All right, first of all, from
Galatians chapter 4, Paul chides or rebukes the Galatians somewhat
because of their practices having professed Christ and the gospel. And he says unto them in verse
8, verse 9, and verse 10, How be it then, when you knew not
God, you did service unto them which were by nature no gods,
but now, after that you have known God, or rather are known
of God, how turn ye again to the weak and the beggarly elements,
whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? you observe days
and months and times and years. Or write Colossians chapter 2
verse 16 and verse 17. Let no man therefore judge you
in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new
moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are a shadow of things
to come, but the body is of Christ. Now please notice that contrast
or that antithesis These are a shadow of things to come, but
the body is of Christ. Now, you may remember, it's been
a few weeks, in study number one, in our first study, we laid,
as it were, a foundation for the studies that would follow
after that. We did so by showing two things
or making two points with regard to the days of the Jew. First
of all, we showed that the special days that were observed in Judaism,
by the way, they were by God's appointing and by God's ordaining,
but they were typical of something better that was to come. They were not the end in themselves. They did not give the fullness
of the substance. They were a type or a shadow
or a picture of better things to come. Please notice on that
account that they are called by Paul in his epistle. We see it again in the epistle
under the Hebrew. They are called, quote, shadows
of things to come, unquote. The second thing that we showed,
or the second point that we made, is that the observance of those
days, which continued for century after century, and again, by
God's ordination and by God's design, but they ended with the
death of Christ upon the cross. And they ended there because
they had served their purpose and they had reached their end,
and since the revelation in Christ, therefore, and the coming of
Christ, and the death of Christ, they therefore have become useless,
unprofitable, no good for spiritual benefit, but they are not harmless. if they are observed as needful
to having spiritual communion and living the Christian life
unto God. Now, Paul's point of emphasis
is after this manner. And if I might take the thought
from the Puritan William Perkin in his commentary on Galatians. Perkin said, quote, to be content
with Christ alone and not to set up anything with him or against
him." To be content with Christ and Christ alone and content
with the gospel. especially days that are considered
useful as if they were useful again as they were under the
old economy. And in reading Perkins, he kind
of went into depth on this thing and on this matter. He makes
a distinction that I cannot remember ever reading or hearing before
from any other commentator. That is, he makes a distinction
about days, about times, and about seasons, and about years,
and such thing. His point is that there is a
for full concern and observation of days, of time, and of season,
that is, that they can be listed under four categories for our
consideration. Here they are. A. There are those
that are natural, such as the distinction of day and night,
such as the observing of the four seasons of the year, spring,
summer, fall, and winter, which days are observed and are followed
in such things as plowing and sowing and preparing the ground
and reaping and such like. And then B. Perkins said there
are days that are civil Days such as the fiscal year, as we
abide by and observe it, and this would be in connection with
the affairs of the state, or the government, or the commonwealth,
the running of the government, and these are civilly observed. C, there are ecclesiastical days,
that is for religious purposes, whether it be days of prayer,
days of mourning, days of feasting, days of fasting, days of humiliation,
or whatever they might be. And then D, there are those days
that are set up purely out of superstition, which he defines
as being observed, because for some reason conscience is therefore
bound unto them, thinking that it is what God requires. or thinking that it is something
that is pleasing or that is glorifying unto God. Now, these distinctions
we might well accept as a profitable way in order for us to understand
more of the matter that is at hand now, And that is the question
of Christian holiday. Then I read on in Perkins, who
was a covenantal man and probably a paedo-baptist, and he gives
himself away as being, on the other hand, an advocate of special
days when he says that the third sort, that is, the ecclesiastical
days that are mentioned, quote, for order's sake and to observe
certain days of solemnity is not forbidden, unquote. I think we might say with Paul
what he has torn down he has then built back up. Thus here
is where many stumble when they say that the Jewish solemn days
are no more. We do not celebrate the feast
of tabernacles and the solemn days of mourning and the year
of jubilee. But on the other hand, there
is in Christendom a defending of such days and of such season
as are sainted by the Protestant churches down through the year
and the century. Then that brings us to the question
that we want to come to today. If those days, if those times,
and if those seasons which God did ordain and did sanction,
