Oh, man, that is rich. Here's to me "virtually" puting on sackcloth and sprinkling ashes on my head.
Posted on 09/29/2006 8:27:34 AM PDT by Buggman
In my first article on the Fall High Holy Days, we saw that the Feast of Trumpets is intimately linked by both Yeshua and Sha’ul with Yeshua’s Second Coming on the clouds of heaven, and saw that this corresponded with the expectations of the rabbis. Now we come to the second of the Fall Feastdays, and the holiest day of the Jewish—which is to say, Biblical—calendar: Yom Kippur takes place on the tenth of Tishri, nine days after Rosh Hashanah.
On that day, the high priest would put on a special coat of white linen and carry out a very unusual sacrifice.
And he shall take the two goats, and present them before YHVH at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for YHVH, and the other lot for the scapegoat. And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which YHVH's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before YHVH, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness. . . .Today, the sacrifices which were the centerpiece of the Levitical ceremony cannot be held of course, but this does not make it impossible to observe the day. Like Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur is not a pilgrimage Feast: No one was required to be in Jerusalem (other than the cohenim, or priests) for its service. However, those outside of Jerusalem still bore the responsibility for not doing any work, gathering in a holy convocation (i.e., in their home synagogues), and for denying themselves (Lev. 23:27ff). Out of these three commands, modern Judaism has built its customs.And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. (Lev. 16:7-10, 20-22)
After a final, festive meal in the afternoon before Yom Kippur, Jews the world over dress in white in remembrance of the High Priest’s white linen robe that he would wear within the Holy of Holies, and at sundown go to what is known as the Kol Nidre (“All Vows”) service. The Kol Nidre is a prayer sung to a haunting cadence, which asks God to release one from any wrongful oaths taken that year. It dates to the Middle Ages, when Jews were forcibly converted to Christianity; they would ask God to release them of the vows taken at the point of a sword. Another traditional song is Avinu Malkeynu (“Our Father, Our King”), which translates as follows:
Our Father and Our King
Our Father and Our King
Our Father and King
Be merciful to us
Be merciful unto us.For we have done no deeds
Commending us unto You
For we have no deeds commending us to You
Be merciful, save us, we pray.
Synagogue services typically run all day, with observant Jews petitioning God to forgive their sins. Fasting, denying one’s self, is mandated by Torah, and observant Jews will usually refrain from any comforts at all during the day, including bathing, wearing leather shoes, etc. It should be noted that Isa. 58 and Mat. 6:16-18 both speak against fasting to be seen and fasting in lieu of true repentance:
“Wherefore have we fasted,” say they, “and Thou seest not? wherefore have we afflicted our soul, and thou takest no knowledge?” Behold, in the day of your fast ye find pleasure, and exact all your labours. Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness: ye shall not fast as ye do this day, to make your voice to be heard on high.True self-denial is not the mere restraint from food, though it may include fasting from food (Mat. 6:16-18, 1 Co. 7:5).Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to YHVH? Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh? (Isa. 58:3-7)
Yom Kippur ends with the Neilah (“The Closing of the Gates”) service and a final blast from the shofar. It is said by the rabbis that the gates of Heaven through which our prayers of repentance can rise close at this time, sealing one’s fate for the year. Of course, in the Messiah Yeshua, we may always “come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb. 4:16). However, there is still an eschatological truth to the rabbinical belief, discussed in the previous article on Rosh Hashanah.
Of course, it may rightly be asked in what sense can one be atoned for on this day without blood, “for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (Lev. 17:11). One who believes in the Messiah Yeshua, of course, looks to Him and His perfect sacrifice for their atonement. Non-Messianic Jews follow the belief established by Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai that acts of righteousness provide atonement (Avot de Rabbi Nathan 4:18). However, even in the Jewish community, the need for blood redemption still runs deep. In the ceremony called Kaparot, practiced only in very Orthodox circles, a chicken is waived over the head three times as the man says,
“This is my substitute, my vicarious offering, my atonement. This fowl shall meet death, but I shall enjoy a long, happy life.” After reading several selections from Job and the Psalms, the person lays his hand on the head of the bird as a symbol of identification, it is killed as his substitute, and given to the poor for their final meal before the fast. (Howard and Rosenthal, The Feasts of the Lord, p. 126)Why is a chicken used instead of a goat, for example? Because goats, bulls, oxen, rams, and lambs could only be offered for sacrifice in the Temple, so the rabbis forbade the use of any animal which might make it appear that one was continuing the sacrificial system. (Turkey or chicken is substituted for lamb for the Passover dinner in most Ashkenazi homes for the same reason.)
In Biblical times, of course, a bull and two goats were the sacrifices made. The bull was offered for the sins of the High Priest and the other priests, so that he could be purified before entering into God’s presence. The goats, one for Yhvh and one for the scapegoat would then atone for Israel. The word “scapegoat” is a translation of Azazel. Keil and Delitzsch explain the significance of the word:
Azazel, which only occurs in this chapter, signifies neither “a remote solitude,” nor any locality in the desert whatever (as Jonathan, Rashi, etc., suppose); nor the “he-goat” . . . The words, one lot for Jehovah and one for Azazel, require unconditionally that Azazel should be regarded as a personal being, in opposition to Jehovah. . . We have not to think, however, of [just] any demon whatever, who seduces men to wickedness in the form of an evil spirit, as the fallen angel Azazel is represented as doing in the Jewish writings . . . but of the devil himself, the head of the fallen angels, who was afterwards called Satan; for no subordinate evil spirit could have been placed in antithesis to Jehovah as Azazel is here, but only the ruler or head of the kingdom of demons. The desert and desolate places are mentioned elsewhere as the abode of evil spirits (Isa. 13:21 and 34:14; Mat. 12:43; Luk. 11:24; Rev. 18:2). (Keil, Johann and Franz Delitzsch, Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, [e-Sword version 7.0.0, ed. Rick Meyers, 2000-2003])And yet, while the “scapegoat” was, in effect, given over to Azazel, to the very Enemy himself, the “two goats . . . must be altogether alike in look, size, and value; indeed, so earnestly was it sought to carry out the idea that these two formed parts of one and the same sacrifice, that it was arranged that they should, if possible, even be purchased at the same time” (Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services, p. 248). So all speculations that the scapegoat might represent Satan or the Antichrist or some other evil entity fall short. What could these two goats signify other than the dual-natured Messiah Yeshua? He carried away all our sin, just as the scapegoat would be sent into the wilderness with the sins of Israel: “As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us” (Psa. 103:12). Unlike the lambs, goats, and bulls that died on the altar, our Messiah rose again. Thus, like the two goats, He was both sacrificed and yet lives.
