 |  |
is an interesting question, what indication is here found of the observance or
non-observance of a day of obligation in the apostolic times. The Apostle decides
nothing, leaving every man's own mind to guide him in the point. He classes the
observance or non-observance of particular days, with eating or abstaining from
particular meats. In both cases, he is concerned with things which he evidently treats as
of absolute indifference in themselves. Now the question is, supposing the divine
obligation of one day in seven to have been recognized by him in any form, could he have
thus spoken? The obvious inference from his strain of arguing is, that he knew of no such
obligation, but believed all times and days to be, to the Christian strong in faith, ALIKE.
I do not see how the passage can be otherwise understood. If any one day in the week
were invested with the sacred character of the Sabbath, it would have been wholly
impossible for the apostle to commend or uphold the man who judged all days worthy of
equal honour--who, as in verse 6, paid no regard to the (any) day. He must have visited
him with his strongest disapprobation, as violating a command of God. I therefore infer
that sabbatical obligation to keep any day, whether seventh or first, was not recognized
in apostolic times."
These words, coming from one who regarded "the Lord's Day as an institution of the
Christian Church", and "binding upon us from considerations of humanity and religious
expediency", may be of some weight with those who have looked upon the Christian
Sunday, the First Day of the Week (or, as it is mistakenly called, the "Lord's Day") as
having N.T. sanction.
As a zealot for the traditions of his fathers, Paul would know all about the trivial
things that were debated among the Jews with so much zeal--we read, for example, of a
discussion as to "whether an egg laid on a festival might or might not be eaten"
(Bitsah)--but, being delivered now from these tormenting scruples, and standing in the
blessed freedom of grace, he sees in these Levitical and traditional observances, a menace
to the gospel and to the believer's standing. He approaches the subject, however, rather
differently in Romans from the way in which it is dealt with in Galatians.
In Galatians, the turning back to circumcision and Mosaic observances as being
necessary for complete salvation and assurance, the Apostle regards as definitely
antagonistic to the cross of Christ. He therefore writes:
"Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are
no gods. But now, after 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, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have
bestowed upon you labour in vain" (Gal. 4: 8-11).
To the Colossians, who were in danger of being cheated of their reward by teaching
that cast doubt upon their completeness in Christ, the Apostle writes:
"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: which are a shadow of things to come, but the
body is of Christ" (Col. 2: 16, 17).
In I Tim. 4: we find a further reference to "meats", in connection with the departure
from the faith that characterizes the "latter times":