Easter Madness: Is your church an abomination?

[Esaias]

Here's a thread with more detail on the subject:

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=47714

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1 Corinthians 5:7-8 KJV (7) Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: (8) Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.


1. They were to purge out the old leaven, as they were unleavened. From this it follows that "leaven" is being used in two senses. The first sense is the leaven they must purge out. The second sense is the way in which they were already unleavened. They cannot both be the same sense, for they cannot be both unleavened, and in need of purging out leaven, in the same exact sense. The first sense is clear from the context. The ekklesia was leavened with sin because of the fornicator. They were to expel the fornicator and thus "purge out the old leaven" (representing the one still living according to the old man). Just as during the Passover season every Israelite had to purge out or remove all leaven from his house, so the church was to remove all traces of the old man (the leaven of sin). So the first sense of being unleavened is metaphorical, and means they were to get rid of the fornicator. Since the first sense is metaphorical of their spiritual condition, the second sense must not be metaphorical, as it was already shown that the two uses of the term leaven must be distinct.

2. They were already unleavened in a certain sense, but not in the spiritual sense of having purged out sin. Therefore, "as ye are unleavened" does not refer to the presence of sin in the ekklesia. It must therefore refer to something else.

3. The word "as" is:

G2531

καθώς
kathōs
kath-oce'
From G2596 and G5613; just (or inasmuch) as, that: - according to, (according, even) as, how, when.

So they were to purge out the old leaven "as ye are unleavened". Or in other words, they were to purge out the old leaven "just or inasmuch as" they were already unleavened. This shows that they were unleavened in one sense, and needed to expel the fornicator in order to be unleavened spiritually "just as" they were already unleavened... (fill in the blank)

4. This indicates they were in fact keeping the feast of Passover/Unleavened Bread. They were already unleavened in the sense of having got rid of the actual leaven from their homes and dwellings, but now they needed to make that a spiritual reality by getting the "leaven" out of the assembly. This would be accomplished by expelling the fornicator.

5. "Let us keep the feast" indicates Paul was in fact telling them to keep the feast of Passover/Unleavened Bread, but they were to make sure they were not being hypocritical. If they were unleavened in the literal, physical sense, but still leavened spiritually, then they would not be keeping the feast in any meaningful spiritual sense. They needed to keep the feast SINCERELY, which would require the expelling of the fornicator. Failure to expel the fornicator would mean the church was tolerating sin ("leaven"). Thus they would be unleavened in the literal sense but leavened in the ecclesiastical sense, and thus hypocrites.

6. This spiritual unleavening was not limited to simply purging the fornicator from their midst, but they also needed to make sure they weren't doing it in malice, either. Paul was exhorting them to holiness and purity of heart, which is what the feast of Unleavened Bread signified - the removal of sin from the heart as well as the house.

7. In conclusion, this tells us the early apostolic Christians were in fact keeping Passover/Unleavened Bread, albeit in a New covenant sense. Christ being the Passover does not mean Christ was the Passover celebration or memorial, but the LAMB, the Passover Lamb. The Bible refers to the lamb that was to be slain and eaten on Passover as the Passover. And thus to keep the Passover was called "eating the Passover", that is, eating the lamb slain according to the prescribed ordinances of God at the appointed time. Christ is our Passover, that is, He is the Lamb that was slain to provide deliverance for us, the substitutionary sacrifice who died in our place. Because Christ our Passover has been offered for us, we are to keep the Feast. In other words, Christians are to keep the feast of Passover/Unleavened Bread because Christ, our Passover, has been offered for us. As Christians we are to keep the feast with sincerity and truth, purging out spiritual leaven from both our own personal lives and also from the corporate life of the assembly as well.