A red ribbon was tied in the horns of the scapegoat. When the goat was led out before the people, if God accepted the sacrifice, the ribbon would miraculously turn white as a reminder of the promise that “though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool” (Isa. 1:18). It is most interesting that for the forty years between the sacrifice of Yeshua and the destruction of the Temple, the scarlet ribbon did not turn white!
Forty years before the Temple was destroyed the chosen lot was not picked with the right hand, nor did the crimson stripe turn white, nor did the westernmost light burn; and the doors of the Temple’s Holy Place swung open by themselves, until Rabbi Yochanon ben Zakkai spoke saying: “O most Holy Place, why have you become disturbed? I know full well that your destiny will be destruction, for the prophet Zechariah ben Iddo has already spoken regarding you saying: 'Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour the cedars'” (Zech. 11:1). (Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 39b)Hebrews 8 -10 explains that when Messiah completed His sacrifice on the cross, He entered the heavenly Holy of Holies, of which that of the Tabernacle and the Temple were merely copies, to complete the Yom Kippur ritual of atonement. The sacrifice was not accepted because it was being offered by the wrong High Priest:
For Messiah is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: nor yet that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others . . . But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till His enemies be made His footstool. (Heb. 9:24-25, 10:12-13)But if this is the sole and sufficient fulfillment of the feastday of Yom Kippur, then we have a problem. In every other feastday that we have seen fulfilled in history, the fulfillment took place on that day. Yeshua was offered up on Passover as the Lamb of God, thus taking away our sin just as leaven was removed from the Hebrews’ houses during the seven days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. He rose as the firstfruits of the dead (cf. 1 Co. 15:20-23) on Sfirat HaOmer or HaBikkurim, the Feast of Firstfruits. The Church was given the Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy Spirit) in power on Shavuot, or Pentecost, the Feast of Weeks. And we have seen that His Second Coming seems likely to occur on a Rosh Hashanah in order to fulfill that feastday. Why then would the Day of Atonement be out of sequence?
The Exodus
The Feastdays of the Torah are divided into three groups—the spring feasts, Shavuot (Pentecost), and then the fall feasts—each of which is linked to a distinct stage of the Exodus and Israel’s instruction at Sinai. In addition, there are at least three minor feasts (that is, those which were not ordained at Sinai) which are also prophetically significant. The key to understanding the Feasts’ prophetic significance is to understand their historical significance.
When YHVH reorganized Israel’s calendar by proclaiming the month of the Pesach (Passover) to be the “beginning of months” (Exo. 12:2), He was establishing that His plan of salvation begins with the Passover. However, to truly understand God’s plan, we begin our brief study not with the Passover, but with the six “silent” months which separate the Passover from the previous Sinai-ordained Feastday, Sukkot, the Feast of Tabernacles. Within this “silent period” lie two minor Feasts: Hanukkah, which celebrates the victory of Israel over the forces of Antiochus Epiphanes, and Purim, which celebrates her victory over the forces of Haman some three centuries earlier as is described in the book of Esther. Hanukkah has an eschatological significance which will be explored in another article, but for now it is enough to note the element these two feasts share in common: Both celebrate YHVH’s “hidden” protection of and provision for His people. Though He did not act with any obvious miracles like fire from the sky or supernatural plagues, nevertheless He brought His people to victory against overwhelming odds: In Purim by the placement of a Jewish queen, and in Hanukkah by giving the Jews might in battle.
These “silent” months between Sukkot and Pesach correspond to the 430 “silent years” which lead up both to the Passover of the Exodus (Gal. 3:17) and the Passover of the Messiah. Both periods were characterized by the lack of a true prophet to lead the people, “a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of YHVH" (Amos 8:11). God had not forgotten His people, but it probably felt to them like He had.
When the Lord fulfilled His promise to redeem His people from bondage, it was through the Passover and the death of a Lamb. God’s people were set free from Egypt via the blood of the lamb painted on their doorposts, so that they would not die in God’s wrath. Likewise, God’s people were set free from sin by the blood of the Lamb painted on their hearts, so that they would not die in God’s wrath. The seven days of the Feast of Matzah, in which all the leaven had to be removed from Israel’s houses and no leaven could be eaten, represents the quick removal of Israel from Egypt (in which there was no time to make leavened bread) and the complete removal of all sin in our lives by the sacrifice of Yeshua as we flee the ways of the world.
In the third month after Israel’s departure from Egypt, they arrived at Mt. Sinai (Ex. 19:1). There God descended on the mountain in fire, with the sound of a shofar (vv. 16ff), and called Moses up the mountain to begin giving him the Torah. According to Jewish tradition, the day that this happened was the day of Shavuot, the Feast of Weeks, a date consistent with the Biblical record. Like HaBikkurim, the Feast of Firstfruits for the barley harvest, on which Messiah was raised as the Firstfruits of the dead (cf. 1 Co. 15:20), Shavuot is a firstfruits festival for the wheat harvest. On the first Shavuot, the firstfruits of the nation of Israel began receiving the Torah. On Shavuot after the death and resurrection of the Messiah, the firstfruits of the Church began receiving the Torah written on their hearts by the giving of the Spirit of God in the form of fire and with a great sound (Jer. 31:33, Ezk. 36:26-27, Acts 2:3ff).
After giving Moses the first commandments, the Lord called him back up the mountain to receive further instruction, and Moses remained with Him for forty days (Exo. 24:18). It was during this period that Aaron led the people in the sin of making and worshiping the golden calf. When Moses descended again from the mountain and saw this, he smashed the stone tablets on which God had written His commandments, signifying that Israel had broken the covenant they had made to follow all of God’s commands, and many in Israel died, both at the hands of the Levites whom Moses commanded to take arms against their kinsmen, and by a plague sent by God. Moreover, Moses removed the Tent of Meeting (not the Tabernacle, which had not yet been built, but a different tent in which Moses lived and met with YHVH; Exo. 33:7ff) to outside the camp, signifying that the people’s sin was great enough that God had removed the visible place which was the focal point of Israel’s worship and His Presence.
The parallel is not difficult to understand: Forty years after Yeshua ascended into Heaven, Israel still had not repented as a body from her “golden calf.” Just as Israel in the Exodus fell into the sin of worshipping God in the manner of their tradition (in this case, image-based worship), which they learned while in Egypt, instead of worshipping God in the manner in which He had commanded them, Israel in the first century fell into the sin of worshipping God in the manner of their traditions rather than doing so through the Messiah as He had commanded them. While the details differed, the essential core of the sin was the same.
