No ‘explicit command’
Elaine Nelson:
Since there is not a
shred of scriptural or historical evidence showing that the Gentiles had been
observing the Sabbath, and there is nothing in the NT telling them that they
must now observe it, why do we add to Scripture and ignore that "it would
only provoke God's anger now, surely, if you imposed on the disciples
the very burden that neither we nor our ancestors were strong enough to
support?"
David Conklin here: there is also no explicit command for the Gentiles to not keep
the Sabbath. The fact that they were doing so as late as the 5th century tells
us that they understood that they were still supposed to keep the sabbath.
GE:
I won’t bother
answering on the Acts 15 passage or “The fact that they were doing so as late
as the 5th century tells us that they understood that they were still supposed
to keep the sabbath”, now. (The era before 130 AD, ‘the apostolic era’ only
counts for the Christian.) Therefore, for now:
Re: David Conklin,
“there is also no explicit command for the Gentiles to not keep the
Sabbath.”
GE:
I think there is.
However, let us see if there is a “command” or an “explicit command” or
‘commandment’ for the patriarchs before “the giving of the Law”, ‘to keep the
Sabbath— there is no such thing— literally! Gn2:2-3 gives history; not
‘command’.
Yet who will be so
foolish as to reckon God’s making of the Sabbath by the act of deed of his
‘rest’, ‘sanctification’, ‘blessing’, ‘finishing’, of the Seventh Day, couldn’t
be of meaning for his creation brought to perfection on and by God’s ‘making’
of the Seventh Day? Is that not ‘command’ nor ‘commandment’? If not, for what
take the trouble to mention the Seventh Day if it has no bearing on the six
days of God’s creating as ‘law’ unto it?
God’s works of his
rest of the Seventh Day in themselves are the, if not ‘explicit’, then implicit
nevertheless equally valid and binding command and Commandment: “Thou shalt
remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy .... FOR IN IT GOD .....”.
“For in it God ....”
is as present in Gn2:2-3 as it is present in Ex20:8-11, and therefore The
Commandment of God, is as present in Gn2:2-3 as it is in Ex20:8-11. “In it
God”, worked, resting; and resting, worked. God, taking trouble to “In the
Sabbath DO, DEEDS” of His own Sovereignty and Power, is, ‘Command’ and
‘Commandment’ of God. God, is Commandment; God, is enough of ‘Command’ for
everlasting.
For what reason may
not the acts – acts of rest – of God in and through Jesus Christ speak of ‘Law’
for themselves and in themselves? Then: Could God better have ‘capatalised’
upon his own works than by having raised Jesus from the dead “In the Sabbath
Day” thus having “finished all the works of God”, “on the Seventh Day”?
One thing must be made
clear though. The Christian believer boasts in God (as Paul has warned he
should) – not in the works of God even. God in his Presence is God in his Law;
it is God in his works who is God as Law, so that God shall be worshipped, and
not the works of God shall be worshipped. The creation (earth and heaven and
what in them is) is not worshipped; nor is God worshipped in creation; God is
worshipped in His Presence: in His Glory; in the face of Jesus Christ. Just so with regard to the Sabbath: The
Christian believer boasts in the God of the Sabbath – not in the Sabbath of
God. God in his Presence is God in his Sabbath; it is God in his Sabbath who is
Lord of the Sabbath, so that God shall be worshipped, and not the Sabbath of
God shall be worshipped. The Sabbath (and all its “good for man”) is not
worshipped; but God in the Sabbath is worshipped, for God is worshipped in His
Presence and in His Glory in the face of Jesus Christ: in resurrection from the
dead or nowhere ever!
It is Unbelief – not
faith – that insists on ‘explicit command’ outside the speaking and doing and
speaking through doing of God Himself. In fact, it is legalism and legalists who
always moan: ‘Give us command’; ‘Show us the law for Sabbath keeping to
heathen’ – as would they then have believed! Whom are they trying to bluff?
Only themselves! ‘Give us command’; ‘Show us the law for Sabbath keeping to
heathen’ is the unbeliever’s pleading to be brought into captivity again, to be
enslaved again under the yoke of the Law, like Israel who threatened Moses to
take them back to Egypt.