8. This ties in with Colossians 2:16, where Paul exhorts the Colossian believers to let nobody judge them in meat, drink, keeping of a holy day, or the new moon, or the sabbaths. The fact they were not to allow anyone to judge them "in" these things means they were in fact doing these things, and were also being judged for it. The Colossians were being judged (condemned, judged as being in error) by those who were attempting to entice them away from Christ. These enticers were either ignorant of or opposed to the truth that Christ is God Almighty Himself and were attempting to introduce obedience to the traditions of men, which Paul calls "philosophy and vain deceit". So the Colossians were being judged for (among other things) their keeping of holy days, new moons, and sabbaths, as though their keeping was defective. Why would it be seen as defective? Because they were keeping them in a New Covenant sense, with Christ as the center and focus, rather than according to the traditions of men.

9. Paul specifically says these various sabbaths etc were "shadows of things to come". This was written many years after the Ascension of Christ. Thus, he is not saying they were shadows of Christ and His redemptive Work. They were shadows of things that, when Paul wrote, were still "to come", ie still future. Thus, the argument that the sabbaths, feast days, holy days, etc are shadows of Christ and therefore done away with under the Christian dispensation is false. If the shadow remains until the thing signified by the shadow arrives, and if Christ had already come and died, resurrected, and ascended, and yet the sabbaths etc are shadows of things still to come, then it necessarily follows that the thing they were signifying was still future, and the shadow therefore remained.

10. Colossians 2:16-17 KJV Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: (17) Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

The phrase "which are a shadow of things to come" is a parenthetical statement. He did not say "which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance of those shadows in the body of Christ". That would not make sense because the body of Christ is the church, and the church was not casting the shadow which was inaugurated as the new moons, sabbaths, etc. Rather, he said the church is to let no man judge them in these things BUT THE BODY OF CHRIST. The word "is" is italicised, meaning the KJV translators wanted us to know there was no corresponding word in the Greek text for it. Here is the Greek:

Col 2:17 ἅ ἐστι σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

Literally, Paul said "Let no man judge you in meat, or drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths - which are a shadow of things to come - but the body of Christ."

That is, we are not to allow anyone judge us in these things except the body of Christ, meaning the church keeps the divine appointments according to the apostolic, new covenant sense, and nobody is to be allowed to judge us otherwise. The recurring issue that Paul continually had to deal with was the Pharisee party attempting to convert gentile believers to Pharisaism. This would include the Pharisees judging and condemning the gentile believers for not keeping the feasts in the Jewish and Pharisaic manner - an issue even Christ Himself ran into repeatedly.

Therefore, it is shown that the early, apostolic church kept not only the Passover but the other "appointments" as well, albeit in a New covenant context with Christ as the focus and purpose and reason, and not according to the halachah of the Pharisaic Jews.

Excellent post. I'll definitely have to take a closer look at this.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Just a quick blurb about this subject.

The Feasts or Appointed Times of the Lord have four levels of signification. The first of course is the historical. Passover was a commemoration of the Exodus from Egypt, for example. The second is Christological. The Passover looked forward to the cross as Christ became soteriological Passover Lamb accomplishing our deliverance, for example. The third is experiential. We must each of us have a personal Passover or Calvary experience, whereby not only do we 'eat' the Passover (the cross applied to our lives) but we must also take up our own cross and 'die to self' on our personal, God-ordained Golgotha, ie we identify with Christ in his death, for example. And the fourth is eschatological. Paul says the feasts are 'shadows of things coming', ie still future from when he wrote those words. (I understand this last point will be debatable by my preterist friends, but that's not what this thread is about, so bear with me a moment.)

Now, we know that Christ died on Passover. As such, he fulfilled the Passover. Yet, in Hebrews we read that Christ also fulfills the Atonement. Now, the Day of Atonement was in the fall, and did not take place during Passover. For years I had wondered 'Why, if Christ fulfills the Day of Atonement, did he not die on the day of Atonement?'

First of all, he had to die on a particular day, so it couldn't be both. It would have to be one or the other.

Second, the Day of Atonement was meant to secure the ongoing atonement of the nation. But without Passover there would be no nation to be atoned for. So, the Day of Atonement depends on the Passover.