which were a shadow of things to come, which God required that
Israel should keep them and observe, if they are abolished, And they
are. And if Paul rebukes the Jews
for seeking to, and I want to give you a new term here, to
Christianize them, quote unquote, Paul rebukes the believers, the
Christians and the churches, for seeking to Christianize them
and to make them a part of Christianity. And that's what they were doing,
the Judaizers, in the early or the first century. They were
Christianizing these days of the old economy and seeking to
impose them and make them a part of Christianity. Now, if that
be the case, and Paul rebukes them, then pray tell, by what
authority does any church or any denomination establish a
bevy of so-called Christian holidays without the sanction of the Scripture,
without the command of God, that cannot be supported or sustained
by the Scripture? And why will the same people
then condemn and find fault with the Jews for seeking to retain
the days of the time the seasons, the years, which were first given
them by God and required of them for a season. Now some of those
which were first part of paganism, some which they adopted from
society, some which originated simply out of tradition and the
traditions of men, some which have been inherited from Rome,
and have been passed over into Christendom, but which have been
made Christian holidays or Christian holy days that are observed far
and wide. Now, in tracing out the veneration
of days, of times, of seasons, of years and such like, it is
imperative that we shine the light of truth and Scripture
up on Rome. And it is imperative that we
consider the Reformation and follow then the reformers and
their children and their followers. And when we do, begin here in
history and trace it out, it will, I think, be found that
many of the special days which we find people of the Reformed
persuasion observing, and paedo-baptists and covenantal people defending,
are what someone has called, quote, remnants of Romish practice,
unquote. which originally instituted such
days as part of the Roman system that then became a part of the
Christian system. This is a case, I guess, where
we could say, like mother, like daughter. And though they take
offense at such a charge, I think we can stand by it that the observing
of many days is indeed, quote, after carnal tradition and remnants
of Roman practice, unquote, and most not according to the Scripture,
not according to God's ordinance, and not supported by the Word
of God. Now, pardon a digression, but
it is necessary for us here to go back a time in history to
the times following the Reformation. after the reformers had separated
themselves from the Roman harlot and were about the business of
what they called reforming what Rome had so viciously corrupted
by their bad doctrine. And we are especially interested
in this realm in focusing on the issue of observing special
days special times and season, which became the practice of
those that we call the reformers." Now, it seems in history that
we find that Calvin and Zwingli, for while he was a Catholic priest,
they were two of the most influential leaders in the Reformation. Now, I mention them for a specific
reason. I mention them because even the
proponents of observing special days have admitted in the book,
The Church Order Community. They have admitted that both
Calvin and Zwingli, quote, encourage the rejection of all ecclesiastical
festive days." John Knox uses the same mind in Scotland in
his ministry. In Geneva, under the growing
Reformation, such days were deleted from the worship of the churches
of God. And as late as 1574, a part of
the Synod of Dart convened in the Dutch Netherlands
to settle matters of doctrine and of practice in the Christian
Church, stated in part, and I'm quoting, as to church holiday. It is decided that people shall
be content with Sunday only." And this from the Canon of Dart. But some, maybe many, were not
content with just observing Sunday worship and the Lord's Day, and
they craved many more religious days ought to be added onto their
calendar. And a few years later, the Senate
of Dart, 15 and 78, said this, and I'm quoting, all churches
shall work to the end that the ordinary use of all holidays
except Christmas be abolished as much as possible and as soon
as possible, unquote. Now please note, many Christians,
now that Christmas was accepted, though it was set forth by the
Roman Church in the beginning. And history clearly bears this
out. By the time of the Synod of Dort
in 1618 and 1619, 19, we read in article number 67,
and I quote, the churches shall observe in addition to Sunday,
also Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day, Pentecost,
the day of prayer, the National Thanksgiving Day, and the Old
and the New Year's Day, unquote. Now what was at first forbidden
in 1574, was then allowed in 1578, and then finally in 1618
and 1619 was mandated. The church shall observe. Now understand this was the practice
among the Reformed churches, some of them and many of them. But there is a most disturbing
tenet also onto this by which some have sought to justify this
practice, the way that it is justified in the book, The Church
Order Community, by Vandellen and Monsuma, who defended the
celebration of special days. And I'd like for you to listen
to their justification now for doing so. hear their reasoning,
and I quote, rather than see these days, especially Christmas
