tabernacles, of the Passover and Pentecost, were types of Christ."
Mormons teach that a person cannot be a member in good standing if he drinks tea or coffee. In Catholicism, abstaining from meat on Fridays, particularly during Lent, is a tradition. But these have no validity in Christ under the new covenant (testament). The keeping of the weekly Sabbath is also no longer binding on Christians for it was a shadow of something greater under the new covenant. Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath and says that if one comes to him he will enter into Sabbath rest and enjoy Sabbath blessings every day.
Which Lord or God?
This question was asked previously when we addressed Paul's statement "for God has received him." We showed that the "him" was the strong one who did not believe in religious diets and holy days although some think "him" may be refer back to both the weak and the strong. Now we come to a place in the chapter where we must ask "is the Lord and God of each religious servant the same in verses 5-6 at the head?" We have already seen how Paul distinguishes who is the "master" of each weak or strong servant? We showed how the master (synonym for Lord, God) of the weak was not the same as the strong, deducing that from the words "to his own master he stands or falls."
In my previous writing on these verses in chapter fifteen of this series I made these important observations that are needed in properly translating or interpreting the text of Romans 14: 5-6:
"Some commentators feel compelled to make "the impotent" to be Christians because Paul seems to them to be affirming that they serve the same "lord." He that observes religious diet and calendars does it "to the lord," and he that does not observe it also "to the lord" refrains. The commentators think the same "lord" is under consideration and conclude that both must be Christians because they practice such, or refrain from practicing such, to the same "lord." But, this is not the case. The "lord" and "god" is not the same and the context shows this to be so."
"First, as was seen in the previous chapter, Paul asked - "who are you (impotent ones) to judge (condemn) another man's (another lord's) servant?" This language is unmistakeable in showing that the "lord" of the "impotent" was not the same "lord" as the "potent." So, in the verse now under consideration, the same distinction is made. Second, the definite article "the," before the word "lord," is missing in the text, a fact that most translations fail to appreciate. In fact, most translations put the definite article into the text. Thus, they translate - "He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." Also of interest is the fact that most translators not only put the definite article before "lord," which is however absent in the Greek text, but omit the definite article before the word "god," which is however present in the Greek.
The Greek language had no "a" or "an," no indefinite article. The absence of the definite article, however, signifies the indefinite. Also, the word for "lord" and "god" do not come with a capital letter beginning the word...most translations capitalize the first letter, giving the reader the impression that the reference is not to a pagan "lord" or "god," but to the Lord and God of Christians. We can thus read the passage thusly:
"He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto a lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to a lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to a lord, for he giveth the god thanks; and he that eateth not, to a lord he eateth not, and giveth the god thanks."
What message is Paul sending in the words "let each be convinced in his own mind"? The words "let each" show that he is addressing both classes of persons, one who observes holy days and one who does not. Recall how we discussed the words "for God has received him" and asked whether the "him" was the weak or the strong. We asked why Paul did not say "received each." After all, he does use "each" in the above words "let each be convinced." As we have previously stated, Paul addresses each class of persons in Romans chapter fourteen although he addresses the strong ones more times. Sometimes he speaks to the weak and sometimes to the strong and sometimes to both.
Of what does the apostle want each class of persons to be convinced? If diet and observance of holy days are not worth discussing, or are irrelevant and unimportant things, then why exhort both classes to be certainly assured of their beliefs about such things? This exhortation therefore demonstrates the error of many who say that the issue of religious diet and holy days are "things the bible says nothing about."
In chapter fifteen I wrote this about what he means when he says "let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind," saying -
"he does not mean "let every Christian be fully persuaded in his own mind," but "every man," converted or unconverted, pagan or Christian. The Christian is persuaded that his Lord and God does not require him to observe religious diet and holy days. Paul wants the pagan to see that "food commends us not to God, for neither if we eat, are we the better, and neither, if we don't eat, are we the worse." He wants the pagan and the Christian to discuss this and come to agreement. He does not want any to think that observance of holy days and religious diet is a "matter of indifference" or "something the bible says nothing about." The Christian should seek to convert the pagans from his thinking regarding religious diet and calendars, to see that such things affect not a man's standing with God. The Christian is not to "despise" the pagan for his beliefs, but this does not mean that he does not seek to convert him from his false religion. On the other hand, Christians should use the argumentation of the apostle in confronting those pagans who "judge" or condemn the Christian for having no laws regarding diet and holy days."
No comments:
Post a Comment