Third, the Day of Atonement occurs in the seventh month. The Passover occurs in the first month. To determine the seventh month, one has to know when the first month is. Thus, again, Atonement depends on Passover.

Fourth, the Passover is merely part of a larger Feast, the Feast of Unleavened Bread. This feast is a seven day feast that actually spans eight days. The first day is the Passover day itself, when the lamb is killed and roasted. That night, the Lamb is eaten. This would be the 'first day of unleavened bread' properly speaking. This day was a Sabbath, and the day after that would be the presentation and waving of the 'omer' or 'sheaf of the firstfruits'. So the third day, technically speaking, of the whole festal period is the 'omer' day. Then, the last day, or seventh day of the week of Unleavened Bread, is also a Sabbath.

What we see here is a pattern: The first, the third, and the seventh. The first is when the Lamb is slain. The third is the presentation of the representative firstfruit. The seventh is the culmination or completion.

The Feasts themselves follow a similar pattern of first, third, and seventh. The first month is Passover/Unleavened Bread, the third month is Pentecost or feast of firstfruits, and the seventh month is Trumpets (announcing the beginning of the seventh month), Atonement, and Tabernacles (another 8 day feast).

So then, within the first Feast period of Passover/Unleavened Bread, there is contained in a seed form the entire cycle of yearly Feasts. Or to put it another way, the Passover/Unleavened Bread cycle is a typological representation or template for the entire Feast calendar for the whole year.

So, in conclusion, the Day of Atonement is contained in seed form within the Passover cycle, and is dependent upon the Passover for it's existence and timing. Thus, when Christ died at Passover, he fulfilled in typological form the entire yearly Feast cycle.

This corresponds not merely to the day he died, but to the entire week.

On Passover he died. He was in the tomb during the first Sabbath of Unleavened Bread. He rose the third day as the 'omer' of the resurrection, the proto-typical firstfruit signalling the Pentecost harvest of 'firstfruits' would be acceptable. Likewise, his resurrection is a type of the new life we receive by the gift of the Spirit, which was poured out on the feast of firstfruits aka Pentecost. He appeared to his disciples several times over the next week much to their amazement, signifying a 'Tabernacles' experience much as God tabernacled with Israel in the wilderness (which is what Tabernacles' historical purpose was to commemorate).

So, in a sense, the Passover week was a Christological fulfillment of the whole yearly Feast cycle. And thus, he was able to fulfill the Atonement without having to actually die on the actual Day of Atonement.

Note1: I realise some hold to either a Wednesday crucifixion or a Thursday crucifixion. This thread is not designed to debate that issue (we can do that in another thread if anyone wants?) but merely to point out how Atonement is satisfied even though his death was not on the Day of Atonement.

Note2: During the Exodus event, Israel wound up at Marah on or right about what would be the seventh day of Unleavened Bread. Then they arrived at Sinai shortly before the day of what would be Pentecost. Pentecost is fifty days from Passover (technically from the omer day). Jesus stayed with the apostles for forty days after his resurrection, leaving them ten days to wait in preparation and prayer until Pentecost when the Spirit was poured out. The time he spent with them he spoke to them about the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. Israel's history in those first fifty days between the Exodus and Sinai give interesting lessons concerning the kingdom of God: The tree making the bitter waters sweet, the twelve wells and seventy palm trees of Elim, the giving of manna in the wilderness of Sin, the striking of the Rock at Rephidim, the coming of Amalek, the appointment of lesser judges (governmental structure) after the arrival of Jethro, and the arrival at Sinai and preparations to receive the Law and Covenant.

Note3: Jesus was with his disciples forty days after his Passover. Israel wandered in Sinai for forty years after their Passover.

Note4: It is likely that when Jesus was baptised by John, he fulfilled much of the typology of the Day of Atonement. This by the way leads into the question of whether Jesus died in the middle of the seventieth week of Daniel, or at the end of the seventieth week. I am starting to see that Jesus did not die in the midst of the seventieth week, but that he was baptised in the midst of the seventieth week, thus (from God's perspective) ending all sacrifice and offering for sin, then completing the seventieth week with his death. I admit this is something I am not certain about, and may be a dead end rabbit trail, but I am currently looking into this to see where it goes.

