Replies

I agree in part, though I would argue that Galatians is more concerned with covenants than with commandments based on chapter 4, where Paul clearly defines being "under law" (not "under the Law" as found in most translations) as meaning to be under the Sinaic Covenant. Understanding that, we then note that the Ma'asei Torah, "works of law" (not Ma'asei HaTorah, "works of the Law" as seen in the DSS) always seems linked with circumcision and often with the cultural commandments of the Torah.

So my read is basically that the Gentile Christians were being told that they could only have a covenant relationship with Hashem if they joined the Sinaic Covenant by becoming circumcised as Jews. This would of course entail not only keeping the Biblical commandments but coming under Jewish authority so as to make them liable to the Mishnah (in it's oral form, of course). Paul's objection was both that this would, if allowed to spread, negate the promise that all nations would be saved as Gentiles, but also that Israel had broken the Sinaic Covenant 700 years earlier and was now suffering under the curse clause of Deu. 27-28 (which Paul twice cites in Galatians). That curse twice specifies that Israel would be subject to not only the nations, but also their gods, which is why Paul connects the idea of Gentiles being subject to the old covenant to their being enslaved again by their old gods.

However, outside of circumcision, Paul didn't object to Gentiles keeping the Sabbaths and Feasts. Clearly, the expectation was that Gentiles would do so, as we see, for example, in 1Co. 5. His objection was that anyone should depend on such observances rather than depending on their faith in and faithfulness to the God of Abraham and His Messiah.

Now I of course agree completely that our attitude to God's commandments should be, "I get to do that? Awesome!" instead of "How can I get out of this?" Nevertheless, there is a case to be made that just as there are special commandments that apply only to priests, men, women, farmers, shepherds, Nazrites, etc. that there are certain commandments that are only requirements for Jews. Circumcision is clearly one such.

If someone wants to make the argument that they as a Gentile Christian are not bound to keep the Sabbath or the Feasts and they make a cogent Biblical argument for it, I'm fine with that. We can argue it back and forth intellectually for the sake of edification, but I don't have a problem with someone who is clearly wrestling with God's Word and has simply come to a different conclusion on a relatively minor issue. My objection is when Christians then decree that nobody should keep the commands that they themselves don't, and in the process tell Jews that they must cease to be Jewish in order to be saved. That is, in my opinion, just as much a matter of legalism as the reverse and also presents a clearly false "gospel" to the Jewish people.

Shalom uv'recha.