I do not herewith say
that the New Testament does not have ‘direct / explicit command’ that the
Seventh Day Sabbath should be remembered and kept holy; it has. But the Christian, the believer, does not
need the Law (small letter or capital letter) any longer; Christ has released
him from the Law by having Himself become God’s Law to his disciples. He took
off the load of the Law’s yoke and put upon his slaves, His own yoke of
righteousness and righteous doing.
The Jews will have the
Law but not Christ; they won’t serve the Lord. But Christians, must not serve
two lords. Believers do not share Christ’s honour with the Law. The glory of
the Law which indeed is glorious (as Paul confirms), to Christ’s disciples has
become “like no glory at all” in comparison with “The Glory of God in the face
of Jesus Christ”. God’s Glory is found
in the face of Jesus Christ; not in the Ten Commandments. The ‘Moral Law’ has
not and cannot vie for God’s glory or it must bereave Christ of His glory and
honour and morality. Because what has the Law ever earned? Has it ever saved
anyone? But what has Christ earned (morally)? Has anyone ever been saved other
than Christ? Therefore to God alone all glory for evermore through Christ our
Lord only.
Sabbathworshippers assuming
the Law over themselves are hipocrytes bragging their own righteousness before
God. Sundayworshippers begging the Law over themselves are hipocrytes bragging
their own righteousness before God no less!
Insisting on the letter of the law for Sabbathkeeping as if not there
already or as if of no consequence anyway, to both sides mean they think
themselves above the Law.
A person who prays for
being a sinner, willingly places himelf under the Law and under the
condemnation of the Law because he places himself under Christ. It is only
under Christ that the true Christian might learn to be a real Sabbathkeeper.
Sabbathfinders Sabbathkeepers; never Sabbathkeepers Sabbathfinders.
Re:
Elaine Nelson:
Since there is not a
shred of scriptural or historical evidence showing that the Gentiles had been
observing the Sabbath, and there is nothing in the NT telling them that they
must now observe it, why do we add to Scripture and ignore that "it would
only provoke God's anger now, surely, if you imposed on the disciples
the very burden that neither we nor our ancestors were strong enough to
support?"
“..... not a shred of
scriptural or historical evidence showing that the Gentiles had been observing
the Sabbath .....”
GE:
That is what Elaine
Nelson says, not the Scriptures; and that is obviously contrary ‘every shred of
scriptural or historical evidence’—
In this case the
‘evidence’ is ‘scriptural AND historical’ because the two kinds of ‘evidence’
are both found in AND according to the Scriptures, being one and the same
‘evidence’.
For example: ‘Historically’
in the sense of chronologically the GOSPELS are the most before hand possible
evidence the Christian Church observed the Sabbath long after Paul had written
his Letters to this Church. Were there any chance the Sabbath had given way to
or was sharing with Sunday in Christian worship and observance, without any
shred of doubt the ‘evidence’ must have shown in the Gospels because of the
historical de facto fact they were written after the other documents of the
same source and time.
In the Gospels is
found but one ‘kind’ of Sabbath observance by and in the apostolic Church: That
of the Seventh Day Sabbath, indisputably because undisputed in that Community,
its time or its Scriptures. I further maintain that the same is true from, and
of, all the rest of the NT documents.
There is simply not a
shred of Scriptural or historical evidence showing that any Christians, Jew or
Gentile, had not been observing the Sabbath until about 130 AD, or that they
had been observing Sunday or had been sharing their observance between both the
Sabbath and the First Day of the week. ALL Christianity – Roman Catholic,
Protestant, Seventh Day Adventist, Sundayworshipping – et al – has been PROVING
THAT ever since the debate was begun (with Justin Martyr)—, except for
instances of sheer ignorance and ineptness in historical or Scriptural
knowledge, like yours here demonstrated, dear Elaine Nelson – no bad feelings;
I know what it is to be indoctrinated. All of us spend our lives nurturing
indoctrinated convictions of one kind or another. Well, like your “not a shred
of scriptural or historical evidence showing that the Gentiles had been
observing the Sabbath” theory. It is as easy as pulling on the trigger to make
a shot in the dark; it is just as dangerous as easy though.