and Easter, given over to the danger of abuse and frivolity,
the churches accommodated themselves to circumstances and began to
celebrate these days after a fashion, unquote. So let's be sure we
understand this logic. to rescue these days from being
abused and rescue them from being frivolously kept and observed,
the churches must make them part of religion, of Christianity,
and Christianize them and celebrate them. Now, may I have just a
minute here before we go to show how the same sentiment is present
today among even what we call Evangelical Protestants and even
among Evangelical Protestant Armenians and Fundamental and
Armenian Baptists. especially with regard to the
two days, Christmas and Easter. Now we hear the Protestant, we
hear the Baptist, and we hear the Armenian protest and plead
very loudly. We hear it every year. Let's keep Christ in Christmas. Remember that? Every year. Or
we hear them say, Let's put Christ back in Christmas. Or we hear
them say, Let's not turn Easter into a fashion show and into
a money-making show. Now they would rescue them from
abuse and frivolity. But you know what? If Christmas
Day happens to fall on a Sunday and on the Lord's Day, 1st Baptist,
2nd Baptist, the biggest churches in town will not have services
that day, Christmas Day. They have wanted to keep Christ
in Christianity. keep Christ in Christmas. I'll get it right in a moment.
Now there's another absurdity found in regard to the reformers
and that again concerns the holidays and that is this, that secular
holidays are in some cases taken up by the churches. When government
or society establishes a secular holiday, then the churches in
many cases begin to observe them. They have special services in
honor of and remembrance of that day. This occurred in Holland,
where were many of the Reformed faith. And it occurred when the
government declared such days to be national holidays, then
the churches took them into their repertoire or assortment of days
that were to be observed, and that some of them justified it
by saying that it was to rescue them again from abuse and frivolity. Now, this hints that it was also
to keep the faithful from joining the world in their frivolity
concerning these days. I submit, much the same attitude
again prevails today in Protestant, in Reformed circles and in Arminian
circle, as well as in some Sovereign Grace circle and Evangelical
Arminian They expect religious observances of the secular holidays
that we have. I'll give you some example. On
Mother's Day, people expect to come to church expecting the
oldest mother to win the flower and to hear a sermon on mothers
perhaps from Proverbs chapter 31. That might be appropriate
on occasion. On Easter, they come to church
expecting to hear a sermon on the resurrection. Then, many
of them go outside and have an Easter egg hunt. On New Year's
Day, they come to church expecting to hear a sermon on new beginnings,
on resolution, reflecting on the past year and looking ahead
to the new year, setting goals for the new, and being challenged
for the new year that is to come. On Thanksgiving, they expect
to be led in a sermon on Thanksgiving. On Christmas, they expect a sermon
on the birth of Christ, and that almost every year. And you know
what? Preachers oblige them because,
number one, It is easy to fix then upon a subject to preach. Number two, it pleases the people,
especially the visitors who have come for the observance of that
special day. Now mind you, in saying all of
this, we have no great quarrel with those strictly secular holidays,
though we cannot keep them from abuse and frivolity. For example, now mind you, we
are not the Grinch. that stole Mother's Day. Call her. Talk to her. Go see
her. Take her out. Be kind. Give her
a present. Spend time with her on that day. Again, get family and friends
and neighbors, family, together for a wonderful Thanksgiving
dinner and enjoy the fellowship with all of the trimmings and
Invite me to come over too. You might even have a family
gathering together at Christmas time without indulging in the
Roman part of the paganism of the doctrine, but just as simply
as a cultural or a secular meeting. But one thing that I think we
are bound to admit, there is no scriptural authority for the
churches and thus for the people of God to celebrate these days
as being Christian holiday. No, Christendom has no special
days like Judaism had. John Eydie, another one of my
favorite writers in his commentary on Colossians and in the second
chapter had this to say, which expressed my feelings exactly,
quote, sensations of spiritual joy are not to be restricted
to holy days, unquote. In fact, spiritual joy and grace
cannot be conveyed simply by a day or by a season, for these
are the direct result of communion with God, our joy, our fellowship,
our growing in grace or direct results of our communion with
Christ, of God's grace in our soul, of God's Word in our heart
and in our mind. Because a day, even a supposed
holy day cannot lift the soul to have communion with our Lord
and with Christ. The quote, feeling, unquote,
the feeling or the sensation or the emotion is not in the
day, else would it be only temporary. In fact, if I may quote from
John Eady again, quote, concerning Christianity, the new religion,
meaning Christianity, is too free and too exuberant to be
trained down to times and seasons like its rudimentary predecessors,
unquote. That's a pretty good thought.