Fascinating.

[Esaias]

Eusebius Eccl. Hist.:

CHAPTER XXIII.—The Question then agitated concerning the Passover.
1. A QUESTION of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour. 2. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine, over whom Theophilus, bishop of Cæsarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, presided. And there is also another writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor; also of the bishops in Pontus over whom Palmas, as the oldest, presided; and of the parishes in Gaul of which Irenæus was bishop, and of those in Osrhoëne and the cities there; and a personal letter of Bacchylus, bishop of the church at Corinth, and of a great many others, who uttered the same opinion and judgment, and cast the same vote. 3. And that which has been given above was their unanimous decision.


CHAPTER XXIV.—The Disagreement in Asia.
1. BUT the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him: 2. “We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. 3. He fell asleep at Ephesus. 4. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. 5. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? 6. All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. 7. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’” 8. He then writes of all the bishops who were present with him and thought as he did. His words are as follows: “I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus.” 9. Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. 10. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. 11. Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows: 12. “For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night. 13. And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors. It is likely that they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode. Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with one another; and the disagreement in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith.” 14. He adds to this the following account, which I may properly insert: “Among these were the presbyters before Soter, who presided over the church which thou now rulest. We mean Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus, and Telesphorus, and Xystus. They neither observed it themselves, nor did they permit those after them to do so. And yet though not observing it, they were none the less at peace with those who came to them from the parishes in which it was observed; although this observance was more opposed to those who did not observe it. 15. But none were ever cast out on account of this form; but the presbyters before thee who did not observe it, sent the eucharist to those of other parishes who observed it. 16. And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him. 17. But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.” 18. Thus Irenæus, who truly was well named, became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches.

CHAPTER XXV.—How All came to an Agreement respecting the Passover.
1. THOSE in Palestine whom we have recently mentioned, Narcissus and Theophilus, and with them Cassius, bishop of the church of Tyre, and Clarus of the church of Ptolemais, and those who met with them, having stated many things respecting the tradition concerning the passover which had come to them in succession from the apostles, at the close of their writing add these words: 2. “Endeavor to send copies of our letter to every church, that we may not furnish occasion to those who easily deceive their souls. We show you indeed that also in Alexandria they keep it on the same day that we do. For letters are carried from us to them and from them to us, so that in the same manner and at the same time we keep the sacred day.”

[Aquila]

I know that early Christians observed these things, but wasn't this because they were of Jewish heritage? Not that they were wrong for doing so, but to a Gentile like me, it feels distinctively Jewish. The symbolism, definitely meaning much to them, means little to me accept in understanding spiritual realities in play. I'd be much happier esteeming every day alike, as holy unto the Lord, living out these spiritual realities daily.

How do you see the following applied?

Romans 14:5-6 (ESV)
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

[Esaias]

"In 325CE the Council of Nicaea established that Easter would be held on the first Sunday after the first full moon occurring on or after the vernal equinox.(*) From that point forward, the Easter date depended on the ecclesiastical approximation of March 21 for the vernal equinox.
Easter is delayed by 1 week if the full moon is on Sunday, which decreases the chances of it falling on the same day as the Jewish Passover. The council’s ruling is contrary to the Quartodecimans, a group of Christians who celebrated Easter on the day of the full moon, 14 days into the month."

from https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar...ster-date.html

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

"In 325CE the Council of Nicaea established that Easter would be held on the first Sunday after the first full moon occurring on or after the vernal equinox.(*) From that point forward, the Easter date depended on the ecclesiastical approximation of March 21 for the vernal equinox.
Easter is delayed by 1 week if the full moon is on Sunday, which decreases the chances of it falling on the same day as the Jewish Passover. The council’s ruling is contrary to the Quartodecimans, a group of Christians who celebrated Easter on the day of the full moon, 14 days into the month."