So was the punishment. As Israel in the Exodus was punished by the sword and plague, so Israel in 70 AD was punished by the sword and plague. And as Israel in the Exodus had the Tent of Meeting removed by their prophet, Moses, so Israel in the first century had the Temple removed by the prophet after Moses, Yeshua HaMashiach. The destruction of both Temples took place on Tishbi b’Av, or the 9th of the month of Av. While it cannot be proven, the timing of the Golden Calf incident makes it quite possible that Tishbi b’Av is the day on which Moses removed the Tent of Meeting as well.
In the Exodus sin, God’s fury was so great that He said to Moses, “Now therefore let Me alone, that My wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation” (Exo. 32:10). YHVH-Tzva’ot, the Lord of Hosts, was actually planning to destroy the whole nation and start over with Moses and his children! This is, in fact, what Replacement Theology claims that God did to Israel in the first century: destroyed them, and replaced them with the Messiah’s “children,” the Church.
Those who believe that God has cast away His chosen nation need to take another look at Exodus. Moses, who had not joined in the sin of the people, interceded for Israel so that God would not utterly destroy them, though He did punish them, even (temporarily) taking away their place of worship. Are we to think that Yeshua did any less, or that His intercession for Israel would be any less heard? And notice the basis on which Moses interceded for Israel: Not on the basis of their obedience or repentance, but on the basis of YHVH’s Name—that is, His reputation—and His promises (ibid., vv. 12-13). It is on this same basis that the Lord has already begun returning Israel to her land: “Thus saith the Lord YHVH; ‘I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for Mine holy Name's sake . . .’” (Ezk. 36:22).
The Future Fulfillment
“Okay,” the amillennialist answers, “clearly not all of the Jews were destroyed, but the Temple was, and since we are now the Temple of God, there will be no other.” Again, keep reading. After seeing to the punishment of Israel and removing the Tent of Meeting, Moses was told by God, “And I will send an angel before thee . . . for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiffnecked people: lest I consume thee in the way” (Exo. 33:2, 3). But Moses, not content that a lesser angel go with Israel, returned up the mountain, and interceded with God for another forty days, going without food or water, until YHVH relented and agreed to send His Presence with Israel. The form in which His Presence went with Israel was in the pillar of fire and cloud which was intimately connected with the Tabernacle:
The Tabernacle of Israel was known by several names. . . The name dwelling from Heb. mishkan, from shakan, to “lie down,” a “dwelling,” connected itself with the Jewish, though not scriptural, word Shekinah, as describing the dwelling place of the divine glory. (Unger, F., The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, R.K. Harrison, ed. [Moody, 1988] “Tabernacle of Israel,” p. 1238)According to the Talmud, the day on which Moses returned with the second set of stone tablets, showing that YHVH had forgiven Israel and restored fellowship with them, was the day of Yom Kippur (Tractate Taanit 30b), and the forty days that he fasted before God correspond with the forty days of T’shuva (Repentence) that are traditionally observed leading up to the Day of Atonement. (This forty-day period of fasting may be the same forty-day period that Yeshua spent fasting and being tested in the wilderness after His baptism.)
Likewise, the day on which Yeshua will return to restore His fellowship with Israel, and direct them in building a Temple greater than that which they built on their own, just as Moses directed Israel in building a Tabernacle greater than the former Tent of Meeting which was taken away from the camp, will be on Yom Kippur. Like the Levitial High Priest emerging from the Holy of Holies to show that God had accepted the sacrifice of the goat on the people’s behalf, Yeshua will emerge from the Holy of Holies in Heaven to show Israel that God has accepted His sacrifice on their behalf.
Yom Kippur is not yet complete. Our High Priest is hidden from our eyes, beyond the veil, making intercession for us day and night, but He has not yet emerged to show all Israel that His blood-stained garments have been turned as white as snow, proving that the Father has accepted the High Priest’s sacrifice on behalf of all Israel, not just the remnant that now believe. When He does, carrying the sign of a covenant restored before Israel even as Moses did, then the Temple promised by Ezekiel will be built, just as the Tabernacle was.
When will the High Priest come forth? On the last day of Daniel’s Seventieth Week when Israel and Jerusalem will “make reconciliation for iniquity” (Dan. 9:24). The word for reconciliation, kaphar, is most often translated “atonement.”
With Israel’s sins atoned for, the way will be made for the final stage of the Messiah’s reconciliation of all things to Himself. Next we will study Sukkot, the Feast of Tabernacles, when Yeshua will be officially crowned King over all the nations . . . on His birthday.
Shalom, and God bless.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Of course to you it is a "false statement" since I do not accept the traditions of your cult as truth. But to the 99.9% of Christ's body, the church, who reads the Scriptures plainly it is quite clear that Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week.
You would think that if this fact can be so easily contradicted that more than an insignificant handful of folks would believe as you do. But they do not.
With all these bold assertions we should expect this alleged last day resurrection to literally leap off the pages of Scripture. But it does not. It remains merely a theory based on clever Scripture twisting.
I'm seeing a lot of the same-old, same-old here, so you'll forgive me if I don't go back to hit every line of every post. Instead, I'm going to hit some broad points and some of the specific arguments and questions that have leapt out at me. I'll write an entirely separate post to deal with the issue of sacrifice and answer TC in full on that issue.
I see that once again, TC is running around passing judgment on the Messianic and Sabbatarian segments of the board in defiance of Col. 2:16—and his arguments are mutually contradictory! In post #79, he objects,
God nowhere in His word authorized the church (Jews and gentiles together) to worship on the old covenant last day sabbath, or with the shadows of the new moons and feast days of the Jews.But in post #88, he appeals to the “universal practice of the church according to the Scripture”! Of course, after numerous requests on numerous threads, he has yet to provide the supposed Scriptural support for this universal practice. God is quite explicit about the proper day of the Sabbath (Exo. 20:10, Deu. 5:14)—in fact, He wrote the day in stone by His own finger, literally. It would take an equally explicit countermand from the Lord Himself in order to change the Sabbath!
Does TC provide any such countermand? No. Instead, he provides only passages into which a change can be read back into (eisegesis, not exegesis). But without a passage clearly making a change in this particular aspect of the Torah, there is no reason to read the passages in the way he does.
For example, he has pointed out that the Resurrection occurred on a Sunday. Okay, and? Is there any passage of Scripture which then goes on today, “And therefore the Lord commanded that the Sabbath be observed henceforth on the first day”? If not, then why should we read such an interpretation back into the event? This is a clear case of twisting Scripture in order to uphold a tradition of men.