To renew the charge against the reformers, those who follow after
what is called the Reformed faith, they have done exactly the same
thing that the Jews did. The Jews would continue to keep
the days that were observed under Moses, and the Reformers brought
some of the days that had been observed in Romanism and attempted
to Christianize them. Those of Reformed persuasion,
and you know who they are, argue for some things from the, quote,
doctrine of silence, unquote. Now their doctrine of silence
goes something like this, that if something is not expressly
by name forbidden in the New Testament, then it might be okay
to keep it. This is one of their arguments
for their days and for strict Sabbatarianism as well. But as Robert Morey pointed out
in an excellent article, If this be true, then all the ceremonial
laws not expressly, definitely mentioned by name to be declared
and abolished in the New Testament are still then in effect, if
we're going to argue from silence. By the way, this is the same
argument that I have heard some use in the case of dancing. You know, you preach against
dancing and somebody will show, show me in the Bible where dancing
is strictly and expressly forbidden. Now how dangerous would it be
to conclude everything that is not expressly forbidden is therefore
lawful for us to be doing in our day. This is what they do
when they say, the scripture does not forbid the keeping of
special days per se. I think the argument might be
specious because of what Paul has said in the two texts that
we are using. But we have ground to disagree
with them. The New Testament scriptures
do address the matter of the keeping of special days and a
special season, etc. And they address it negatively.
that such as were observed under the ceremonial law are not and
are not to be made a part of Christian gospel worship. They died with Christ. They were nailed to the cross.
They were part of that hostile ordinance that was against us. which he took out of the way
in his death upon the cross as he shed his blood. But upon the
assumption that the scripture does not forbid the keeping of
special days per se, as they say, or that which is not expressly
and by name forbidden, and a practice like that opens the door for
all things to become allowable. The door is by that open to all
kinds of special days to be added and to be celebrated. For example,
St. Valentine's Day, Halloween, Fourth
of July, and perhaps even the day to honor marching Lucifer
King. Now, let's take a quick look
at what Paul said in the Galatian Epistle, chapter 4, verse 10
and verse 11. You observe days, months, times
and years, and I fear for you, lest in vain I have bestowed
my labor upon you. Why such a strong rebuke? Why such a strong emphasis upon
days and upon months, and upon times, and years, and seasons."
By the way, it is probable that Lightfoot, J.B. Lightfoot, is
right in saying that in Galatians 4, Paul includes both Jewish
and Gentile adherents to a system which the Apostle calls weak
and beggarly elements of the world. The Gentiles had theirs. The Jews had theirs as well,
and both put aside when coming to Christ and when believing
and professing the gospel of our Savior. Paul said they were
on the verge, it seemed to him, of abandoning them and returning
to a previous rudimentary system. Why would this be a bad thing,
you ask, to return to days and months and seasons and years
and observe them unto God and to the glory of God? Well, the
answer is simple. Because it would be a corruption
of the gospel. It would be a slight and it would
be an insult unto Christ, our blessed Lord and Savior. And it would be the loss of gospel
liberty if these things were bound upon those who are free
in Christ. I'll say this in closing. Days
actually distract from Christ rather than bring us closer. Seasons promise what only Christ
can give. And those days in the Old Testament
were shatters in type of that real substance that was to come
in their place in the fullness of time in our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ.