Paul, Luke, and the Holy Days

Well, thank you again. Happy Sabbath, everyone!

It's always great to have you with us, especially when feast fever sets in for everyone.

Well, this coming week we're going to be observing the Day of Atonement, and next week most of us will be leaving for the Feast of Tabernacles this year.

I don't think I need to tell you that you are counterculture in your religious observances. I mean, you may have picked up over the years that you do things that very few people do. The great majority of those who profess Christianity don't observe the Holy Days because they either don't even know they exist, and I'm always amazed at the conversations I have with people who are very religious people and don't even know that the Holy Days were ever there.

Or, many people who are religious have been convinced that they're done away by the sacrifice of Christ. So in preparation for the Fall Holy Days, I'd like to take a look at the personal examples of just a few individuals in the New Testament. It would be very easy for me to go to the New Testament and show you how Christ observed the Holy Days, the Feast of Tabernacles, and things that he said during the Holy Days. That's too easy. What I would like to do is I'd like to take a look at the examples of, for example, Paul and others who observed the Holy Days in the New Testament. Many people look to Paul as the great Christian emancipator who freed the gentile Christians from the burdens of the law. Well, and for this reason, because of that claim, I think it behooves us to look at the example of Paul closely and his associates, like Luke, and to honestly look at the historical writings in the book of Acts before we look at any of Paul's writings, Proes or Con, regarding the Holy Days. We need to see what Paul was doing, how he was acting, and what he was saying to people before we look into his writings to the congregations and decide Proe or Con on whether these fall holy days that we observe were done away. So most of what we will see that he was doing, that Paul and others were doing, is recorded by Luke, the author of the book of Luke and Acts. I'd just like to read a couple of paragraphs from Holman's Bible dictionary about Luke because it says it succinctly and saves me a little bit of time. Here's what they say, quote, is the author of the third gospel and the book of Acts in the New Testament and a close friend and traveling companion of Paul. All right, I'll stop, right? So he would know what Paul's doing, right? If you're close, if you're a traveling companion, you get kind of close to someone if they're a traveling companion. You learn a lot about them, how they think, what their attitudes are, what their perspectives are. Continuing, the apostle called him beloved. That's Colossians 4. Luke referred to his journeys with Paul and his company in Acts 16, Acts 20, Acts 21, and Acts 27. Many scholars believe Luke wrote his gospel and acts while at Rome with Paul during the apostle's first Roman imprisonment. Apparently, Luke remained nearby or with Paul also during the apostle's second Roman imprisonment. Shortly before his martyrdom, Paul wrote that, quote, only Luke is with me, and that's from 2 Timothy 4.11. So this wasn't someone who just hung around Paul for a week, said, hey, have a nice day. For years and years and years, Luke was very close to Paul as a friend, as a traveling companion. I'll go back now to the dictionary, quote, early church fathers Jerome, about 400 AD and Eusebius, about 300, identified Luke as being from Antioch. His interest in Antioch is clearly seen in as many references to that city, which include references in Acts 11, Acts 13, Acts 14, Acts 15, and Acts 18. That's a lot, a lot of references. Luke adopted Philippi as his home, remaining behind there to superintend the young church while Paul went to Corinth during his second missionary journey. That's in Acts 16. Final statement. Paul identified Luke as a physician, that's in Colossians 4.14, and distinguished Luke from, quote, those of the circumcision, Colossians 4.11. He said, Paul said that Luke was a Gentile, that he was, he distinguished him from those who were circumcised.

Continuing early sources indicate that Luke was a Gentile. Tradition holds that he was a Greek. The circumstances of Luke's conversion are not revealed. So, if we want to find out what Paul was thinking and saying and doing, we need to go to the historian who was there, been there, done that, and his name was Luke. He was a historian, a careful historian, and the thing about his writings is all the scholars agree his writings are excellent, educated Greek, and you can't say that about all the books in the New Testament. So let's see what he wrote about the early believers at the church and later Paul, during his travels, will begin by going to Acts chapter 1 and verse 1.

Acts chapter 1 and verse 1. I'm probably going to go a little past 1.30 today, so please forgive me if I go a little over time.