Second, he’s pointed to Sha’ul’s nighttime speech in Troas (Acts 20:7). Again, TC is guilty of committing eisegesis: While it’s true that this passage says that the brethren were gathered together to break bread “upon the first day of the week,” again, one must ask, “So what?” First of all, the Biblical day begins at sundown, not at daybreak or midnight (Gen. 1:5, Lev. 23:5, Lev. 23:32, etc.), and therefore this meeting which continued “until midmight” would have been taking place on Saturday night by our calendar, not Sunday night as some have imagined. Secondly, there is no reason to connect the coming together to break bread with the Sabbath—“to break bread” simply meant that they gathered together to eat and in this case to hear Sha’ul’s last words before he departed.
Again, there is no reason to take this oblique statement as overturning the direct command to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. Only a person who sets out to defend a pre-existing tradition of men could read it as such.
And third, TC ironically appeals to the aforementioned Col. 2:16. He claims that it is written to address the Judaizers. This does not hold up to the context of the passage. In v. 8, we read the setup: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Messiah.” “Rudiments” here is stoicheia (from stoicheion, Strong’s #4747), which means “elements” and is explained in v. 20 to mean, “the elements of the world” which Sha’ul further elaborates to be equivalent to “the commandments and doctrines of men” (v. 22). This by definition excludes the Torah, of which he writes, “For we know that the Torah is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin” (Rom. 7:14), and “Wherefore the Torah is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good (7:12).
The Torah (i.e., the commandments of the Torah) was given by God Himself—it is therefore sheer blasphemy to say that anything the Torah commands is “the commandments and doctrines of men.”
What then is he talking about, if not about the Torah? Two possibilities suggest themselves:
First, that he is not referring to believers being judged in regard to the actual commands of the Torah, but on the extra-Biblical traditions of the rabbis. This would make this passage parallel with Mat. 15, in which the Pharisees judge the disciples of Yeshua HaMashiach not based on the violation of an actual command of the Torah, but because they were not obeying the extra-Biblical tradition of ritually washing their hands before eating. It should be noted that they did not make the same criticism of Yeshua Himself, which means that He was keeping the tradition personally, but that He still condemned them for judging His disciples based on “the commandments of men” (v. 9) and pointed out where their own transgression violated the actual Scriptures (vv. 4ff).
It is entirely possible that Sha’ul was dealing with a similar situation, in which the Gentile believers were being condemned by some of the non-believing Jews, not for violating the actual commands of the Torah in regards to God’s Appointed Times, but for not keeping them in the fashion of Jewish tradition. One can easily imagine a Gentile being condemned for walking more than the half-mile “Sabbath’s day journey” allowed by the rabbis in order to attend service on a Friday evening, for example, or not saying the “correct” traditional prayers on the Feasts and new moons—especially if the Gentile believers were actively adapting and creating songs and liturgy to reflect their belief in Christ.
Indeed, as I’ve mentioned before, it’s also possible that whether they wanted to or not, many Gentile believers simply couldn’t observe the Sabbaths of both the week and the Feasts due to their situations: A slave did not get to claim time off, nor indeed did many freemen have that option. However, if such was the situation and the intent of Sha’ul’s letter, such did not represent the abrogation of all the Feastdays—for we see throughout the book of Acts that Sha’ul and the other Apostles continued to observe them—but a mercy extended to the Gentiles, a reassurance that their “circumcision without hands” sealed their salvation despite their inability to keep all of God’s commands. That would say nothing about whether a person who has the luxury of keeping God’s Appointed Times should or not, let alone whether those who desire to “may.”
However, the context does not seem to make this Sha’ul’s primary intent, which brings us to our second possible interpretation: That Sha’ul was speaking of judgment being passed by pagans, not by Jews.
Stoicheia, the elements, can also bear the meaning, “the elemental spirits.” As John MacArthur gives a fair presentation of the two possible translations when he writes :
Though not absolutely required, the latter interpretation definitely seems to be favored by the context, in which Sha’ul emphasizes that the Messiah “is the head of all principality and power” (v. 10) and “having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in [the cross]” (v. 15). It’s also supported by the mention of “the worship of angels” (v. 18) and asceticism (v. 23), neither of which were nominal Jewish practices in the first century. The entirety of the passage is written around assuring the Colossian Christians that the old gods and spirits who once dominated their lives had no more power over them, for they were fully in the Messiah Yeshua, baptized with Him in death, and raised to live in Him, forgiven of all sins. It would seem odd to suddenly take a swipe at the “Judaizers”—on the contrary, Sha’ul is telling them not to let themselves from being dissuaded in joining with their Jewish brothers and sisters in celebrating “an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath” just because the stars weren’t right!b) Rudiments of the World
That is not an easy term to determine because there are several possibilities. Let me give you a general idea of what Paul had in mind.
(1) ELEMENTAL RUDIMENTS
In its literal sense, the term refers to the basic elements of learning. Rudiments would be like learning ABC's. It literally means "things in a column," or "things in a row" (i.e., 1, 2, 3, or a, b, c). Paul says that those are the rudimentary principles of instruction for childhood and not adequate for mature adults.
The thought of Paul is this: To return to philosophy would be to cast away the mature teaching of the Bible for the infantile poverty- stricken opinions of an immature religion drawing its being from this world and not God. The same phraseology is used in Galatians 4:3, "Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world [The elementary teaching of human religion]" (cf. Heb. 5:12). In Galatians, Paul was referring to the Jews' religion; in Colossians, he is referring to the religions of the Gentiles. And what is the elementary teaching of human religion? Salvation is by works. Where does that philosophy come from? It comes from tradition--perpetuated error--and from man's infantile, primer religion. It isn't some advanced, deep, new, profound spiritual knowledge. The really advanced people are those who know the Word of God.
(2) ELEMENTAL SPIRITS
The phrase "rudiments of the world" has a second possible meaning in the ancient world, although I would guess that the first meaning I gave you is probably the one Paul had in mind. It could also refer to elemental spirits--spirit beings. The people of that day were bound up in associating spirits with the stars and the planets. They were heavily involved in astrology. It's amazing that people today think that astrology is something new when it's the same old rudiments of the world.
For example, Julius Caesar was an astrology buff who governed his whole life by what the stars told him. Alexander the Great ruled his life in the same way. They were both devout believers in the influence of the stars. People who believed in those elemental spirits were in the grip of a rigid kind of determinism that was set by the stars. The influence of those spirits through those stars dominated their lives.
It was said that there was only one way of escape: You were an absolute prisoner of the stars and the spirits unless you knew the right passwords or formulas in order to escape the fatalism built into the stars. It was said that you had to have a secret knowledge--a secret teaching. So along came the false teachers who said, "We have the secret teaching that can relieve you from the fatalistic determinism of the stars. Jesus Christ can't save you from the spirits in the stars and planets. We have the secret information for that." Some of the people in the Colossian church had probably been involved in that kind of system. Even when they were saved out of that system, they still might have had lingering thoughts about it. They might have been tempted to say, "What if these teachers are right?"
But Paul warned them (and us) to be constantly aware of the false truth--that which is just human tradition. It is perpetuated ignorance--infantile, inadequate human religion of the past being revived. We have Christ; God is enough.
The very most that our Sunday brethren can glean from this verse is a reiteration of the idea conveyed in Rom. 14, that we should not judge each other on matters of holy days and kosher—but if that’s the case, that’s a two-way street.
TC wants it to be a one-way street, where everyone who doesn’t do everything exactly the way he does, according to the traditions of his particular denomination, is proclaimed a heretic and a cultist. That’s most Pharisaical of him.
It is most telling how often TC appeals to “the New Testament” as if it were in opposition to instead of the continuance of the Tanakh. Marcion would be proud. No doubt many here have wondered why I continually refer to the Hebrew Scriptures as the Tanakh (an acronym for the Hebrew words for Torah, Prophets (Nevi’im, and Writings (Ketuvim)) instead of the Old Testament. This illustrates precisely why: The “Old Covenant” referred to in Hebrews is neither the Tanakh nor the Torah nor the legal part of the Torah—it is the promise all Israel made to keep all of the Lord’s commandments under their own power (Exo. 24:7), “the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt (Jer. 31:32, Heb. 8:9).
By referring to the Hebrew and Apostolic Scriptures as the “Old” and “New” Testaments/Covenants, we confuse the issue, and make it sound as if the NT was written to supercede the Old. But Yeshua did not come to destroy the Torah or the Prophets, but to make them complete (Mat. 5:17-19) and the New Covenant did not come with a promise to take away the Torah but to write it on our hearts (Jer. 31:33).
Post #70:
In the new covenant all the saints are priests of God (Rev. 5:10).
This just proves that you don’t bother to actually read the Tanakh—and that is why your understanding of the New Testament is so flawed. In the Old (that is, Mosaic) covenant, all Israel was “a kingdom of priests” (Exo. 19:6) as well. Did that make every Israelite a Levitical priest? Hardly.
To take them literally . . . an artificial literalism . . .”
Yes, I believe that the Scriptures mean what they say. A pity you don’t.
Why would God give the Jewish John the Revelator a vision of a pyramid?
I don’t know that He did; I suspect that He may have, based on reasons that are outside our scope here to go into. I was just pointing out the fallacy of making assumptions based on the “square” dimensions of the New Jerusalem and then building doctrine upon those assumptions. I don’t mind kicking this around with you, but I’m not going to build an argument about the Levitical priesthood based on it.
Here’s a snippet for you to consider: “But ye are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels” (Heb. 12:22). Assuming that “the heavenly Jerusalem” is one and the same with the New Jerusalem, in what sense is it a “Mount” if its shape is cubical?
Moreover, you contradict yourself by trying to draw comparisons between Ezekiel 40-47 and the NJ—the former describes a Temple and its service in detail, the latter has “no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it” (Rev. 21:22). The same passage would seem to preclude the idea of the NJ being a type of the Holy of Holies.
Remember what the Temple was: A place for the Lord YHVH to meet with His people on the earth and dwell among them. If you object to the idea of there being a Temple after the Second Coming, one has to ask just what you would call the building in which the Lord Yeshua will dwell when He rules bodily upon the earth?
Anyway, speculation about the age after the Millennium is fun, but ultimately futile, since the Bible simply does not provide us with enough data on it other than that all sin and sadness and death will be done away with.
Given this understanding it seems far more likely that Rev. 21 has the temple as its backdrop rather than a pagan symbol like a pyramid.
I personally think the pagans ripped off the idea of the pyramid from an ancient knowledge of the Mount of Assembly, the Mountain of God, not the other way around. In any case, since I think that the NJ is the spiritual reality of which the whole of Mt. Zion, (i.e., Jerusalem) not just the Temple at its peak, symbolizes, something that looks like a mountain makes a lot of sense to me.
These are obviously non-literal images depicting spiritual reality. The new Jerusalem is not really a physically construct literally a cube overlayed with gold and miles on a side.
Ah, there’s that word again: Literal. You know, when God describes a place using real measurements, I see no reason not to expect Him to make it exactly as He has said. Yes, certainly there is much symbolic in the details we are given, but in the Bible, the existence of a symbol has never meant that there is no literal fulfillment as well: We are raised with the Messiah symbolically and spiritually, but we will also be raised with Him physically, for example.
Post #72:
But nothing based on racial distinctions.
It’s amazing to me how obsessed you Calvinists are with race. It’s also amazing how offended you are at the idea that God might elect a particular family to a particular role—which you don’t particularly want anyway. What, was God racist for electing the family of David to bring forth the Messiah, thereby electing David’s “race” to the throne of Israel forever? Was He racist for only calling Jews to be Apostles? How then do you get offended that God might also elect the family of Phinehas and Zadok to serve the Messiah in the Temple after His Second Coming? Isn’t God sovereign? Can He not fashion vessels according to His own purpose? If He wants to take a particular lump of clay and fashion it to a unique calling, what is that to you, O Man?
It’s not as if I am saying that only Levites or only born Jews are saved—the election of purpose is separate from the election of salvation. Nor am I saying that you do not have a priesthood—you do, as indeed all Israel, into whom you are grafted, is “a kingdom of priests.” But in case you haven’t gotten this yet, there is more than one order of priesthood; indeed, there are at least three: Melchizedek, Israel, and Aaron. Are you envious at another man’s priesthood? You might as well be envious that you are not a prophet or an apostle.
Buggman points to Jer. 33 as somehow endorsing this view, but it's interesting to alo read Isaiah 66:19-21 where we see God raising up "Levites" even from among the gentiles.
That’s one possible interpretation; however, it could just as easily be read as meaning that God will take of the Israelites that the Gentiles bring to Him (cf. vv. 18-20) for priests and Levites, not the Gentiles. In this case, God would simply be restoring those born of the house of Phinehas and Zadok back to their proper roles, in keeping with those passages which show that He still keeps track of who belongs to which tribe (Rev. 7) and which family (Zec. 12:12ff).
But let’s say that your interpretation is correct and that God will pronounce some Gentiles to be Levites and priests. Would this in any way annul His promise to Phinehas that “he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (Num. 25:13) or to Zadok that “these [in the Millennial Temple] are the sons of Zadok among the sons of Levi, which come near to YHVH to minister unto Him” (Ezk. 40:46)? No; rather, these Gentiles would be “grafted into” the tribe of Levi, being added to the natural branches, not replacing them.
Neither interpretation changes in the least the promise that there will always be Levites (plural) to offer sacrifices before the Lord. Indeed, you’ve not even attempted to present a workable alternative interpretation; you’ve just claimed that I’m being “too literal.” So says the homosexual confronted with “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination,” and the universalist confronted with, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes unto the Father except through Me.”
All heresies ultimately have at their root the allegorization of Scripture.
Oh, and while we’re quoting Isaiah, perhaps you should finish reading the chapter: “And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, saith YHVH” (v. 23). Read Isa. 56 while you’re at it.
If you believe Isa. 66 to be a picture of the present age, when the Gentiles are being gathered to the Lord (v. 18)—not that this is the correct interpretation, but let’s follow your logic to its conclusion—then should you not be coming to worship before God specifically on the new moons and the Sabbaths as it says?
Let's actually look at the text and not guess what it says.
"Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight."
It explicitly says they came together "on the first day of the week." It does not say they were gathered on the last day and then lingered on into the first day.
97 posted on 10/10/2006 2:51:55 PM MDT by topcat54
Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together Acts 20:8 There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered together.I'm not sure what kind of a cult you belong to,
b'shem Y'shua
but we followers of Y'shua the Anointed
read the Holy Word of G-d in context.
We do not cherry pick verses out of context and
apply Eisegesis to the selected verse. Acts 20:6 We sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread,
Read the selected verses with the Ruach haKadosh removing the scales
and came to them at Troas within five days; and there we stayed seven days.
to break bread, Paul {began} talking to them, intending to leave the next day,
and he prolonged his message until midnight.
from your eyes and tell me if Rav Shaul celebrated Pesach and Shabbat.
Mat 5:17 Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill. Mat 5:18 For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled. Mat 5:19 Therefore whoever shall relax one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven. Mat 5:20 For I say to you that unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven.
Mat 7:21 Not everyone who says to Me, Lord! Lord! shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven. Mat 7:22 Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works? Mat 7:23 And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness!
2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship does righteousness have with lawlessness? And what partnership does light have with darkness? 2Co 6:15 And what agreement does Christ have with Belial? Or what part does a believer have with an unbeliever? 2Co 6:16 And what agreement does a temple of God have with idols? For you are the temple of the living God, as God has said, "I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." 2Co 6:17 Therefore come out from among them and be separated, says the Lord, and do not touch the unclean thing. And I will receive you 2Co 6:18 and I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already working, only he is now holding back until it comes out of the midst. 2Th 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the breath of His mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming, 2Th 2:9 whose coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 2Th 2:10 and with all deceit of unrighteousness in those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, so that they might be saved. 2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, 2Th 2:12 so that all those who do not believe the truth, but delight in unrighteousness, might be condemned.
1Jo 3:4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness.
How do y'all square your theologies which are squarely in opposition to God's Law with the above scriptures? And how do you square you doctrines, especially TC's, which are rife with the commandments of men and very light on scripture?
Mat 15:9 But in vain they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." 2Ti 4:3 For a time will be when they will not endure sound doctrine, but they will heap up teachers to themselves according to their own lusts, tickling the ear. 2Ti 4:4 And they will turn away their ears from the truth and will be turned to myths.
Eph 4:13 And this until we all come into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; Eph 4:14 so that we no longer may be infants, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, in the dishonesty of men, in cunning craftiness, to the wiles of deceit.
[Mat 5:17-20]
Matthew 5:17-20 seems to be the heart of the issue. I've asked this before, but I'm not sure I recall the answer, how does anyone square the language of Matt. 5 with, for example, the book of Hebrews esp. with respect to all the laws regarding the sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood? How do you square Matt. 5 with regard to the law being a "shadow" (Heb. 10:1)?
Unles you say that absolutely nothing has changed from old covenant to new covenant, then Matt. 5 is really not an issue. All we are doing is arguing over the details of what has changed and what as not.
Seems to me that "Sunday keepers" as you call us are in more more trouble with Matt. 5 (or any of the other verses you quoted) than anyone who does all the old covenant laws precisely as they are written down in the Old Testament.
Perhaps if you can point out specifically where in these passage "Sunday keepers" are in trouble, but those who do not keep kosher or sacrifice small animals or celebrate "new moon" festivals on a regular basis are not, then I would say you may have a point.
Quoting verses but not telling use what they mean in conmtext is really not very interesting. That simple statement does not tell you anything about what we may or may not have done wrt the particulars of President's Day. Likewise, simply mentioned "Unleavened Bread" may be nothing mnore than a reference to days on a calendar. (That is commonly how folks told time back in those days.) But we know thing else from the context.
Now I'm sure according to you eisegesis you read all sorts of things into the verse regarding what Paul and the others did on those actuals days. But that would be all speculation, now wouldn't it? The context does not help you out.
I appreciate your zeal, but the fact remains as I have stated it. The is no observance of the Jewish sabbath or other Jewish holy days by baptized members of the church, Jews and gentiles together, anywhere in the NT.
Since we can't seem to get past the labels, I'll will, once again, say "have a nice day". A much as I would like to share with folks who might be really seaching, it's obviously not worth my time to do it in this sort of setting.
There is a section missing due to some bad html.
It should have read:
Quoting verses but not telling use what they mean in context is really not very interesting.Sorry for the confusion.The fact that Luke mentions the Jewish feast day is as simple and unassuming as saying, "We went to visit grandmother on President's Day", rather than "We went to visit grandmother on Febraury 20th".
That simple statement does not tell you anything about what we may or may not have done wrt the particulars of President's Day.
Sorry TC, but you don't get to play the victim here. Nor do you get to claim to be some font of wisdom that we might all "share" in. You've not shared anything of value to the study in either thread--you've just shared your objections that we are having the study at all.
I hope you join back in someday, I really do. But I hope that when you do, you come to discuss the Scriptures, not cast judgment on everyone who has a different opinion about interpretation and practice than you.
No, TC, all the scriptures I cited in post 105 have a common theme - The Law. What you reference regarding Levitical Laws have been covered time and time again. The animal sacrifices were required for the forgiveness of sin prior to Christ. Christ fulfilled that part. Sin remains, obviously, but Christ's sacrifice once for all is the fulfillment part of 5:17. Another part, that is a continuation of this fulfillment, is that we confess our sins directly to the Lord now, thus we don't need the priesthood.
Now, if sin remains, and sin is the transgression of the Law, then the Law remains. How do you define the Law? Christ warns us to not break "these least Commandments" and especially not to teach men to do so. What can possibly be considered "these least Commandments" if not the 10 Commandments spoken by God directly to the Chosen People and written in stone by His finger? Revelation says the remnant keep the Commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. What can possibly be the Commandments of God if not the 10 Commandments. I'm open to it being more, but it simply cannot be less than those precious 10.
