Why Sunday

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

[index]Originally Posted by mfblume View Post
Esaias believes that he doesn't have to go to Jerusalem in the middle east in order to keep the feasts that he believes he must keep. He says this because he feels New Jerusalem is everywhere and the old is culminated, as you put it. But that is inconsistent, because the sabbath day is also culminated.

And sabbath is part of Mosaic law for Israel.

Never before Moses was any man commanded to keep sabbath.[/index]

Perhaps you should either quote where I said that or else ask for clarification on that issue. Feast keeping is a related, but distinct issue from the weekly Sabbath, by the way.

Of course, I was stressing the relation and the inconsistency between one aspect of religious time periods and another.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

The heir of verse 1 is the Israelite who, although technically a child of God, functionally differs not a whit from a servant, even though, as heir, he is, in time, going to be heralded as the lord of the house. But while he waits to come to maturity, he, as heir, needs to be under instructors who have charge over him because he is not yet ready to assume the mantle of lordship his position as heir allows him to hold.

In the same way, Israelites under the law (note the "we" in verse 3), and not Gentiles who converted to Christian faith, even though they were the heirs who were sons, had to be under tutelage, governed by others because they were not ready for leadership. Rather, they were subjected to the rules and regulations they received from their Jewish world, that is, the Torah.

Then Jesus came, at the appointed time, a true human descended from Mary, descended from Adam, Messiah of Israel while the Torah was in full effect, to redeem the heir who was still a mere subjugated servant. He came to elevate him and move him past servant-hood and make him a true son, an heir, and lord of all. The gift of the Holy Spirit of God's Son is the evidence of that elevation. And all those who receive that Spirit are not to be considered mere servants but fully-fledged children and heirs.

However, before this occurred, these former pagan Gentiles of Galatia formerly gave themselves over to the service of idols. But now, they both know and are known of God. It is therefore not acceptable to Paul that they should return once again to their former idols and be in bondage to them.

For the Israelite, the former subjugation was to Torah. For the Gentile, the former subjugation was to idolatry
. The weak and beggarly elements for these former Gentiles of Galatia is their idolatry. Paul doesn't make a claim against the Israelite and his subjugation to the Torah. There is a clear constant shifting between the subjects, as noted earlier with his use of "we" in verse 3 to "you" from that point forward. Therefore I conclude that the "days, and months, and times, and years" is a reference to pagan customs formerly practiced by these Galatians when they were idolaters. Paul then shares his concern that he has wasted his time on these former Gentiles.

Ultimately, Paul is trying to show these converted Gentiles that if they embrace the doctrine of the Judaizers and become circumcised, for them, it will be as if they were returning to their past idols and the sins thereof because to become circumcised is to deny Christ and fall from grace, that is to say, lose salvation and eternal life, because, as former heathen idolaters, if they give up on Jesus, there is nothing for them to revert back to, but heathen idolatry. They cannot embrace Torah the way the Israelite heir could because as Gentiles, they were not included in the covenant at Sinai.

So, the Israelite could deny Jesus, fall from grace, and fall back on the Torah. The Gentile, if he denies Jesus, and falls from grace, cannot fall back on the Torah because the Torah was not given to him. His only option is the idolatry of the past, even if it masquerades as being some warped and confusing form of (allegedly) Torah-observant Christianity.

I am so much enjoying this thread.

Votivesoul, I’m thrilled you see the I/You distinctions mentioned in Gal 4. I’ve never heard anyone else say that after I shared my thoughts with them. That is a definite key to understanding the chapter. In fact, it’s for that very reason that the issue cannot be pagan days, though.

After chapter 3 clearly stated that the law was like a schoolmaster for those like Paul who were Israelites (THE WE), Paul said that the tutors and governors, as you wonderfully pointed out, are representative that same old covenant Law. The illustration continues from chapter 3 talking about law. And it is for this reason that we know LAW is the elements of the world in 4:3. In interpreting the mini parable of the heir’s childhood being practically the same as a servants, -- seeing as he does no more practical activity in the inheritance before he actually inherits it – Paul said that the heir is no different than the servant. We later learn that Gentiles to whom he wrote – THE YOU and YE – were the servants to idols. But Paul did not say that while they were servants to idols that they were under the tutors of governors that Israel was under before Christ. That is common sense, because, of course, being under law before Christ was only referring to Israel.

