Apart from the fact that none of the apostles or New testament writers ever authorized the celebration of "Rosh Hashanah" or any of the other cultic Judaic feast days in the context of the new testament assembly, this analysis fails to deal with the substance of the book of Hebrews esp. as it proclaims the end of the old covenant. It also does not treat the only authentic feast day we have in the New Testament, that is the celebration of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper every week as the church come together to worship Him.
Regarding the celebration of the Lord' Supper, the (ethnically Jewish but religiously Christian) apostle Paul tells us:
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes. (1 Cor. 11:23-26)How did Paul tell Christ's followers to think of Christ's coming? We do it by looking back on His sacrifice of broken body and shed blood we remember in the Lord's Supper. By looking back we look forward. Paul never told anyone to blow horns annually, or invent annual worship practices based (loosely) on the cultic observances of old Israel.
The sin of Nadab and Abihu was to presume to worship God in a way that He had not commanded them. They did this not be inventing never before seen forms of worship, but by subtly changing the legitimate forms of worship that God had given to the children of Israel. "Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them." (Lev. 10:10) No doubt they had good intentions when they did this, although the text does not speak to their motives, only to their actions. They sinned a great sin before the Lord and they suffered the ultimate punishment.
This same cavalier attitude is common in the church today. All sorts of unique forms of worship are introduced under the guise of being faithful. But in reality God has not called for these worship patterns.
When faced with the traditionalists of his day, John Calvin put it this way:
I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to his worship, if at variance with his command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, "Obedience is better than sacrifice." "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," (1 Sam. 15:22; Matt. 15:9). Every addition to his word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere "will worship" (ethelothreeskeia) is vanity. This is the decision, and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate. (The Necessity of Reforming the Church)Any worship form not explicitly approved by God in His word -- such as post-temple/extra-levitical Rosh Hashanah services -- amounts to the strange fire of Nadab and Abihu.
Meant to include you in the ping to #156
Mat 26:17 Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?"
Regarding the sins of Nadab and Abihu - this is precisely what mainline Christianity does with Sunday, Christmas, Easter, and any other number of manufactured "holy days of obligation". It is preposterous of you to compare celebrating Biblical Holy Days with burning of strange incense.
Apart from the fact that none of the apostles or New testament writers ever authorized the celebration of "Rosh Hashanah" or any of the other cultic Judaic feast days in the context of the new testament assembly . . .
First of all, even if it were true that none of the Apostles "authorized" the celebration of any "cultic Judaic feast days in the context of the new testament assembly," that's simply an argument from silence. Did they "de-authorize" the Appointed Times of the Lord? These days were commanded by the Word of the Lord Himself from Mt. Sinai, and confirmed by that same Word's command that even the least of the commands of the Torah be kept (Mat. 5:17-19). Why shouldn't we assume that lacking any command to the contrary that we shouldn't keep on following the previous command already given?
Secondly, it's blatantly untrue that the Apostles did not "authorize" the keeping of the Feasts, and indeed, the whole Torah. The Lord's Supper was part and parcel of the Passover. Moreover, Sha'ul (Paul) writes, "For even Messiah our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" (1 Co. 5:7-8). He tried to return to Jerusalem in time for Shavuot (Pentecost; Acts 20:16), one of the three pilgrimage Feasts. And as this article has shown, he directly linked the Second Coming to the advent of the Feast of Trumpets.
Thirdly, as usual, you are guilty of a double-standard: You demand specific Apostolic authorization to observe Rosh Hashanah, but can provide none for observing Sunday, Christmas, or Easter. If you can observe days about which nothing is said in Scripture, according to traditions that have nothing to do with the Bible, you certainly cannot complain that some might wish to actually observe the times that God Himself commanded.
. . . this analysis fails to deal with the substance of the book of Hebrews esp. as it proclaims the end of the old covenant.
As usual, you confuse the replacement of the Old Covenant with the New with the replacement of the Torah. Again, what are the terms of the New Covenant?
Behold, the days come, says the LORD, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says the LORD; but this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, says the LORD, I will put My Torah in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall no more teach each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know the LORD; for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.Since I've already dealt with this issue at length, I'm not going to rehash it here. Those who are interested can see my explanation as to why the New Covenant doesn't do away with the Torah on my blog here.
--Jeremiah 31:31-34
Regarding the celebration of the Lord' Supper, the (ethnically Jewish but religiously Christian) apostle Paul tells us:
Actually, he was religiously Jewish too. Christianity did not yet exist as a separate religion, but as a sect within first-century Judaism (Acts 28:22).
But in any case, I would argue that "this bread" and "this cup" speak specifically of the matzah (unleavened bread) and wine of the Passover Seder, not of what we now refer to as "the Lord's Supper," ripped from its original historical and ceremonial context. It is possible that the elements of the Supper were included in the regular communal "breaking of bread" that the early Church celebrated together, and that Sha'ul was referring to that, but the context of 1 Co. 11 does not demand it.
Paul never told anyone to blow horns annually, or invent annual worship practices based (loosely) on the cultic observances of old Israel.
Since when does Sha'ul's authority supercede that of YHVH Himself?
The sin of Nadab and Abihu was to presume to worship God in a way that He had not commanded them.
Yep. And those who gather together in "a holy convocation" on Yom Teruah to hear the sound of the trumpet blast together are those who are are worshipping YHVH according to the manner in which He personally commanded them and never recinded in the Person of Yeshua.
This same cavalier attitude is common in the church today. All sorts of unique forms of worship are introduced under the guise of being faithful. But in reality God has not called for these worship patterns.
You are correct. God never called for the Sabbath to be either ignored or removed to Sunday. He never commanded the observance of His Son's birth at the Winter's Solstice. He never commanded the change of any of His Appointed Times. He never commanded us to tell Jewish believers to stop keeping the Torah or even Jewish customs.
If you want to get picky about it, He never commanded us to play any musical instruments in the NT (a fact which the Church of Christ uses to disallow it). He never commanded us to tithe in the NT. He specifically commanded us through the Apostles not to succumb to factionalism, to calling ourselves by the name of Sha'ul, Apollos . . . or John Calvin, for that matter.
Once again, we see you succumbing to a kind of practical Marcionism: You admit the canonicity of the Tanakh in the sense that you keep it in your Bible, but you refuse to obey anything to the left of the book of Matthew, ignoring Sha'ul's exhortation that, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Ti. 3:16-17).
The fact is that all churches have their own traditional observances. If you are not calling for your own church to abandon its yearly Christmas pagent and anniversery pot-luck or whatever, neither should you call for those of us who observe God's Appointed Times to cease to gather together on Rosh Hashanah to hear the blast of the shofar according to God's command.
That is an excellent quote from John Calvin. If anything the Tabernacle tells us how exacting God was in His instructions on worshiping Him. Moses was specifically told not to deviate from God's instructions both in the design and in the worshipping ceremonies.
As far as the sin of Nadab and Abihu, I've always thought they offered "strange fire" because they might have been drunk. Shortly after they died, God issues a command not to drink "wine or strong drinks" to the priests (Lev 10). It does not negate what you state but rather support that we are held accountable for our actions when we worship no matter what state we are in. This was a similar situation the Corinthians found themselves in with the Lord's Supper, having parties with lots of eating and drinking. In that case the Lord exacted retribution on the Corinthians according to Paul, for their lack of reverence at the Supper.