from https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar...ster-date.html

So from this we see that the catholics, led by the Roman pontiff, spearheaded the effort to change Passover (Pascha) from its original, God-given ordained date, to "Paschal Sunday" using the spring equinox as the primary marker. This was due to the fact the catholic movement, especially in Rome, was a Sun-god worshipping cult of Mithra/Baal/Sol Invictus whose primary holy day was the Day of the Sun (Sunday). By changing Pascha from its original time (the 14th of Abib) to "Easter Sunday", not only was passover changed but so was Pentecost.

And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Daniel 7:25

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I know that early Christians observed these things, but wasn't this because they were of Jewish heritage? Not that they were wrong for doing so, but to a Gentile like me, it feels distinctively Jewish. The symbolism, definitely meaning much to them, means little to me accept in understanding spiritual realities in play. I'd be much happier esteeming every day alike, as holy unto the Lord, living out these spiritual realities daily.

How do you see the following applied?

Romans 14:5-6 (ESV)
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

I see it like this: (from a post in another thread from last year)

The Sabbath is not in consideration in Romans 14, the larger context of the epistle indicates the subject is 'brethren weak in the faith' vs those 'strong in the faith'. And those weak in the faith were Jews who had an issue with dropping their Pharisaic traditions. Pharisees 'fasted twice in the week', for example. They had set fast days and set rules for fasting on those set days. Such things were 'doubtful disputations' as there was absolutely no Scripture regarding set fast days and set rules for how said fasting was to be done (except of course the once -a-year Day of Atonement).

The Fourth Commandment could not possibly be called a 'doubtful disputation'. There is zero ambiguity in the fourth commandment. Furthermore, there is nothing in the fourth commandment regarding eating meat vs eating vegetables. With traditional man-made fast days (such as were passed down by tradition among the Pharisees) there were many doubtful disputations, not only among the Jews themselves but especially in regards to whether gentiles should be bound to follow rabbinical halakah.

It would have made absolutely no sense for Paul to say of the fourth commandment that it all depends on how one personally esteems it or not. It simply never was up to any man's estimation of worth or value. It was created by God Himself, it was commanded to be remembered BECAUSE God sanctified that day (not man). Therefore, whatever Paul is talking about in Romans 14, it cannot be the Sabbath.

In fact, if Paul was genuinely teaching that obedience to the Fourth Commandment was entirely a matter of 'personal conviction' he would have been routinely accused of breaking the Law of God, of being a sinner, of teaching people to break the Law of God, of promoting lawlessness and sin. And guess what? He WAS accused of such things, but he vehemently denied the veracity of all such claims. If then the claims were false, then it necessarily follows he did NOT teach any disobedience to the Commandments of God. In fact, he makes the following statements in the very epistle under consideration:

Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Paul here identifies the fact that those Gentiles who are in the new covenant actually do the things written in the law of God demonstrate they are in covenant with God, as opposed to the unregenerate Old Covenant Jew who, although having the law as a system of theology and worship nevertheless actually do NOT do the things written in the law.

He also said this:

Rom 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
Rom 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
Rom 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
Rom 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
Rom 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Breaking the law dishonours God. Breaking the law renders a Jew's circumcision irrelevent, he is no different than any heathen gentile. But the uncircumcised gentile, who actually performs the law of God is reckoned as if he were circumcised. Why? Because the true circumcision is in the heart, not the flesh. That is to say, the 'true Jew', the one who is 'circumcised in heart', is the one who actually keeps the law of God.

Who keeps the law of God?

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

The carnal mind leads to death, it is the mind that is not regenerated and is 'the flesh'. The carnal mind is not subject to (obedient to) the law of God, and indeed cannot be (a mindset of rebellion against God's law cannot be submitted to God's law at the same time, it is impossible). But those who have the Spirit of God, who walk according to the Spirit of God, are not subject to the law of sin and death, that is, the carnal mind. They are not in the flesh. The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in them, those who have the Spirit and are led by the Spirit, who follow the Spirit. Those who do not, who are unregenerate, do not have the righteousness of the law fulfilled in them - they do not actually obey the law of God, they are not submitted to it, they are slaves of sin (disobedience) and not righteousness.