The very historical
fact the Church made change from the Sabbath to Sundayworship on a single
presumption — the presumption Christ resurrected on the First Day of the week—,
PROVES, not a shred of evidence shows that the Gentile-believers had not been
observing the Sabbath or had been observing Sunday too or alone, AT LEAST for
any ‘scriptural or historical evidence’ before or beyond the audacity appeared
in space and time that Christ rose on the First Day of the week. (This said, is not said to deny PAGANS
“superstitiously observerved” (‘peratehreoh’ in Gl4:10) Sunday to pay homage to
their “no-gods” of “the first principles of the world” – ‘stoicheia tou
kosmou’, even before Paul had written his Letter.)
Therefore, “..... why
do we add to Scripture and ignore that "it would only provoke God's anger
now, surely, if you imposed on the disciples the very burden that neither we
nor our ancestors were strong enough to support?"” which ‘very burden’ was
that of “circumcision of the flesh”— not the ‘rest’ and ‘relief’ and
‘recuperation’ / ‘reviving’ experienced as blessing that flowed from God’s
blessing of his Sabbath Day with the view to Jesus Christ through resurrection
on it, so that it “remains for the People of God” whomsoever and since New
Testament re-establishment and institution! (Hb4:8-10) In fact, in Acts 15 the Sabbath IS, respecTED
and paid due attention for having been the day for, and of the devotional ‘reading
of Moses’— the Law and Scriptures of the CHRISTIAN CONGREGATING AND WORSHIPPING
COMMUNITY. The council’s decisions were being read to and before, THIS,
Sabbath-congregation Body of Believers. Sunday? Not a sign of!
Then, with all
respect, Elaine Nelson, why do you make mention to this resolution regarding
circumcision, while debating Sabbath observance under the early Christians? Is
it honest exgesis to create the impression the council concluded upon the
Sabbath and Sabbath’s observance under Christians while in fact they concluded
upon the ONLY (‘Scriptural’) disputed practice at that (‘historical’) time among Christians, namely,
circumcision? What has the Sabbath got
to do with any of it? What had the Sabbath had to do with any of it? Not you
only, but every Sandadarian I have answered in my life, play this same foolery
on honest with God Christians, and persuade them away from Christ and his
truth. What a shame on Christianity!
Topping it all
Christianity without exception I know of yet, persists in its false apologetics
for the sake of Sundayworship, and invariably call the taboos decided upon at
the Council of Jerusalem, prohibitions against Old Testament practices and
typology. Yes, best or worse of all is, virtually all Christendom has fallen
for this falsity, the Sabbath-believing Christendom included. Truth is though, every one of those no-no’s
was from paganism. The Christian leaders decided we as free men under Christ
alone shall not burden fellow Christians with anything whatsover the Word of
God does not teach a believer in Christ to believe and do; we shall only
prohibted the devices of pagan idolatrous religion that don’t belong in either
Old-Testament faith or New Testament faith. In fact, the Council did not even come to the
fore with a direct interdict against circumcision, the ‘issue’ that caused the
convention! Then Sundaydarians conspire against its peace-accord and modus
operandi and from them call for a sword against the holy of God his Sabbath
Day.
How can that which a man delights in be a burden unto
him?
Kevin Riley: Date: Wed, 06 May 2009, wrote:
“All references to
Sabbath services are to situations where either Jews are meeting in a
synagogue, or 'God-fearers' are meeting on Sabbath. We do not have a
reference to a solely Christian worship service that mentions the day.”
GE:
This _perhaps_, might
have been true, have you said: We do not have a reference to a solely GENTILE
worship service that mentions the day. But think of the Colossians 2 incidence of
Christian Sabbaths’ celebration practice; there is not the slightest indication
in the Letter the Community of the Body of Christ’s Own consisted of any but
Gentile Christians. (Any idea – it is clear from this document itself – Jewish
‘false teachers’ were involved in some secret agenda to pervert this practice
of the Colossian Christians, is baseless.)
First: Do you find
this day of ours, or have any, found at any one time in history, a Christian
Congregation not of mixed elements, believers and believers? Then why conclude
no CHRISTIAN gathering for worship wholly Christian, occurred on the Sabbath in
first century Christianity, whether all members were Jewish or all members were
Gentile?