Paul writes that the brethren are to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. Aren't you the least bit worried about your salvation? What is your definition of "lawlessness"? Do you really want to bank your afterlife on the "penumbra of an emanation" of scripture that is Sunday worship?
And please refrain from answering by quoting some theologian. I want to know what it is you believe. Most of us on the right side of this issue have bared our theology for all the world to see. Let us see yours now.
Oh, man, that is rich. Here's to me "virtually" puting on sackcloth and sprinkling ashes on my head.
So, the fact that Paul says "Therefore, let us keep the Feast" [1 Corinthians 5:7-8].....the very same feast Luke is speaking of in Acts 20:6, means nothing to you. God's sacred Holy Days are simply "Over the river and through the woods....to Grandmother's house we don't go"!
But, just wait until Christmas. Then we'll honor God by having drunken parties, decorating with pagan symbols, and buying gifts for everyone.....except the one we're supposed to be honoring. God will understand....just like when we ignored his Festivals and Sabbaths. He knows his Holy Days mean nothing to the modern Christian. He'll understand............
First, salvation is by God's grace received in faith (trust), not by keeping the seventh-day Sabbath or any other Feastday, so kerry's question, "Aren't you the least bit worried about your salvation?" is out of line. TC honestly believes that we are to gather on Sunday--he's honestly mistaken, but he's honest nevertheless--and he does love the Lord and trust the same Messiah that we do for the forgiveness of his sins. We don't need to make the error of turning this into a salvational issue.
Second, since the Lord has shown so much grace to those of us who know and accept that His Torah is still fully in effect and yet still fall short of keeping it, we should be equally graceful to those who have been mistaught about its significance.
It was years after the first time I celebrated Passover and the first time I realized the significance of Mat. 5:17-19 before I reached the point of being able to give up my (then) twenty-seven years of Protestant tradition and emotional attachment to, for example, Christmas. My parents, though they acknowledge intellectually that I am right about the Torah, have even more nostalgia for their family traditions to overcome, and haven't reached the point of doing so yet. To them, Christmas has always been a time full of worship and Christian symbolism, not the pagan celebration that it has in its origins. Yet they too love the Lord, and live for Him, and have been extraordinarily supportive of my calling--indeed, they join me in keeping every Feastday of the Lord.
So let's not descend to the level of questioning another's salvation or commitment to the Lord over an area of honest disagreement--or questioning the honesty of that disagreement. If the Lord has convicted TC or anyone else by His Spirit on this matter and they have turned away, that's between them and the Lord, not for us to try to judge from the outside.
Our job is simply to teach the Word and live in it.
Reasearch, Mike, research.
And here on one of your threads.
It is obvious to even the most casual reader that following the Law does not save anyone. For instance, not stealing cars will not earn you a good result at the Resurrection. No sleeping with your neighbor's wife will not earn your place in the Kingdom. Keeping 52 Sabbaths a year and the Holy Days will not earn your salvation. If it could, then we would not have needed a Saviour. The gift of salvation is free, and one must accept it. Obedience to God's Law is the product of faith.
TC, I am eager to see your response to my earlier post. Let us move the discussion to the next level. We have been hashing this out for too long now. Surely, I will be able to learn something from you.
Rarely do I get involve in these types of conversations and I have not closely followed this conversation. If a person wants to worship on Saturday or Sunday, it doesn't matter-or it shouldn't matter. What I see is a hidden belief that if one does not worship on Saturday, they are transgressing the Law of God. Isn't this correct?
Let's take this a step further. It is being said that we are required to keep the Ten Commandments. Now this is different than simply worshiping on Saturday and has progressed to the next level. We're not only require to go to church on Saturday, according to the Law, but now we are required to keep the Ten Commandments. Sounds OK so far, and it is hard to argue with the fact that we should not murder but, as the TV commercial exclaims, "There's more."
The dietary laws are not part of the Ten Commandments. Yet we are also told that we should observe these commands as well. These don't seem to be as important as the other laws which should be more rigirously enforced. Now we have moved from the Ten Commandments to saying all (or some) 613 laws are in full effect. Yet it seems upon the whim of individuals which of these 613 laws should be in effect. Are people saying that all Christians are required to follow these as well? If it is just "whatever God lays upon your heart" then what is the discussion for?
The problem in all of this goes back to worshiping on Saturday or Sunday. If you wish to go on record as saying this is part of the Law, then, as the progression shows all 613 laws are in full effect. If this is true then it is a very serious matter for those who do not follow these laws are willfully (or out of ignorance) breaking God's commandments. Furthermore, those Messianic Jews who don't follow all 613 Laws are willfully breaking them unless they have some sort of Biblical justification (it better be good) for not following them.
This creates a dilemma. Are the Messianic Jews prepared to tell the rest of us we are willfully breaking God's Laws? Isn't this legalism?
I already dealt what that issue here. It is plain from the context of 1 Cor. 5, 10 and 11 that Paul is not referecing the literal keeping of the old covenant feast of the Jews, since he spiritualizes the enterre discussion with phrases like "Christ is our Passover" and "unleavened bread of sincerity and truth". There is no literal bread or passover sacrifice in view in that passage at all. So Luke and Paul are no speaking of the same "feast". One is carnal and of the Jews. One is spiritual and of the Christian body.
But, just wait until Christmas. Then we'll honor God by having drunken parties
What do you mean "we", Kimosabe? I didn't take you for a Christmas keeper. And as for me, I've made my views on that subject of Christian "holy days" very clear. So, try another tune. That one is a bit off key.
I am simply curious to know how your theology squares with the scriptures in Post 105. If lawlessnes is a bad thing, then how do you define lawfullness? For two weeks now (more like 18 months), I have been on the defensive and operating under the unspoken assumption that Sabbatarianism is wrong and having to prove point after point using scripture. I belive that the scriptures I posted prove that the Sabbath remains for the Christian, but you guys still say I'm wrong. Please, then show me the error of my ways. Bring me back into the fold as it were. Using only scripture, show me plain evidence that I am wrong so that I can stop making a fool of myself (OK, that's a stretch).
And that is in fact the key to walking between legalism and dead faith. Thank you for offering the clarification.
Now, if TC is knowingly and purposefully violating a commandment of God, then there's a bit of a problem there, to put it mildly--no one doubts that. But that's not (at least as far as any of us can tell via computer) what's happening here; rather, this is a debate about what those commandments are, which are still in effect, and which if any have been annulled or changed by the New Covenant. TC has, we believe, been taught erroniously, and we're trying to correct that by saying, "Look, forget your tradition for a moment; what does the Scripture say?" But we all have to recognize that it's very hard to not read back into Scripture that which you've been taught your entire life. I know how long it took the Spirit to bring me around.