But Israel was under the tutors and governors of the elements of the world according to 4:3. Paul then rephrased that same point of being under law by coming right out and saying Israel was redeemed from Law in verse 4-5. This makes Law the elements of the world in verse 3. Verses 4 and 5 interpret what the tutors and governors are in verse 2 just as chapter 3:24 identifies law using the picture of a schoolmaster.

Gentiles were not under the elements of the world that Paul identified in 4:3 in their times before Christ, since that verses uses the pronoun “WE” to indicate Israel’s schoolmaster. And I say “before Christ” because these Gentiles were under idols then. But that does not mean they were under idols immediately before they became Christians.

So, those under Law, or under the schoolmaster and elements of the world, were the Israelites. And the Israelites were redeemed from beneath the law and elements of the world when Christ came when we compare verse 5 with 3. They received adoption of sons.

Then Paul directs his words to the Gentiles, and changes pronouns to say “YE” in verse 6, who were the servants in 4:1, and says there was also a change in them. They were no more servants but sons.

The key, here, is that nothing was said about idols at all so far in the context. Elements referred to Law. We’re not told that Gentiles were servants to idols when we’re told they were servants in verse , until verses 8 introduces that thought. They did service to non-existent gods – verse 8. But because Paul already identified elements of the world in verse 3 to be law in verse 5, for Paul to ask the gentiles why they would RETURN to weak and beggarly elements means that, somehow, they were returning to LAW. “Elements of the world” are the same elements that were weak and beggarly in verse 9.

For this reason, others on the forum cannot agree with you and I that versed 3’s elements of the world was law. You see they were law, though, because you see the same distinction that I saw in the pronouns WE and YOU referring to Jews and Gentiles.

We cannot change the reference of “elements of the world” from law in verse 3 to idolatry in verse 9. It’s the same “elements” that are necessary, basal and fundamental to the New covenant, because in this way the aspects of Law were the schoolmaster that led them to Christ in precisely the way that you described chapter 3.

Idolatry is not the antecedent for the “elements of the world” in neither verse 3, especially, or verse 9. Elements are God-ordained elementary school of Law for both verses.

“Elements” were first referred to as Law in verses 3 through 5. Paul would not use that term to describe something other than law later, or he’d be inconsistent and confusing.

There are two ways to reconcile the points that the service to idols in verse 8, and the common denominator of verse 3’s and verse 9’s reference to ELEMENTS, makes comprehensive reading out of Paul’s words. Both of the only two possibilities, though, conclude that the days, months and years in verse 10 cannot be pagan days, but Israel’s religious time periods of Law.

1. The Gentiles were in a form of bondage to idols and were going back into bondage again, BUT IN A DIFFERENT FORM, by going under the schoolmaster of elements of the world that God freed Israel from. Paganism and Law were both forms of bondage.

2. The Gentiles had come out of paganism and went into Law-keeping before they eventually found Christ in the church at Galatia, which means they indeed did return to the Israelite Law they put themselves under before they found Christ but after they left paganism.

Either way, it does not add up that the religious time periods were elements of verse 9 due to the use of the term in verse 3.

Scholars have noticed this and claim it must be one of the two instances I laid out above.

ADAM CLARKE: on verse 9:

To the weak and beggarly elements - After receiving all this, will ye turn again to the ineffectual rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic law - rites too weak to counteract your sinful habits, and too poor to purchase pardon and eternal life for you? If the Galatians were turning again to them, it is evident that they had been once addicted to them. And this they might have been, allowing that they had become converts from heathenism to Judaism, and from Judaism to Christianity. This makes the sense consistent between the 8th and 9th verses.

ALBERT BARNES on verse 9:

To the weak and beggarly elements - To the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish law, imposing a servitude really not less severe than the customs of paganism. On the word elements, see the note at Gal_4:3. They are called “weak” because they had no power to save the soul; no power to justify the sinner before God. They are called “beggarly” (Greek πτωχὰ ptōcha, poor), because they could not impart spiritual riches. They really could confer few benefits on man. Or it may be, as Locke supposes, because the Law kept people in the poor estate of pupils from the full enjoyment of the inheritance; Gal_4:1-3.

They had been freed by the gospel from the galling servitude of paganism, and they now again had sunk into the Jewish observances, as if they preferred slavery to freedom, and were willing to go from one form of it to another.