If you don't forgive me, then I'll just have to repent later. Acts chapter 1, beginning in verse 1.

I cannot argue too many people saw him alive after the resurrection, being seen by them 40 days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, and being assembled together with them, he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which he said, you have heard from me. For John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. So let's just stop right there. Luke addresses the book to a man named Theophilus. This is the person to whom both the writings of Luke, the Gospel of Luke and Acts, were written, and it's unanimously agreed that both Luke and Acts were originally written in, again, a very educated, refined type of common dialect called Koin Greek, and that Theophilus, it appears, is a Greek name. And if you know any rudimentary understanding of the New Testament, Theos is the name for God, right? Philia is the name for love. So his name basically means a friend of God or one beloved by God. So it's not real complicated what Theophilus means in Greek. In Luke chapter 1 and verse 3, Luke called him most excellent Theophilus.

Now, that usually was a term given for someone of high standing, not just a common person.

Even though his identity, his exact identity, is unknown, some people have thought the friend of God means Christians in general, but I think the indication is that whoever this was, it was an individual, and it may have been a pseudonym to protect this individual from persecution, but he may have been a high Roman official. He may have literally been someone who had a lot of influence to be called most excellent Theophilus. That was normally a term that you gave for a dignitary. We know for one thing for sure about his name, we know that his name is Greek. Okay, so now let's go to Acts chapter 1, and we will pick it up here. And we'll pick it up beginning in verse 21. Acts 1, 21, we know, of course, that because of what Judas did betraying Christ, that he left a void where his office was as a disciple, and they needed to replace him. Verse 21 of Acts 1, therefore, of these men who have accompanied us, all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning with the baptism of John, to the day that he was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness to us of his resurrection. And they proposed two. Joseph called Barsabbas, who was named Justice and Matthewus, and they prayed and said, O Lord, you know the hearts of all, show which of these two you have chosen to take part in the ministry in the apostleship, from which Judas, by transgression, fell that he might go to his own place. Verse 26, and they cast lots, and the lot fell on Matthewus, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. There's only one reason I read this. This is the last time that you will ever see that lots are cast, the very last time. Why?

Well, because we're going to read something that occurs in chapter 2, and from this point on in history, God says, I'm not going to answer all your decisions for you. It's time for you to grow up. I'm going to give you a comforter, a coach, a helper. It's called My Holy Spirit, and when you draw upon it and you're close to me, your decisions will be awesome.

And when you don't draw upon it and you're not close to me, your decisions will stink.

But it's time for you to stand on your own two legs and use My Holy Spirit as you make decisions as a church and as an individual. That's the last time lots are ever used for a choice in the Church of God. Sure enough, what does it say in Acts chapter 2 and verse 1? When the day of Pentecost, I don't need to remind you that that's one of God's holy days, when the day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord and one place. Why were they in one accord and one place? Because they were preparing to worship God on the holy day. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues as a fire, and one sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues as this Spirit gave them utterance. And we'll stop right there. The point is, is they were all observing one of God's holy days, the day of Pentecost. What would have happened if they didn't remain in Jerusalem like Jesus had commanded?

They would not have received the Holy Spirit. What if they chose not to wait for the promise of the Father? What if they would have said, well, I think at the death of Christ, the holy days are done away. So we're not going to meet on any of the holy days from now on. And they hadn't been assembled together in one place on this day. They would not have received the Holy Spirit.

Let's now go to Acts 12, beginning in verse 1. Acts 12 in verse 1.

It says, now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some of the church. Then he killed James the brother of John with a sword, and because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to seize Peter also. Now, he says, it was during the days of unleavened bread. So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and he delivered him to the four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover. Peter was therefore kept in prison, but constant prayer was offered to God for him by the church. Now, we're going to see in a lot of scriptures that we're going to see here in Acts, over and over again, the holy days are mentioned. We're going to see, in some cases, Paul says, I have to go to this. I have to observe this holy day. I have to be there. So why are these references in the book of Acts? Some say, oh, they're just time demarcations. That doesn't mean anybody was observing these things. Well, let me ask you a simple question. Luke is a Gentile. Most scholars agree with that. Theophilus was most likely a Gentile. Why would the Gentile Luke use a Hebrew time demarcation to write to another Gentile? Why would that have any meaning, the Theophilus? Why not say the Ides of March? Typically, in the Roman system, the Ides were the 15th or the 13th of any month. Why not say, two weeks after the Ides of Jupiter, such and such happened. Why say, during the days of unleavened bread? If Luke was a Gentile, how did he even know about the days of unleavened bread? How would he have even learned those? Why would he write about days as time demarcations to a Gentile who himself would not be familiar with them? If they were unfamiliar with the observance of the Holy Days, we would expect him to use Greek or Roman seasonal days or times or time demarcations.

