Skip to main content

Galatians 4:8-11: Does Paul Denigrate Sabbath Keeping?

8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you. (NIV)
Christians have long debated whether or not it is appropriate to keep the sabbath. I'm not going to get into all of the intricacies of that debate, but I want to comment on how this passage fits into the wider discussion.

First, we should observe that the Gentile Galatians had already begun observing the sabbath. Why? They thought that they had to observe the Torah in order to be full members of God's people. Paul sees observing Torah, exemplified by, among other things, sabbath observance to be a step not into the people of God, but out of. A movement, not into the new creation, as part of the new covenant community of the faithful, but away from it. It puts them into a situation of slavery, one parallel to the situation that Christ already freed them from.

So, if that's the case, the next question is, should Paul's logic drive us to not keep the sabbath? I think that the answer is no. When we compare this text to Romans 14 we see a different approach by Paul to the question. There, he never flatly condemns sabbath observance. The weak are allowed to remain weak as long as it doesn't lead them to judge those who don't observe the sabbath. However, we do have to consider whether or not this difference in attitude lies in the fact that the weak in Rome were Jewish Christians. I think it does partially, but there's more to it. In Romans it's clear that the issue isn't really sabbath observance. It's all about attitude. Does your stance on the sabbath cause you to judge those you disagree with as lower class Christians? In Galatians I believe the issue is the same, just magnified, hence the heightened rhetoric. Do you believe that sans following the Torah you cannot be a full member of God's people? Sabbath observance is a visible work of the law that sets you apart from others. That is why Paul brings it, specifically, up. It's an easy target.

When it's cast like that I think it's clear that it can be ok to observe the sabbath. In fact I think most of us would be wise to have a regular time of rest and reflection on God. It would be (at least in my circles) a strong counter-cultural statement protesting against the societal god of productivity.


Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…