People are often surprised to hear that our small church fellowship meets on Saturday rather than Sunday and on Bible-based yearly festivals rather than Christmas and Easter. Some try to persuade me that Sunday is the “Christian” day of worship. Some go so far as t try to accuse us of a kind “old covenant legalism.”
Some even seem to regard the law itself as a curse, and warn against falling into “the curse of the law” as though we must actively avoid doing anything that the law might require. They do this on the grounds that the “new covenant” supersedes the “old covenant.”
They are certainly correct that the new supersedes the old, but there must be more to it in order to explain a few strange things in the book of Acts.
Some strange things happen as you read the account of Acts 15 and following. For one thing, as Paul brings the letter with the conclusions of the Jerusalem Council to his Gentile churches, he stops to have Timothy circumcised.
Why, if circumcision is no longer necessary?
Why does Paul want to get to Jerusalem in time for one of the festivals?
Why does Paul agree to pay for a Temple ritual for a Jewish believer?
Of course, one easy answer I hear is that Paul is preaching to both Jews and Gentiles, so he must act Jewish In order to be allowed in the synagogues (and therefore so must Timothy, the son of a Jewish mother). In other words, like Paul’s Roman citizenship, it helps with evangelism and is therefore useful.
Paul actually gives a far more nuanced answer in the book most often referenced for understanding salvation by faith alone: Romans. In Chapter 4 :1-15 Paul explains how Abraham was declared righteous by God by believing what God told him (in Genesis 15). Paul explains that it was only later (Genesis 17) that Abraham was circumcised.
What this does is make Abraham the father of the ones saved by faith alone and of those circumcised and saved by faith alone.
One thing Paul’s analysis indicates is that you can be saved in both circumcision and un-circumcision by faith alone.
Paul notes that Abraham’s faith and God’s declaration of his righteousness came before the physical circumcision. This means that God’s declaration of righteousness is not automatically invalidated or neutralized by Abaham’s later circumcision.
Neither is God’s declaration of righteousness automatically nullified by keeping the law, as was the case with nearly every other Old Testament person of faith. Paul even quotes David in verses 6-8 as relating how blessed people are when God does not count their sin against them and forgives it. The context of the passage Paul quotes from is very interesting. You can read about how that grace applied in David’s life in Psalm 32.
Imagine that! Grace in the Old Testament! Even grace under the Old Covenant!
This is why Paul can state that neither circumcision nor un-circumcision mean anything for salvation. Abraham and
The people who claim that meeting on sabbath or biblical festival dates automatically fall into the “curse of the law” have missed that important point.
Paul’s argument against the “Judaizers” is not about whether or not the law may be kept by Jewish and non-Jewish believers, but about whether or not it is required for salvation. Clearly it is not.
That is why Paul neither forces Gentiles to adopt the law nor forces Jews to abandon it. Faith in Jesus, his sacrifice and resurrection, and his Lordship over one’s life is how God has decided to graciously grant salvation.
Keeping aspects of the old covenant law that appeal to individuals are lifestyle choices that do not automatically affect salvation. They only become a problem if the law is viewed as a means of salvation.
Understanding this gives a completely different understanding of Paul’s admonition to not let anyone judge you for whether or not you keep new moons or feasts or sabbaths. When Paul says that it doesn’t matter, he actually means it doesn’t matter. He does not mean that we must not observe them. All he means is that we must not judge one another whether or not we observe them.
John Valade 
Leave a comment