Then remember the
assemblings recorded throughout in the Gospels, were recorded as the acts of
the
The ‘situation’ and
‘situations’ of Christian gathering together for worship of the only true God
through and in Jesus Christ is EVER implied in the Gospels as it had been
during the ministry of Christ, as during
the ministration of the Holy Spirit after, alike. For this very phenomenon exactly, the same
reality came to exist in the rest of the NT: All references to services of
worship in Congregation are to Sabbath gatherings and services, whether to
situations where Jews were meeting in a synagogue, or non-Jewish 'God-fearers',
or Jews and Gentiles integrated: They exclusively THUS by congregating and
worship services, met on the Sabbath Day: NOT IN ONE INSTANCE ON THE FIRST DAY
OF THE WEEK.
We today THROUGH
SHREWD MANIPULATION OF THE TEXT have reference to but one case of meeting and
service that “mentions worship service” where ostensibly ‘the disciples
congregated’ “on the day” now known as ‘Sunday’, then, known as the First Day
of the week— one glaring and gross, ghostly and ghastly falsehood, in Acts 20:7.
Kevin Riley:
The best argument for
the Sabbath is the one of silence. Every departure form Judaism incited
opposition from the Jewish believers. Galatians mentions the fuss over
abandoning circumcision. At the time most of the NT was written the
Christians were regarded as a sect of Judaism, so both Jews and Jewish
Christians would have felt obliged to defend the Sabbath as they
did circumcision. That no record exists of a controversy over the Sabbath
is a good indication there was not one. Then you have the records of the
C2nd where Sabbath is no longer observed. Then you get to the C4th where
it is in most places, and is considered to be a Christian tradition - as it
still is by the Orthodox, who have no problem referring to Saturday as 'the
Sabbath' and who have had special readings for the Sabbath since about the
C4th. The change occurred in what some have referred to as 'the silent
years' between the death of Paul and the first writings of the Fathers.
GE:
Again, as far as any
time-‘historic evidence’ beyond 130 AD for or against Sabbath or Sunday
observance by Christian worshipping-assembling is concerned, it is of no
concern to what the Scriptures have to say about the Sabbath’s ‘loud and clear’
presence in the NT Church and Scriptures.
Only things argued
“according to the (first century) Scriptures”, matter. As concerning these
Scriptures – the New Testament Scriptures: – First:
There is no such thing
as “The best argument for the Sabbath is the one of silence” in them. The
supposed ‘argument from silence’ either way – for or against –, from whichever
point of view bears no weight in discourse about the Christian validity of the
Sabbath Day.
It is plainly untrue
the NT is silent concerning the Sabbath or the celebraion of it in the NT
Church. On the contrary, the NT is far more informative about the Seventh Day
Sabbath of the LORD your God than all the Old Testament books put together— not
only quantitively, but qualitatively. In the very day of his triumph by
resurrection from the dead that Christ is made Lord of the Sabbath Day, the
Christian Church enters into “a keeping of the Sabbath Day” prepared for it since the
creation of the world. “A keeping of the
Sabbath Day remains for the People of God therefore .....” (‘ara’):— that
“Jesus had given them rest” in the fulfilled and completed salvation of God’s
Rest “in Him”. (Hb4)
All of the New
Testament is the singing of the praises of Him our Mighty Warlord, “for He ....
in the greatness of (His) excellency .... hath triumphed gloriously”— upon
which great Truth God has founded his Sabbath Day and even made great change in
the Law ingraved in stone for ever by his own finger, leaving out altogether
his mighty works of creation for reason that man shall remember his Sabbath Day
by his still mightier and greater work of Passover, that his People through it shall
remember to keep holy God’s Sabbath. God
by the cloud of His Presence led His People out of the land of their slavery “into
His Own Rest as God in his own”, and “gave them rest.” “And the cloud was
Christ.”— “That ye may know what is the
exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe according to the
working of his mighty power which He wrought in Christ when He raised Him from
the dead and exalted Him at his own right hand in heavenly glory, far above all
principality and power, and might and dominion, and every name that is named
not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all
things under his feet ..... the last enemy destroyed is death ..... The sting
of death is sin; and the law the strength of sin: But thanks to God who gives
us the victory (over death, sin and Law) through our Lord Jesus Christ .....
whom He gave to the Church which is His Body, the Head over all things, the all
in all fulfilling Fullness of God.”
Remove the
Resurrection from under the Sabbath Day and the New Testament is rather quiet
about it; place the Sabbath firmly upon the finishing works of God’s rest in
Christ, and the pages of the New Testament seem too few and small for God’s
Sabbaths’ eulogy in it.