Paul clearly never argues against the commandments of God, as if they had become optional or a matter of personal conviction. Paul everywhere teaches throughout the whole epistle that obedience to the law of God is a mark of the regenerated follower of Christ. And that disobedience to the law of God is a mark of the unregenerate slave of sin.

In order for Romans 14 to be dismissing the obligatory nature of the fourth commandment it would have to be shown in Romans that the fourth commandment has been repealed or abolished by God, so that it is no longer part of the law of God. Physical circumcision, though it was a part of the law of God, has been abolished and Paul not only claims as much in Romans, he proves it by using the Old Testament (law and prophets). Yet Paul makes absolutely no such statements regarding the Sabbath commandment. He nowhere mentions the Sabbath in the entire epistle. He nowhere claims it has been done away with. He nowhere proves it has been rendered obsolete by appeal to the law and the prophets.

Romans however does contain a common, overall argument of his - that Jews who boast about having the law of God are lost because the law is not fulfilled in their lives. Gentiles, however, in the new covenant, by the power of the Spirit, do actually keep the law of God and thereby prove they are in covenant with God. The issue was Jew and Gentile in the church, and how they were to relate to one another. The issue in Romans 14 concerns things the law of God never addresses (fast days and food sacrificed to idols, etc). The issues in Romans 14 are clearly matters of Pharisaic halachah that were being imposed on gentile converts. And Paul calls Jew and Gentile to peace and coexistence in Christ, recognising that 'doubtful disputations' cannot be made a matter of fellowship and doctrine.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I see it like this: (from a post in another thread from last year)

The Sabbath is not in consideration in Romans 14, the larger context of the epistle indicates the subject is 'brethren weak in the faith' vs those 'strong in the faith'. And those weak in the faith were Jews who had an issue with dropping their Pharisaic traditions. Pharisees 'fasted twice in the week', for example. They had set fast days and set rules for fasting on those set days. Such things were 'doubtful disputations' as there was absolutely no Scripture regarding set fast days and set rules for how said fasting was to be done (except of course the once -a-year Day of Atonement).

The Fourth Commandment could not possibly be called a 'doubtful disputation'. There is zero ambiguity in the fourth commandment. Furthermore, there is nothing in the fourth commandment regarding eating meat vs eating vegetables. With traditional man-made fast days (such as were passed down by tradition among the Pharisees) there were many doubtful disputations, not only among the Jews themselves but especially in regards to whether gentiles should be bound to follow rabbinical halakah.

It would have made absolutely no sense for Paul to say of the fourth commandment that it all depends on how one personally esteems it or not. It simply never was up to any man's estimation of worth or value. It was created by God Himself, it was commanded to be remembered BECAUSE God sanctified that day (not man). Therefore, whatever Paul is talking about in Romans 14, it cannot be the Sabbath.

In fact, if Paul was genuinely teaching that obedience to the Fourth Commandment was entirely a matter of 'personal conviction' he would have been routinely accused of breaking the Law of God, of being a sinner, of teaching people to break the Law of God, of promoting lawlessness and sin. And guess what? He WAS accused of such things, but he vehemently denied the veracity of all such claims. If then the claims were false, then it necessarily follows he did NOT teach any disobedience to the Commandments of God. In fact, he makes the following statements in the very epistle under consideration:

Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Paul here identifies the fact that those Gentiles who are in the new covenant actually do the things written in the law of God demonstrate they are in covenant with God, as opposed to the unregenerate Old Covenant Jew who, although having the law as a system of theology and worship nevertheless actually do NOT do the things written in the law.