These scholars realize that the elements of verse 9 are the same as verse 3, and, therefore, have to be law because of what 5 interprets them to be.

The only way that the time periods could be pagan in verse 10 is for verse 9's reference to use a different antecedent for Law than what currently exists in the verse. We cannot have two different antecedents for elements referred to in both verses 3 and 9. And LAW is the only consistent antecedent because there truly were religious time periods under Law. If verse 9’s elements are referring to idolatry, and Paul already established that ELEMENTS in verse 3 was LAW in verse 5, then it’s pretty confusing when we realize Law did indeed have time periods that were KEPT as ORDINANCES. Consistency can only be found in law and paganism both serving as BONDAGE, making gentiles going back under bondage that is under law instead of bondage under idols. And that still puts the religious time periods to be those of law.

Furthermore, Bondage is stated to be law in the additional mini parable of Hagar and Sarah.

Galatians 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.



One COVENANT gendered to bondage, and the new covenant gendering to freedom. Had it been correct to say that the religious time periods of verse 10 were pagan, then Paul would not say that their bondage under the elements of verse 9 was expounded upon to be seen as the old covenants in verse 24!

And then Chapter 5:1-2 continues to say that the BONDAGE was Law, with not a hint of expounding information about verse 9’s bondage of the gentiles being times of paganism.

Basically, Paul said, “You gentiles are going n the kindergarten bondage that Israel was supposed to leave and be freed from when Christ came, when us Jews are not even under that bondage any more!”

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

We already went through all of this, but I will say it again. God did not say to go by calendars, but sundown to sundown. The evening and morning are a day, in that order.

Which I just pointed out occurs even in the extreme lattitudes. I didn't say anything about going by a calendar.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Of course, I was stressing the relation and the inconsistency between one aspect of religious time periods and another.

Not following you here, perhaps you could explain.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Which I just pointed out occurs even in the extreme lattitudes. I didn't say anything about going by a calendar.

You started your post out by asking if we have the same calendars.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Not following you here, perhaps you could explain.

Sorry, I thought you caught my reference to your use of the term.

Of course, I was stressing the relation and the inconsistency between one aspect of religious time periods and another.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Going back for a moment regarding Sundays and the original references to the "first day of the week":

I see nine uses of that phrase in the KJV, as follows:

https://www.biblegateway.com/quickse...qs_version=KJV

- Matthew 28:1
- Mark 16:2
- Mark 16:9
- Luke 24:1
- John 20:1
- John 20:19
- Acts 20:7
- 1 Corinthians 16:2

I've already addressed Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 and have shown how a change in translation seems warranted (See: here and here.)

The question then is, the other seven references from the Gospels. In each case, note that they refer to the empty tomb scene after Jesus was crucified and buried. Does this mean that this scene took place on a Sunday, Jesus having been crucified and buried on a Friday?

Traditionally, that is the consensus. But what if something else occurred? Note the following text from Matthew 28:1:

Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων

(opse de sabbatōn tē epiphōskousē eis mian sabbatōn)

A literal reading is found here:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/28-1.htm



But note, the Greek word sabbatōn is the same in both instances, and in both cases, is Genitive Neuter Plural. It would seem to make the most sense to translate each instance identically.

But instead we get: In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week...

Why the change? I think it's unnecessary to say the least. First, note as I said previously in post #10, that the Greek word for "day" isn't even in the text, it's supplied by the translators. That leaves us with mia the feminine form for the number 1 in Greek. Second, we must remember that for ancient Israel, they were commanded to keep certain festivals every year, one of them being Passover and another being Unleavened Bread.

These festivals were considered sabbaths of a sort, even if or though they did not fall upon the actual seventh day of the week. From Passover to the end of Unleavened Bread, every day was a high day, or special sabbath to the LORD (See Leviticus 23:1-8). It makes for a total of eight high days or special sabbaths. The first high day or special sabbath was on Passover. Then, seven more high days or special sabbaths lasting for the duration of Unleavened Bread were held.

This explains the reference in Matthew 28:1 regarding the first use of sabbatōn and why it's plural. It's a reference to the special week of special sabbaths that occurred during the first part of the festival.