Kevin Riley:
“That no record exists
of a controversy over the Sabbath is a good indication there was not one.”
GE:
No controversy over
the Sabbath in the New Testament?
Pages and chapters in
the New Testament are filled with controversies over the Sabbath. But they were
never controversies over the Sabbath and Sunday; no record exists of a
controversy over the Sabbath versus the First Day of the week in fact; its
absence is deafening. To just think such existed is impossible. Because they
raged about Jesus Christ and the Sabbath Day. No event ever occurred that might
have gendered controversy over Sabbath versus First Day of the week .....
unless! That no record exists of a controversy over the Sabbath and Sunday, is final
indication that there was no ‘unless’, and the only ‘unless’ that might have
changed the status quo in the Gospels and would have caused viscious
controversy, and filled its volume from Gospel to Gospel, is the resurrection
of Jesus from the dead on a First Day of the week.
But the pages and
chapters in the New Testament that are indeed filled with controversies over
the Sabbath, all, dealt with Jesus’ healing, liberating and life restoring
mission and ministry, so throughout having pointed forward to the conclusive
and ultimate redeeming and saving triumph of Christ in resurrection from the
dead – naturally and faithfully according to the expectancy He before his death
had consistently created, that the triumphant bringing together of divine
promise and oath would be concluded and fulfilled and God’s Rest would be
entered upon on the Seventh Day of God’s making, of God’s blessing, of God’s
hallowing, of God’s finishing, and of God’s Rest --- as the creation story, and
the Fourth Commandment, all Scriptures, and his own life had indicated, promised,
assured and gauranteed.
Now imagine Christ
instead rose from the dead on the First Day of the week! And think what
controversies between the Sabbath and the First day of the week would have
filled the New Testament Scriptures! But we know the actual condition of it;
that there are none in any of its books. Therefore what does it tell us? It
tells us Jesus must have arisen on the Sabbath Day ---- PLAINLY.
The only possibility
that could have given rise to a controversy over the Sabbath versus the First
Day of the week, was Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. That no record exists of
a controversy over the Sabbath versus the First Day of the week, is final proof
Jesus’ resurrection from the dead was not on the First day of the week, but on
the Sabbath Day!
Kevin Riley:
“Galatians mentions
the fuss over abandoning circumcision.”
GE:
“.... the fuss over
abandoning circumcision”? I cannot
recall Galatians exactly about that— Who made the ‘fuss’? Paul? Yea, Paul made
a ‘fuss’ all right.
We Christians of easy
faith, we just believe every told us. Was it “over circumcision” though, Paul
made his fuss? Paul makes two really disturbing statements in Galatians 4 and
5. The first one is, 4:11: “I am afraid of you lest I have bestowed upon you
labour in vain.” If that were the case,
the Galatians would still have been lost and never saved; more serious things
could not get. Paul’s second statement was, 5:2-4: “If you have yourselves
circumcised, I Paul tell you, Christ shall profit you nothing! For I testify
again to everyone that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosever of you are justified by the
law.”
Was it about
circumcision; or does Paul speak about and against works righteousness –
earning and sealing one’s ‘salvation’ with own merit?
We must be careful how
we understand these statements of Paul.
In the first place
Paul meant in both statements a path of no return; chose anyone that path, he
had chosen for the destiny of the lost and wicked; he has sealed his fate.
Paul had Timothy
circumcised; was Paul the author of Timothy’s eternal damnation?
“If you have
yourselves circumcised”, Paul tells the Galatians, “Christ shall profit you
nothing; Christ is become of no effect unto you”. He obviously supposes
speaking to un-circumcised people. But Paul also says: “I testify to everyone
that is circumcised”. That would have included himself. Is there anybody for
whom Christ meant salvation, left? If Paul has made a ‘fuss over circumcision’,
he is condemning every man alive or dead, circumcised and not circumcised. So
Paul makes no ‘fuss over circumcision’.
Therefore, No! Paul writes about self righteousness, earning
one’s salvation with one’s obedience to the law; the law of God; in fact, the law of God that also enhanced
the law of circumcision. Paul least of
all makes ‘fuss over ABANDONING circumcision’.