He also said this:

Rom 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
Rom 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
Rom 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
Rom 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
Rom 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Breaking the law dishonours God. Breaking the law renders a Jew's circumcision irrelevent, he is no different than any heathen gentile. But the uncircumcised gentile, who actually performs the law of God is reckoned as if he were circumcised. Why? Because the true circumcision is in the heart, not the flesh. That is to say, the 'true Jew', the one who is 'circumcised in heart', is the one who actually keeps the law of God.

Who keeps the law of God?

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

The carnal mind leads to death, it is the mind that is not regenerated and is 'the flesh'. The carnal mind is not subject to (obedient to) the law of God, and indeed cannot be (a mindset of rebellion against God's law cannot be submitted to God's law at the same time, it is impossible). But those who have the Spirit of God, who walk according to the Spirit of God, are not subject to the law of sin and death, that is, the carnal mind. They are not in the flesh. The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in them, those who have the Spirit and are led by the Spirit, who follow the Spirit. Those who do not, who are unregenerate, do not have the righteousness of the law fulfilled in them - they do not actually obey the law of God, they are not submitted to it, they are slaves of sin (disobedience) and not righteousness.

Paul clearly never argues against the commandments of God, as if they had become optional or a matter of personal conviction. Paul everywhere teaches throughout the whole epistle that obedience to the law of God is a mark of the regenerated follower of Christ. And that disobedience to the law of God is a mark of the unregenerate slave of sin.

In order for Romans 14 to be dismissing the obligatory nature of the fourth commandment it would have to be shown in Romans that the fourth commandment has been repealed or abolished by God, so that it is no longer part of the law of God. Physical circumcision, though it was a part of the law of God, has been abolished and Paul not only claims as much in Romans, he proves it by using the Old Testament (law and prophets). Yet Paul makes absolutely no such statements regarding the Sabbath commandment. He nowhere mentions the Sabbath in the entire epistle. He nowhere claims it has been done away with. He nowhere proves it has been rendered obsolete by appeal to the law and the prophets.

Romans however does contain a common, overall argument of his - that Jews who boast about having the law of God are lost because the law is not fulfilled in their lives. Gentiles, however, in the new covenant, by the power of the Spirit, do actually keep the law of God and thereby prove they are in covenant with God. The issue was Jew and Gentile in the church, and how they were to relate to one another. The issue in Romans 14 concerns things the law of God never addresses (fast days and food sacrificed to idols, etc). The issues in Romans 14 are clearly matters of Pharisaic halachah that were being imposed on gentile converts. And Paul calls Jew and Gentile to peace and coexistence in Christ, recognising that 'doubtful disputations' cannot be made a matter of fellowship and doctrine.

As applied to Passover, Romans 14 is not addressing doubtful disputations, because there were none concerning the timing of Passover. The Bible is unambiguously clear when Passover occurs. Doubtful disputations in Romans 14 concern things that are doubtful and disputatious, which means manmade opinions, not divine precepts.

Weekly fast days, specifics on how to fast, food that might have been given a pagan blessing, and so forth, are things subject to becoming a doubtful disputation. Divine ordinances given in the Word cannot be considered such. Today people "doubt and dispute" the Word itself because of preconceived unbiblical notions that were utterly foreign to the thinking of the apostles.

The early church never disputed IF Passover should be kept, only WHEN and in WHAT MANNER.

[Esaias]

"It feels Jewish."

We are APOSTOLIC. Therefore, we follow a faith and practice ("religion") given by God to all mankind through Christ and His apostles. That faith is neither Jewish or gentile.

Gentilism is pagan demon worship. Judaism is apostate Pharisaism, a twisting and subversion of the ABRAHAMIC FAITH. Apostolic Christianity is the TRUE RELIGION.

God gave His truth via Abraham, Jacob, Moses, the Prophets, Christ and His apostles. There is no "Jewish" or "Gentile" flavor of the Truth. The true church has its own culture, neither Jew nor Gentile. It is the New Covenant of Israel's Messiah. This is a stumbling block for those who erroneously think "Israel=Jew".