From John 19:31, we know Jesus was crucified on the Preparation, that is, the day prior to the beginning of Passover, that is, the 13th day of the first month, otherwise in Hebrew called the Chagigah. Further, it need not be assumed that Jesus literally spent 72 hours in the grave. The custom of the times indicated that only a part of a day needs to pass for it to be considered one day. This is reasonable and makes sense to us, because if I say upon this very day, December 29th, 2019, that New Year's Eve is in three days, meaning I am counting today as one of the three, even though much of today has already passed as of this writing, I do not mean 72 exact hours. Because in actuality as of this writing, it's more like 33 hours, even though 33 hours doesn't exactly equal three days in the most literal sense.

The same is true for the Lord's time in the grave. So, if Jesus was crucified on a high day or special sabbath, that is, on the Preparation, the day before Passover, and was buried the same day, and he was, then spent all of the next high day or special sabbath of Passover in the tomb, and He did, and earlier the next morning rose from the dead, and He did, that makes for three days. It also makes it the morning of Unleavened Bread, the beginning of a new set of special sabbaths, which I submit to you, is the meaning of the second use of sabbatōn.

So, first plural use is for Preparation and Passover. Second plural use is for Unleavened Bread. Which means no Sunday in sight.

For Mark 16:2, the text then should read "And early on the beginning of the sabbaths..." that is, referring to the seven "sabbaths' of Unleavened Bread, because again, sabbatōn is plural.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/16-2.htm

But note Mark 16:9. The Greek here is different. Here we have sabbatou, which is Genitive Neuter Singular. This refers to the one day, the very first special sabbath of Unleavened Bread, the day Jesus rose from the dead.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/16-9.htm

Luke 24:1 follows suit with Matthew 28:1. Sabbath is plural and refers to the beginning of Unleavened Bread as a set of seven high days or special sabbaths.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/24-1.htm

John 20:1 follows Matthew 28:1 and Luke 24:1 regarding when Mary came to the tomb with various spices to anoint the Lord's body. It's again sabbatōn, which is plural, thus referring to the set of seven sabbaths of Unleavened Bread.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/20-1.htm

Finally, John 20:19 reads as follows:

Then the same day at evening...

The evening of the same day as what? The evening of the same day as the day Mary went to the tomb, that is, the first of seven special sabbaths for Unleavened Bread. Here, sabbath is again plural.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/20-19.htm

So, to conclude, Jesus was crucified on the Preparation, the day before Passover. It was a high day, or a special sabbath. He was buried the same day. The next day was Passover, another special sabbath, according to Leviticus 23. Matthew 28:1's initial use of sabbatōn refers to these two days. Then, early on the first sabbath (note the singular) of a set of seven sabbaths (note the plural) God raised His Son from the dead. Subsequent to that raising, but on the exact same day, Mary came with spices to anoint Christ's body, not realizing it was already raised to life. Jesus appears to her in the morning of that day, then later on, shows Himself alive to the disciples per John 20:19.

So, again, no mention anywhere of Sunday or of some supposed first day of the week. It's all referring to the special sabbath days of Preparation, Passover, and Unleavened Bread. Now, it may be that the Preparation was a Friday, Passover was a Saturday, and Unleavened Bread began on Sunday, and that's the day Jesus rose from the dead, but that's not something that will really be known to us, and as far as the Holy Scriptures are concerned, it doesn't concern us at all. For all we know, Preparation was on a Tuesday, Passover was Wednesday, and Jesus rose on a Thursday, being the first day of Unleavened Bread.

It doesn't really matter, I think, what actual day of the week it was, because the Scriptures don't make it matter. Rather, we have bias in our translations, as far as I can tell, to, as I said initially, to deflect away from, or even conceal, an anti-Sabbath agenda. It's hard to see it any other way, when the Greek (coupled with a basic understanding of the festivals of Jehovah) is so clear.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You started your post out by asking if we have the same calendars.

Yes, meaning if there were only 1 day in the extreme arctic, then they would have to use a completely different calendar than the rest of us. But as I showed there are 365 days in the arctic like everywhere else. 365 evenings, therefore 52 Sabbaths, everywhere on the planet.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

For Mark 16:2, the text then should read "And early on the beginning of the sabbaths..." that is, referring to the seven "sabbaths' of Unleavened Bread, because again, sabbatōn is plural.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/16-2.htm

But note Mark 16:9. The Greek here is different. Here we have sabbatou, which is Genitive Neuter Singular. This refers to the one day, the very first special sabbath of Unleavened Bread, the day Jesus rose from the dead.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/16-9.htm

