The Pulpit Commentary — Galatians — Section 261

or inordinate observance, but merely a statement of the fact. The view, then, is that the ordinary obsorvanoe of a Christian sabbath supposes the making of distinctions as to days which are all done away with under Christianity. How, then, is this observance of one sacred day in seven regarded by the apostle? It is condemned by him as a bondage from which we need to be freed. Nay, more, it is held as affording ground for fears being entertained with regard to our very Christianity. "I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labour upon you in vain." If that, then, was really the view of the apostle, should we not have expected of him that, in his own practice, he would have disregarded all distinctions of days? But how does that consist with what is recorded of him? If we turn to Acts xx. 6, 7, we find what his practice was, upon which Alford thus suitably comments: "We have here an intimation of the continuance of the practice, which seems to have begun immediately after the Resur- rection, of assembling on the first day of the week for religious purposes." If we tum next to 1 Cor. xvi. 2, we find him issuing a general order to the Churches connected with the first day of the week, upon which Alford again suitably remarks, "Here there is no mention of their assembling, which we have in Acts xx. 7; but a plain indication that the day was already considered as a special one, and one more than others fitting for the performance of a religious duty." If, then, the apostle thus recognized a distinction in time, how can he escape from the condemnation which be passed upon these Galatian Christians? Was he not in bondage in so distinguishing? and have we not reason to be afraid of him 1 It is either this or the conclusion drawn is too wide. And what are we to make of the consistency of the writers who take this view? 'l.'hey no sooner make out the language of the apostle to have reference to all distinctions of time whatsoever, than forthwith they search about for reasons for the observance of a sacred day. Alford upholds the observance of the Lord's day as an institution of the Christian Church, analogous to the ancient sabbath, binding on us from considerations of humanity and religious expediency, and by the rules of that branch of the Church in which Providence has placed us. And Frederick William Robertson says," So far as we are in the Jewish state, the fourth commandment, even in its rigour and strictness, is wisely used by us; nay, we might say, indispensable.'' And further he says, "Experience tells us, after a trial, that those Sundays are the happiest, the purest, the most rich in blessing, in which the spiritual part has been most attended to-those in which the business letter was put aside and the profane literature not opened, and the ordinary occupations entirely suspended." That is to say, the apostle was afraid of the Galatian Christians for making a distinction of one day in seven; and yet the Galatian Christians were right after all. A modification of so wide a conclusion as is supposed is suggested by the passage in Colossians. It is there stated that we are not to be judged in meats and drinks ; that is, we are freed from all such distinctions in meats and drinks as existed under the Law. But yet it is the case that, under the New 'festament dispensation, there exists a distinction of meat and drink. For in the Lord's Supper we have bread and wine appropriated to holy uses and placed under certain restrictions. And, if it does not follow from the apostle's language that all distinctions of meats and drinks are done away with under Christianity, so neither does it necessarily follow that all distinctions of time are done away with. (/J) We are to understand the language of the apostle to have reference to Jewish insti- tutions as a whole. It is not as though there had been before him the one point-ls it right to observe one day in seven? Then his argument would ha,e been-The Jews did that; we as Christians are relieved from it, or rather are to be condemned, if we countenance such a distinction. But, instead or that, the apostl-, is giving a characteristic of Jewish institutions as a whole. '!'here was a multiplying of distinctions in them, both in respect of meats and drinks and in respect of times. And what the Galafon Christians were chargeable with was their 11biding by all such distinctions as were made under the Law. Nay, they probably added to them by adopting gospel distinctions or symbols as well. To circumcision they added baptism; to the Passover they added the Lord's Supper; and to the observance of the seventh day they added the observance of the first. It was a legalistic spirit which possessed them. They were making the gospel more complicated, more burdensome in its outward prescriptions, than the Law, whereas it is etrnractcrized by simplicity and freedom. No wonder, then, that the a:vostle was afraid of them because of their making so many distinctions. They were  228 THE EPIS'l'LE 'l'O 'l'HE GALA'l'IANS. [en. 1v. 1-31.