Well, the answer is simple. Luke was a close friend of Paul. He was a close traveling companion. As a Gentile, he was taught about the importance of the observance of these days by none other than Paul himself. He mentioned them because he was familiar with them. And he knew the Gentile Theophilus should also be, even if he wasn't. Did you notice in the Kingdom of God seminar, so every time I talked about the Kingdom of God and mentioned the word trumpet, how I plugged the Feast of Trumpets, which is not one of God's Holy Days that we celebrate, I would say that everyone sitting here, all of our guests, so he was promoting the Holy Days. I might also add that people use time demarcations of things that they accept as valid.

You will rarely hear Mr. Thomas say, yeah, in a week after Christmas, I did such. Why? Because I don't acknowledge Christmas as valid. I don't use Christmas as a time demarcation. I don't say, yeah, well, a couple weeks before Easter, I did such. Why? Because I don't look at Easter as a valid time demarcation. People, when they write, they write regarding things that they accept as valid time demarcations. Now let's go to Acts chapter 18 and verse 19. Acts chapter 18 and verse 19.

Speaking of Paul, it says, and he came to Ephesus and left them there, but he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. Verse 20. When they asked him to stay a little longer with them, he did not consent, but took leave of them, saying, quote, I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem, and I will return again to you, God willing. And he sailed from Ephesus. What does Paul say? Remember, his job as a pastor is first and foremost to preach the gospel. And what does he say to them? He says, sorry, I gotta go. That might be real important for me to preach the gospel to you, but I have something more important. I must by all means keep this feast that's coming in Jerusalem. Now let me ask a question. How many of you don't have that in your Bibles? How many of you do not have that phrase, I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem? This is Acts 1821. Acts 1821. Gene doesn't have it in his Bible. He crossed it out with a magic marker. I read about him on a blog. All right, Ark doesn't have it in his Bible.

Well, here's the interesting thing about it. You will find this in some of the most ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and it is used in the King James, the New King James, and the Darby and Young's literal translation. But many modern translations have dropped it out of scriptures. Hmm! Why would someone be threatened about a phrase that says, I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem? Could it be it doesn't fit with their agenda? Could it be that it appears to contradict their theology? Well, it could be. But even if they get away with that one, there are other ones that they can't get away with. Let's go to Acts 20, verse 1. Once again, Paul calls as an uproar wherever he goes. It says, after the uproar had ceased, Paul called the disciples to himself, embraced them, and departed to go to Macedonia. Now, when he had gone over that region and encouraged them, with many words he came to Greece and stayed there three months, and when the Jews plotted against him, he was about to sail to Syria, he decided to return through Macedonia. And Sopeater of Berea accompanied him to Asia, and Aristarchus and Secundus of the Thessalonians, and Gaius of Derby and Timothy and Titicus, and Trophimus of Asia. These men going ahead waited for us at Troas, but we sailed away from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days joined them at Troas, where we stayed seven days. Now, let me ask this question. They're in a gentile area of the world. The sea captain, he doesn't care about the days of Unleavened Bread. He'll take you there anytime. Why would they wait until after the days of Unleavened Bread, the sail to Troas? I just think outside of the box, could it be because they were observing the days of Unleavened Bread and didn't want to travel on a stinking small little ship during what they considered to be holy daytime? Now, to me, it just jumps right out at you that they waited until after the days of Unleavened Bread before they sailed. I'd like to pick up something else here with a beginning in verse seven, something else that a lot of people misconstrue regarding the proper day of the Sabbath. Verse seven, now on the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart to the next city, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight. There were many lamps in the upper room where they were gathered together, and in a window sat a certain young man named Eudicus who was sinking into a deep sleep. Of course, that never happens in the Cleveland congregation. This is all in theory. I mean, this just happened way back in Bible days. It says he was overcome by sleep.

And as Paul continues speaking, he fell down from the third story. Aren't you glad to near the bottom of the chairs, only like 18 inches from the floor?

And he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. But Paul went down, fell on him, and embracing him said, Do not trouble yourselves, for his life is in him. And when he had come up, had broken bread and eaten, and talked for a while, even till daybreak, he departed. And the reason I just want to read this, even though it's a little out of context, talking about the fall holy days, is their meeting here was on the first day of the week, that we call Sunday. This does not imply that they had abandoned the Sabbath and were now worshipping on Sunday rather than the Sabbath. First of all, breaking bread needs to begin a meal. It doesn't mean anything more than that. It's not a religious communion. When you break bread, it means you're just beginning to eat together. Paul was leaving the next day, and they were assembled to hear from the Apostle before his departure, because they may never see him again. It may be years before he gets back there, and they were all assembled to hear the words of the Apostle before he left. And in reality, he spoke on Sunday. He spoke Sunday night. He spoke until midnight. The young man died, was resurrected from the dead, taken up as dead. And then Paul continued to speak into Monday, all the way to Monday, until about 5 a.m. in the morning.

And you thought I was bad. But my point is, is that they are here together on Sunday and Monday. They're not just simply here on Sunday. This had not replaced the observance of the Sabbath. They were there to hear the words of the Apostle before he left, perhaps, forever.

All right, let's go to verse 12. Let's pick it up here now in verse 12.

And they brought the young man in alive, and they were not a little comforted. Then, when they went ahead to the ship and sailed to Essos, they're intending to take Paul on board, for he had given orders, intending himself to go on foot. And when he met us at Essos, again, this is Luke writing, we took him on board and came to Midilene, and we sailed there. And the next day came opposite Chios. And the following day we arrived at Samos and stayed in Trigilium. The next day we came to Miletus, verse 16. For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he would not have to spend time in Asia, for he was hurrying to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.

Someone forgot to tell Paul that the Holy Days had been done away. Here he is. His major rule in life is to preach the Gospel. And it's so important to him. He says, you know what? I'm sorry. I can't stick around here. I have to bypass you. I have to not preach the Gospel to you, so that I can hurry to be at Jerusalem, if humanly possible, or divinely possible, on the day of Pentecost. So what's so special about Pentecost to Paul, if he believes the Holy Days are done away?

What's so important that Paul skips preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom in Ephesus to rush to Jerusalem, so he can be there on a holy day? You see, these are things recorded by this historian, Luke, that many scholars just choose to ignore. Now they'll proof text Paul's writings and try to distort Paul's writings, but you know, it really boils down to one thing. It really boils down to something as simple as this. Either Paul is consistent, and he believed what he said and what he did, just like what he wrote. Or you can choose to believe that Paul was like an American politician, and he spoke and wrote out of both sides of his mouth. And when it was convenient, he told people the Holy Days were good, and he did it. But when it was also convenient again, he told people the Holy Days were done away. I don't believe Paul was like an American politician. I don't think he was a charlatan. I don't think he was a hypocrite. I believe that what he wrote was consistent with how he lived, what he said, and the words that are recorded by the statements and the words of Paul himself. Let's now go to Acts chapter 27 and verse 5. Acts chapter 27 and verse 5.

Luke is recording again.

And when we had sailed over the sea, which is off of Cilicia to Pamphylia, we came to Maira, the city of Lycia. There was a centurion found an Alexandrian ship sailing to Italy, and he put us on board. And when we had sailed slowly many days and arrived with difficulty, offs Gnidus, the wind not permitting us to proceed, we sailed under the shelter of Crete, off Salami, passing it with difficulty. We came to a place called Fair Havens near the city of Lycia. Verse 9. Now when much time had been spent and sailing was now dangerous because the fast was already over. Why even mention the Day of Atonement? If you're not observing the Day of Atonement and it's been done away, why writing to a Gentile would you mention that the fast was already over? Paul advised him, saying, men are perceived that this voyage will end in disaster and much loss. Here's what it says in the weary Bible notes about this verse. Quote, the fast was already over. Only one fast was prescribed by the law and that was on the Day of Atonement, Leviticus 16 29 through 34. If this was the year AD 59, the fast was on October 5th, to sail, this late was very hazardous. This means Paul left Caesarea in August or September and did not arrive in Rome until the following March. So Luke states that the fast was already over. Who was fasting and why would they if the Day of Atonement had been discarded by the church? This event, indeed, as Rhery's Bible notes mentioned, it did indeed in current 59 AD.

This was 28 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So if the holy days, and I might also add well after the ministerial conference of 49 to 50 AD that's recorded in Acts 15 that many people believe in which all the Jewish laws and commandments and ceremonies and Sabbath and 10 commandments and everything were all done away. 28 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, what are they doing? They're observing the Day of Atonement. Isn't that a little embarrassing if these days supposedly were done away? Does it even make sense if these days were obsolete that they would be doing these things? Now let's go to Paul's some of Paul's writings himself. 1 Corinthians chapter 5 and verse 4. Scripture, we read every spring because of its meaningful scriptures about the spring holy days. 1 Corinthians chapter 5 and verse 4.

Paul wrote to the Corinthian church that had lots of problems and issues. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you're gathered together along with my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. I think we understand the background that a man was committing incest with his mother-in-law. Paul said, put him out till he cleans up his life. Verse 6. Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Verse 7. Therefore, purge out the old leaven that you may be a new lump since you truly are unleavened.

This can mean that it was during the days of unleavened bread, that this letter was written, that they were literally unleavened in a physical sense. Or it certainly can mean spiritually, because they were believers of Christ, that their sins were forgiven. He says, for indeed Christ, our Passover was sacrificed for us. Therefore, let us keep the feast. Pretty powerful words from a man who many people claim did away with the Holy Days. Is he a charlatan? Is he a hypocrite? Does he say one thing in one writing and then literally live and say and do something and write something different to the Corinthians? I don't think so. I don't believe that that's the case.

This book was written around 55 AD. This is 24 years after the death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It's five to six years after the ministerial conference in Jerusalem, and mentioned in Acts chapter 15.

Most members of the Corinthian church were Gentiles. Why would Paul tell Gentiles to keep the feast? How would they even understand the analogy of leaven? You know, that comes from the Old Testament. You remove leaven from your homes. You have to understand the Old Testament that the Jews had rushed out of Egypt and their bread was wasn't leaven because they were in such a hurry that leaven pictures sin and it spreads. How did they even learn about that analogy? They're Gentiles. They learned about it because Paul taught them what leaven represents. Paul taught them the rich meaning of the days of unleavened bread and said, we should observe it not with old leaven nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, that's the work of the flesh, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. So what does Paul do? He endorses the observance of the holy days.

Now, after looking at Paul's personal example, some of the things he actually said is recorded by Luke and what he said here in Corinth. Let's look at some scriptures that many people use to say that Paul believed the holy days were done away. All right, so let's begin by going to Galatians chapter 4 and verse 8. Let's take a look at some of these scriptures. Galatians chapter 4 and verse 8. Here's one that they often use. He's again writing to a Gentile church.

Most of the people in Galatia would have been Gentiles, even though I'm sure there were a few Jewish converts to the new faith. And here's what he says in Galatians chapter 4 and verse 8.

He says, but then indeed when you did not know God. Notice he doesn't say we, so he's not talking to the fellow Jewish believers with a background like he had. He's talking to someone else when you did not know God. You served those which by nature are not God's plural. So he's not talking to the Jewish people who came from a Jewish background. He's talking to people that worshiped multiple plural gods. He's talking to the Gentiles that had been converted to the faith.

Verse 9. But now after you have known God or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements by which you desire again to be in bondage? You observe days and months and seasons and years. And the critic of the Holy Days says, aha! He's talking about the Holy Days here. Why the Sabbath was a day? The Holy Days are days. He's condemning them because he doesn't want them to once again observe the Holy Days. Well, I want you to notice in context, again, that Paul is talking to the Gentile believers because they had served, these people he's talking to, had served those which by nature are not God's. The Gentile believers were turning back to the bondage of their pagan observances. I also want you to think about the fact that the Jews did not observe months. You will find nowhere that in Jewish culture or in the Old Testament there was a holy month. The Jews did not observe seasons. I mean, there were seasons of the year, like spring time, spring harvest, fall harvest, but they didn't observe seasons as holy. And for centuries, none of the Jews had ever kept holy years, had ever kept the Jubilee year. And the Jubilee year was never kept outside of Jerusalem, outside of Israel itself, the original land of Israel. So the bad news is that three out of four of the things that Paul condemns these people for doing were never even part of Jewish belief or history. So he certainly can't be talking to Jews.

He's talking to people who were converted from the world, who were pagans and worshiped by nature, things that are not gods, plural, and they were going back to the weak and beggarly worship practices of their paganism. And they were bringing back with them the observance of days and months and seasons and years that were all part of their practices.

Now, the holy days are not even mentioned here. Paul knew how to write the Greek word or to inspire the Greek word to be written that would literally say holy day. You notice the word holy day is not in here? The word Sabbath is not in here? He was a pretty educated man. He could have written that if that's what he meant. I'd like to ask a question. How could taking a day to worship God and to enjoy fellowship and fellowshipping and feasting on good food be considered a form of bondage? I mean, if that's a form of bondage, bring it on. I mean, with me. You know, let me have it if that's a form of bondage. Galatians chapter 5 verses 1 and 2, another scripture often used.

By those who don't want to observe the holy days, this one's almost too easy. Galatians 5, beginning verse 1, Paul says, Stand therefore in liberty by which Christ has made us free and do not be entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Indeed, I say unto you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. So is the context holy days? It's about circumcision.

That's the word he uses here. Now, by extension, I will agree that none of us should believe that anything we do physically saves us. You know, we are saved by our faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ and by the grace of God. We are not, quote, saved by any physical thing that we do, and I don't argue with that. But the context here is circumcision. It's not even holy day observances.

The yoke of bondage was the false belief that one had to be circumcised in order to be saved. Some claim that observing the Ten Commandments and the Sabbaths are like slavery. I like the way one Christian scholar put it. It made me laugh out loud. He said, quote, Keeping the Ten Commandments and the Sabbath is like slavery, and New Testament Christians, we should cross the Red Sea to gain freedom from the law. Oh, doesn't that sound profound? I wonder how many double D's he has after it. I wonder how much education that he needed to receive to come up with that brilliant analogy. Because if you read Exodus 20, it reveals that the commandments and the Sabbaths were given after Israel left slavery. After Israel left Egypt, they were given the Sabbath and the commandments. You see, they're laws of love and liberty. They are not laws of slavery.

But brethren, to the carnal, self-centered mind, anything that God requires, anything that God says he desires that we do, suddenly becomes a burden in slavery because man does not want to make God a priority in his life. Men want a genie. They want to rub the bottle and for the instant miracle to occur when they're in a tough spot in life, they do not want to have a relationship with God. God's laws and statutes and commandments are not a form of bondage or slavery.

Let's go to Romans chapter 14. Another scripture often cited is proving the holy days are done away. Romans chapter 14 verses 1 through 6.

Paul wrote, "...receive one who is weak in the faith, but do not, but not to disputes over doubtful things." Just a brilliant statement by the Apostle. Don't sit around and argue about things that you will find out when Jesus Christ returns. Don't let minute things in which there might be good things about each position that you can point out. Don't let those be areas of contention and divide you because when Jesus Christ returns, you'll find out who was right. So not disputes over doubtful things. He brings an example. For one believes that he may eat all things, but he who is weak only vegetables. So one person says, yeah, I can eat meat. God made some meat part of his his laws of animals, beef and lamb, and I can eat that. Other people might say, no, God never intended that from the very beginning. God only intended us to eat vegetables, and that's why I'm a vegetarian. Verse 13, let him who eats despise him, or let him, let not him who eats, despise him who does not eat, and let him, not him who does not eat, judge him who eats, for God has received him. Who are you to judge another man's servant? So if your brother, sister, and Christ believe that they should be vegetarians, and that's what God's will is, and it brings them close to God, don't judge them. They're someone else's servant. They are Jesus Christ's servant. Let's let him judge them, just like he will judge you and I. To his own master, he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

Verse 5. Now, in context, we're going to see that he's talking about choosing days to fast.