Luke 24:1 follows suit with Matthew 28:1. Sabbath is plural and refers to the beginning of Unleavened Bread as a set of seven high days or special sabbaths.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/24-1.htm

John 20:1 follows Matthew 28:1 and Luke 24:1 regarding when Mary came to the tomb with various spices to anoint the Lord's body. It's again sabbatōn, which is plural, thus referring to the set of seven sabbaths of Unleavened Bread.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/20-1.htm

Finally, John 20:19 reads as follows:



The evening of the same day as what? The evening of the same day as the day Mary went to the tomb, that is, the first of seven special sabbaths for Unleavened Bread. Here, sabbath is again plural.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/20-19.htm

So, to conclude, Jesus was crucified on the Preparation, the day before Passover. It was a high day, or a special sabbath. He was buried the same day. The next day was Passover, another special sabbath, according to Leviticus 23. Matthew 28:1's initial use of sabbatōn refers to these two days. Then, early on the first sabbath (note the singular) of a set of seven sabbaths (note the plural) God raised His Son from the dead. Subsequent to that raising, but on the exact same day, Mary came with spices to anoint Christ's body, not realizing it was already raised to life. Jesus appears to her in the morning of that day, then later on, shows Himself alive to the disciples per John 20:19.

So, again, no mention anywhere of Sunday or of some supposed first day of the week. It's all referring to the special sabbath days of Preparation, Passover, and Unleavened Bread. Now, it may be that the Preparation was a Friday, Passover was a Saturday, and Unleavened Bread began on Sunday, and that's the day Jesus rose from the dead, but that's not something that will really be known to us, and as far as the Holy Scriptures are concerned, it doesn't concern us at all. For all we know, Preparation was on a Tuesday, Passover was Wednesday, and Jesus rose on a Thursday, being the first day of Unleavened Bread.

It doesn't really matter, I think, what actual day of the week it was, because the Scriptures don't make it matter. Rather, we have bias in our translations, as far as I can tell, to, as I said initially, to deflect away from, or even conceal, an anti-Sabbath agenda. It's hard to see it any other way, when the Greek (coupled with a basic understanding of the festivals of Jehovah) is so clear.

Interesting. Would this mean the first day of the week is never mentioned in Scripture at all? How would you say "first of the week" in Greek?

Also, tradition and history are unanimous that Jesus rose the day after the seventh day Sabbath. If that is not what happened, what evidence is there available that points in that direction?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Is there a different calendar in operation in the arctic regions? No.

Anybody in Nome, Alaska or Novaya Zemlya can know when the seventh day of the week is. This argument is one of the weakest arguments I've come across. And, logically, it fails even if the premises were true. All it would prove is either that only those in the arctic are relieved of the obligation (is the reader in the arctic? No? Then...) or it proves that if ONE person anywhere anytime cannot keep a commandment then nobody everywhere everytime is required to keep the commandment. So, orphans can't keep the 5th commandment therefore none of us have to?

But for those who might still be thinking the arctic argument has any merit, here:

The Bible defines the Sabbath as the seventh day of the week. The Bible defines a day as beginning at evening, running from one evening to the next. So the Sabbath occurs every seventh evening.

What is evening? In most areas, the evening occurs as the sun approaches the horizon, then "sets", then night occurs. The key though is that evening is the period just before and just after sunset.

Does the sun set in the arctic? Is there an evening in the arctic?

YES.

Even though in the extreme north and south lattitudes the sun does not go BELOW the horizon in summer, it nevertheless descends toward the horizon, then rises again. It is in fact sunset and sunrise, it just does not go below the horizon. The Bible never said the sun must go below the horizon (or rise above the horizon in winter). So there IS a daily sunset, a daily evening, in the arctic. The evenings occur about every 24 hours apart, just as they do everywhere else on the planet. Therefore, Sabbath keeping is no different in the arctic than anywhere else, except it doesn't get AS DARK at night in the summer or AS BRIGHT during the day in winter.

Just to give your post a more fair response.

To say the night does not get as dark at night in the summer is an understatement. It DOES NOT GET DARK AT ALL.

Only as the year gets closer to autumn does it even lessen any brightness at all.

God's word was clear in Genesis. He called light day and the darkness night. It is not night if it is not dark. Period.

All in all, these verses says IT IS FOR ISRAEL:

Exodus 31:12-18 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.