So let's not even imply that this is a salvational issue; it's not. Rather, this is a discussion about how we should walk with God after we are already saved. One does not lose or invalidate one's salvation by faith by having the wrong theology; sins of ignorance are covered by the Sacrifice (Lev. 4).
If we so much as imply otherwise--and I know that wasn't your intent, kerry, but that's how it read to me, and I know you better than that--then we fall into the wrong.
As a matter of technical obedience to the Word of God, I agree. Nowhere does Torah specifically mandate "a holy convocation" on the Sabbath as it does, for example, Yom Kippur. The command for the Sabbath, rather, is to set it apart from the rest of the week and rest. Within that command it is certainly appropriate and right to follow our Lord's example and set the Sabbath apart by gathering to worship and learn from God's Word on that day (Luke 4:16), but it's no more wrong to gather to worship on Sunday than it is to gather and worship on Wednesday. Heck, one of the discussions at Beth HaMashiach is whether to start a "Resurrection Day" service.
So the issue is not principally about which day we should set to gather together--though doubtless our conclusions on the real issue will have an impact on our attitudes there--but about whether God has ever annuled or changed the command to set apart and rest the 24 hours between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday. He has not.
The dietary laws are not part of the Ten Commandments. Yet we are also told that we should observe these commands as well.
I can't speak for everyone here, but personally I don't believe that the dietary laws are manditory for Gentiles living outside of the Land. God gave Noah all the animals to eat, not just the clean ones, and a Jew was permitted to sell meat from an animal that had been accidentally slain to a Gentile stranger.
However, I also believe that God giving "looser" dietary standards for the Gentiles was a mercy born out of His foreknowledge that not everyone would have kosher meat to eat. There are many parts of the world where pig is the best food animal available, and it would be putting people's health at risk to forbid them from it.
Therefore, I conclude that it is good for a person who has the luxury of choosing what meats to eat to choose to keep kosher out of a love for and desire to be like our Lord Yeshua in every way, but not required. I also believe that it's better to not serve pork and shellfish at church functions as a show of respect for any Jews, believers or not, who may be present. But as a matter of private practice, since the Torah itself is ambiguous about the requirement for Gentiles to keep kosher and the NT even more so, I consider that a matter of private conscience.
And before you get hung up on "a matter of private conscience" and argue that I've just made the Bible a matter of private interpretation, consider this: Not all sacrifices were required. A person could choose to make a peace offering as a sign of love and gratitude to the Lord (Lev. 3), and it was good to do so, but there was no requirement to. A person could choose to take a Nazrite oath, and it was good to do so, but there was no requirement to. Therefore, there have always been commands which are required at all times ("Thou shalt not murder"), and commands that are "optional," a matter strictly between the worshipper and God.
Now we have moved from the Ten Commandments to saying all (or some) 613 laws are in full effect.
That is correct:
Think not that I am come to destroy the Torah, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil (lit. 'make full'; idiomatically, 'make full by interpreting properly'). For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one yod (the smallest letter) or one tittle (the least penstroke) shall in no wise pass from the Torah till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Mat. 5:17-19)Now, Hebrews 7:12 speaks of a "change" in the Torah, but this is a mistranslation: "For the priesthood being transfered/moved (metatithemenes), there is made of necessity a transferrance (metathesis) also of the Torah." The same root words, with different tenses, are used in Heb. 11:15 to describe Enoch's translation into Heaven without death. Therefore, the author is not refering to the wholesale switchover of one Torah for another, as has been often wrongly read into him, but of the transferrance of the office of the High Priest from Levi to Judah, and from the earthly Temple to the true Temple in heaven.Do we then make void the Torah through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish (uphold, keep) the Torah. (Rom. 3:31)
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. . . For I delight in the law of God after the inward man . . . (Rom. 7:12, 22)
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the Torah; for sin is the transgression of the Torah. (1 Jn. 3:4)
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the Torah, but under grace? God forbid. (Rom. 6:15)
This is made clear by the succeeding verses:
For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. (7:13-16)So then, it may be argued that those of the 613 commandments which specifically have to with offering sacrifices have not been annulled, but have been "transferred" from being fulfilled in an earthly temple to being fulfilled by our great High Priest before the Father's throne, as every sin we commit is paid for on the sacrificial Cross.
However, as a matter of our day-to-day walk with God, this actually affects the commands which directly affect you and I very little, since we would not be personally performing the sacrifices in the Temple in Jerusalem anyway. Moreover, the sacrificial laws in the Torah explain how to atone for sin, ultimately pointing to the Messiah, but all the rest of the commands tell us how not to sin. And that includes the "ceremonial" commands like wearing tzitzit (tassels with blue threads) or observing God's Appointed Times.
Are people saying that all Christians are required to follow these as well? If it is just "whatever God lays upon your heart" then what is the discussion for?
I believe that Christians should follow all of the commands of God. "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the Torah, but under grace? God forbid." However, I also recognize honest differences in opinion about what those are and allow the Spirit room to work in shaping a person's walk. But since the Word of God is the Sword of the Spirit, I point you first and foremost to the Scriptures to know God's commands, and then leave it up to the Spirit to convict you where you fall short, just as He convicts me.
If you wish to go on record as saying this is part of the Law, then, as the progression shows all 613 laws are in full effect. If this is true then it is a very serious matter for those who do not follow these laws are willfully (or out of ignorance) breaking God's commandments.
Tell me, Harley, is not murdering, stealing, or committing adultery part of the Law? Is the command against idolatry? Homosexuality? The occult? If you wish to go on record as saying these are part of the Law, then, as the progression shows all 613 laws are in full effect. If this is true then it is a very serious matter for those who do not follow these laws are willfully (or out of ignorance) breaking God's commandments.
Furthermore, those Messianic Jews who don't follow all 613 Laws are willfully breaking them unless they have some sort of Biblical justification (it better be good) for not following them.
I agree 100%, and this is why I counsel grace; if we who believe that the 613 are still in effect so often fall short of keeping them (and we do), and must therefore depend solely upon the grace of God for our salvation, how can we then turn around and fail to show that same grace to those of our brothers and sisters in the Messiah who are in honest error about which commands are still in effect?
This creates a dilemma. Are the Messianic Jews prepared to tell the rest of us we are willfully breaking God's Laws? Isn't this legalism?
TC just came in here telling us that we were willfully breaking God's New Testament laws. Isn't that legalism?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.