One person is steams one day above another. Another is steams every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord, and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks, and he who does not eat to the Lord does not eat and give thanks. So in the context of eating, he talks about is steaming one day better than another. The context in Romans 14 is not the approach towards public worship like a Sabbath or Holy Day. What Paul is talking about is your private personal preferences, your lifestyle. For example, whether one chooses to be a vegetarian, or eat clean meats, or fast, how often and whenever they want to is not a matter of public worship practices. It's not a matter of morals, but of private, personal preferences. And some were judging the church members for eating and for fasting and not fasting enough. This close association here we saw with eating and days suggest that Paul was addressing special days that were being set aside for feasting and fasting. And it doesn't take a great leap to understand knowing the self-righteousness of many Pharisees, and many Pharisees were called into the faith to see why this became a problem. I'll give you an example.

Religious Jews traditionally fasted two days every week. Anyone up for that? I didn't see too many hands rise in that one. In Luke chapter 18 and verse 10, you will remember that in Jesus' parable, the self-righteous one said, I fast twice a week.

Right? I'm righteous. I fast twice a week. So some Jews may have been judging the members for not fasting as often as they did and saying they weren't righteous. Paul was also having a problem with a group of pagan peoples infiltrating the church known as the Gnostics, and the Gnostics believed in fasting, and they condemned feasting because so if they thought anything that has to do with the flesh is pleasurable, and that's evil and bad, we have to deny all pleasures of the flesh.

So a Christian should certainly not judge a fellow brother, or they shouldn't be judged on their eating habits. But in regards to esteeming one day above another, notice the words you will not find against. Paul was a very smart man. You do not see him use the words feast, holy days, day of worship. They are not words that are mentioned here. One may esteem or observe a fast day, a civil holiday, or an anniversary to honor God. Another may not see those days as special at all. In my country, I take time on a day that we call Thanksgiving.

It's a special day to me, and we try to make it a family time, and we have a prayer before dinner, and I thank my God for the blessings that I have for being an American. But my brothers and sisters in Christ in Canada, to them, that's no special day. They have their own day for Thanksgiving.

You see, so my personal preference is on that day to make it a special day and show thanks where someone else it may not be important to them at all. A Christian should not judge his fellow brother on these choices of private personal preferences, and that includes whether you choose to be a vegetarian, or whether you choose to fast one day a month, or three days a week. Go for it. That's your choice.

That's your decision. And you're not any more righteous for doing or not doing those things than the other person. And don't judge the other person who isn't eating exactly what you're eating or fasting as often as you're fasting, because Paul said that is not a good thing. All right, let's take a look at one final scripture of Paul's, and we'll wrap it up for the day. Colossians chapter 2 and verse 16. Oh, they just love to go to Colossians chapter 2 and verse 16.

They say this nails it. Those legalists, like Stephen, you know, the man who never read a word that Paul wrote and who died literally saw Jesus Christ in a vision next to the Father, the man who kept the Sabbath and Holy Days and never read one word of what Paul wrote, those kind of legalists I'm talking about. Colossians chapter 2 and verse 16. Paul says, oh, so let no one judge you in food or in drink regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

I want you to notice, first of all, that the gentile Christians here in Colossians were obviously keeping the Sabbath. Jesus goes, he says, don't let anyone judge you. So they are doing these things. Now, the scholars want to twist this around as if it's a negative, but they have a little bit of a challenge because notice what Paul said.

He says in verse 17, does he say, these are a shadow of the past. No, he doesn't say that. He says, they're a shadow of things to come. That's not a negative. That's a positive. The shadow is before you. It's looking forward to something that will be fulfilled because it's all about Christ. Paul was telling the church that no one had the right to judge them and how they feasted and rejoiced on the Sabbaths on a festival of God.