Am I saying
circumcision is irrelevant or that Paul uses circumcision merely as a figure of
speech? I do not say it and I do not
mean it. I am convinced Paul in Galations 5 has in mind the circumcision of the
flesh, according to the Law, ‘literally’. Call it ‘the Jews’ circumcision’ if
you like; that’s the thing I believe Paul wrote about; don’t misunderstand me
on this. I say though, Paul is not
teaching the abandonment of this circumcision, and that the abandonment of
circumcision or the holding fast to this circumcision here, contextually in
Galatians 4 and 5, is not at issue.
All right, to calm
everybody down. I do not believe in circumcision. So please don’t accuse me of
teaching circumcision for a Christian is mandatory or profits him in any way.
Let’s keep to the subject; it is not what I or you believe now; it is about
what is going on in Paul’s Letter to the Galation Christians.
What is going on? What
is going on concerns the two most serious denouncements Paul has made in any of
his Letters! So we cannot play down the seriousness and the practical
implications of Paul’s statements and think we have found the answer to our
questions and say: O, all Paul says is, Christ has redeemed you, you ar no
longer under the Law, relax, take it easy, “For in Jesus Christ neither
circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by
love.” To interpret Paul in this way is
plain sacriligious! He never meant anything he says in this Letter in such a
way. The person who take this path chooses the dishonest and only another
self-righteous way of escape from the real implications of Paul’s verdict.
Paul’s statement, “For
in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but
faith which worketh by love” is not one of indifference or happy go lucky
Christianity. This saying of his a most secure trap he sets for the wicked who
thinks he can fool around with the Christian Faith. For whomever thinks he can
outwit God in judgment. You wont get
away from this one: “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth
anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”
That takes us back to
chapter 4:8-11.
Am I permitted to do
this? To take us back to chapter 4, verses 8 to 11, at this stage in Paul’s
Letter? Well, only read on, chapter 5 where we now are, verses 6-9, and ask
again, shall we at this stage go back to 4:8-11 for further clarity? Alright
then, 5:6-10: Let us read verse 5 as well: “We through the Spirit wait for the
hope of righteousness by faith, for in Jesus Christ neither circumcision
availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye
should not obey the truth? This persuasion cometh not from Him that calleth
you— a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. I have confidence in you through
the Lord (though), that ye will be none, otherwise minded : but he that
troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.”
What does 4:8-11 say?
Let’s read verses 6-7 as well:
“Because you are sons,
God has sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Father, Father—
wherefore you are no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of
God through Christ”.
Does it not sound much
like this:
“We through the Spirit
wait for the hope of righteousness by faith, for in Jesus Christ neither
circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by
love”?
Paul in fact has said,
“Are you so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect
by the flesh?” (3:3)
Now, verse 8, chapter
4: “Howbeit then when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature
are no gods, but now, after that ye have known God – or rather, are known of
God – how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements whereunto ye desire
again to be in bondage? Ye observe days,
months, seasons, years.”
Chapter 5, verse 7-9: “Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye
should not obey the truth? This persuasion cometh not of Him that calleth
you. A little leaven leaveneth the
whole lump.”
Chapter 4 again, verse
11: “I am afraid of you, lest I have
bestowed upon you labour in vain.”
Chapter 5, verse: “I have confidence in you through the Lord
(though), that ye will be none otherwise minded : but he that troubleth you
shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.”
According to chapter 5
(7-9), the Galatians were persuaded away from obedience to the truth. According to chapter 4, the Galatians return
back to the weak and beggarly elemental ‘no-gods’, and “desire again to be in
bondage” under them.
In chapter 4 Paul
reckons his efforts for the salvation of the Galatians was wasted; in chapter 5
he says the little leaven might have spoiled the whole lump already.
In chapter 4 Paul
after his sigh of despair in verse 11, “I am afraid of you, lest I have
bestowed upon you labour in vain”, begins his reproofs to steer the Galations
back on track. Full of hope that the Galatians will heed his warnings, Paul as
if with a sigh of relief, expresses his faith they would, “I have confidence in
you through the Lord (though), that ye will be none otherwise minded.”
So now: will it be
legitimate for me – and the enquirer into what the ‘fuss’ actually was – after
5 verse 6, to return to chapter 4 verse 8 and on to again try and see: What was
the ‘abandoning’; what the true and real error?
The song of Moses and
of the Lamb is the poem and melody the Composer of has been God in Christ all
along— the Psalm for the Sabbath Day the Mighty One of Israel conducts still in
the Christian Community of Believers.