Don't let anybody tell you that you shouldn't be doing that. Don't let anyone tell you that you should be fasting rather than feasting on these days. And notice again how Paul states that the Sabbaths mentioned are, not were, are shadows of things to come, not things past. Christ coming, not things to come.

Christ coming did not do away with the Sabbath or holy days because Paul is saying these days are still a shadow of things yet to come. So why would those days be done away? I realize I'm a graduate of the Cleveland school system and I will bear that burden for the rest of my life. But even though I am a graduate of the Cleveland school system, in my little peehead you look at a holy day like trumpets it pictures the return of Christ. It hasn't happened yet. How could it be done away?

How could looking forward into something that is yet to occur be obsolete? The day of atonement. It pictures a time when God becomes at one with mankind as the originator of sin, is restrained in a spiritual prison. It hasn't happened yet and it's all about Christ and what Christ will do. Why would it be obsolete? Why would it be done away? As Paul would say, they're a shadow of things to come. Not a shadow of the dead obsolete past.

The Feast of Tabernacles is a celebration of the kingdom of God on earth. It hasn't happened yet.

How in the world would it be obsolete or done away? The last great day, time is a great white throne judgment after the thousand years when billions of people will be resurrected to life who never knew Christ. It's all about Christ. It's all about what he'll do. Why would it be obsolete or done away? It just doesn't even make logical sense. Let's go now to verse 20.

Because again, Paul was dealing with, unfortunately, the Gnostics within the congregation and they were aesthetics. They believed that you can't feast. Don't you dare smile. Don't you dare eat that food. That's pleasurable. That's bad. And they believed that you have to beat up the flesh, that you have to deny the flesh, that all physical things are evil. And of course, they wanted everyone to become spiritual like they were. Paul refers to it as false humility. You know, a bunch of phonies pretending to be humble, but they're all looking for attention and followers. Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why as though living in the world do you subject yourself to regulations?

Now, some would say, oh, those regulations are the Hebrew Holy Days. Oh, really? Well, here he tells us what they are. Verse 21. Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle. And what do the Holy Days say? They say, enjoy, eat, pig out, have fun, laugh, feast. They don't say any of these things, which all concern things which perish with the using according to the commandments and doctrines of men. These things, indeed, have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion. False humility. Yes, I'm denying myself from eating this week, because flesh is bad. I am righteous. I'm more righteous than you are.

So it's just false humility and neglect of the body. Yes, I'm just wasting away to nothing, because I'm so spiritual. But are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh. They say, this is your mind and your whole desire is for self. It's for indulgence. So the problem that Paul was facing here was a heresy of the blending of Gnosticism into the faith. One branch, again, as I mentioned, of Gnosticism, was being aesthetic. It was the belief that matter, all matter and pleasure, is evil and bad. To become spiritual, you had to purge yourself of evil matter and the pleasures, and you had to punish your flesh. This explains Paul's remark about regulations concerning not touching and tasting and handling, phrases that don't fit with the holy days at all. The Gnostic influence in the Colossian Church was troubling the members by judging them. How is it? They were being judged because they were having a good time, and they were laughing, and they were drinking, perhaps, fermented beverages and good food. When?

On, he says, a festival or a new moon or the Sabbaths. Let no one judge you in food or in drink regarding the celebration of the Sabbaths or holy days. So today, we have looked at the New Testament to see how the holy days were observed by the early Church, including the Gentile believers. We looked at what Paul said in the writings of Luke. We looked at the statements that came out of his mouth. We looked at what he did. We looked at his example. We looked at what he said to the Church at Corinth when encouraging them to continue to observe the holy days 20 plus years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We looked at the most commonly used scriptures that people attempt to use to prove that the holy days were done away. And if you look at them honestly and without bias, you see they're not talking about the holy days at all.

Otherwise, I'm sorry, but you must believe that Paul was a hypocrite. You must believe that he was condemning the holy days to the Colossians and the Galatians and the Romans, but on the other hand, it was okay for Paul to do these things. I don't believe that about the Apostle Paul. I think he was a man of integrity. I think he wrote the same way he believed in the same way that he lived.

And I hope you do as well. So I hope this survey of the New Testament and the observance of the holy days in the New Testament were enlightening today and encourage you to have a wonderful fall holy day season. Have a great sap!