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.
As Buggman pointed out, obedience goes both ways. Scripture is pretty clear that there is an active part of obedience, choice, in what do. And if it were an automatic thing, then there wouldn't be any need for admonishing or overcoming. Scripture would basically be "just wait, and it will be okay.":
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
We "yield ourselves", obey, God's commandments.
I noticed how you subtly switched the verse to suit your theology.
If you recall, the Sabbath is the 7th day of the week: Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the Sabbath of Jehovah your God.
I suppose you want to debate what the meaning of the word "is" is next. The sentence structure is irrelevant when read in context:
Exo 20:11 For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day, and sanctified it.
or this one
Lev 23:3 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, a holy convocation. You shall not do any work. It is a sabbath to Jehovah in all your dwellings.
Did Jehova bless any day other than the 7th? He worked 6 days and rested on the 7th, then He blessed the day He rested.
Since you believe that Jesus was resurrected on the 1st day, then does that mean He rested on the 7th as well? Wouldn't that be something, huh?
So, if you are declaring that there was absolutely no change in the law from Old Testament to New, and that somehow a bare reading of Acts 17:11 refutes the change of the sabbath details, I'm afraid you are incorrect.
Dude, the 10 Commandments were written in STONE. Why do you guys always jump to the dietary laws when confronted with the truth about the Sabbath? Why don't you point to Rome's idolatry and say "see, that one isn't binding either". Why don't you point to Harry Reid's thievery and say, "that one is gone, too!"? Or Mark Foley's love life? Of Bill Clinton's love life? Or Hinduism? Heck, for that matter, it wasn't even a sin for Saddam to gas the Kurds! The only religion that says they can change the 10 Commandments is Catholicism. In fact, they brag about it. Now, the Bible does mention someone changing laws....
Dan 7:25 And he shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and plot to change times and laws. And they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and one-half time.
Everything but the greek.
My electronic Bible does not have a number for "might", thus I don't have the word. Do you? Since I don't have it in the Greek, I posted a bunch of translations. However, my point does not hinge on this one verse. There are a ton of them that indicate it is hard to be saved and that there are some who don't make it.
Joh 3:18 He who believes on Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.
Before I go on, are you saying that everyone is going to be saved? I don't want to "waste the bandwidth" if you aren't saying that.
Here's what I have for numbered verses, if it is even relevant:
Joh 3:17 For1063 God2316 sent649 not3756 his848 Son5207 into1519 the3588 world2889 to2443 condemn2919 the3588 world;2889 but235 that2443 the3588 world2889 through1223 him846 might be saved.4982
Should read:
There are a ton of them that indicate it is hard to stay saved and that there are some who don't make it.
I'll repeat: I do not seek to keep the Torah in order to be saved. I seek to keep the Torah because I am saved, and I want to be like my Savior in every way
And now I have you telling me that:
Now I'm confused. Which is it?
If you feel your obedience is in addition to God's grace, then TC is correct; this is what the Judeizers were all about and I would suggest listening to his excellent sermon (the gentleman also picks on the Presbyterians). On the other hand, if your obedience is something you just wish to do to illustrate your love for God then have at it.
I would suggest that since both you and Buggman posted opposite views and you reference him, that a conference is in order to straighten out this confusion. It's no wonder TC is scratching his head.
We didn't post opposite views. When I said:
"As Buggman pointed out, obedience goes both ways. Scripture is pretty clear that there is an active part of obedience, choice, in what do"
I was responding to your post #167. I was referencing Buggmans post #170 in reference to obedience, in which he said
"there's a bit of both, Harley. The Spirit transforms us from within, giving us a new heart of flesh on which is written God's Torah--but we also have to continually, day-by-day and decision-by-decision yield to the Spirit, and we always have the choice to disobey.."
You quoted Buggmans post #176, in which he offered that he kept the torah because he was saved.
And for the record, I agree with Buggmans post #176. I keep God's commandments because God has granted me his holy spirit, his grace, and I want to obey and be in line with his will.
To avoid confusion you should have realized that there were two separate topics being discussed.
A good example in scripture about obedience in regards to being saved can be found in the parable of the prodigal son.
The prodigal son left (was lost) and lived a hard life. When he finally returned to the father, his fervant desire was to obey his father's commands:
Luk 15:18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
Luk 15:19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
So though the son was given grace by the father he desired to make up for his past behavior by becoming his fathers servant and obeying his commands.
Here are some scriptures that the good Pastor must have overlooked in his studies. They shed some light on whether or not a "saved" person must do something:
Jam 2:15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, Jam 2:16 and if one of you says to them, Go in peace, be warmed and filled, but you do not give them those things which are needful to the body, what good is it? Jam 2:17 Even so, if it does not have works, faith is dead, being by itself. Jam 2:18 But someone will say, You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith from my works. Jam 2:19 You believe that there is one God, you do well; even the demons believe and tremble. Jam 2:20 But will you know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Jam 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Jam 2:22 Do you see how faith worked with his works, and from the works faith was made complete?
Joh 5:14 Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, Behold, you are made whole. Sin no more lest a worse thing come to you.
Joh 8:11 And she said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said to her, Neither do I give judgment. Go, and sin no more.
Rev 12:17 And the dragon was enraged over the woman, and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
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 18:3 and said, Truly I say to you, Unless you are converted and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.
Mat 19:23 Then Jesus said to His disciples, Truly I say to you that a rich man will with great difficulty enter into the kingdom of Heaven. Mat 19:24 And again I say to you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Mat 19:25 When His disciples heard, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? Mat 19:26 But Jesus looked on them and said to them, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. Mat 19:27 Then answering Peter said to Him, Behold, we have forsaken all and have followed You. Therefore what shall we have? Mat 19:28 And Jesus said to them, Truly I say to you that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of His glory, you also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Mat 19:29 And everyone who left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. Mat 19:30 But many who are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.
Mar 9:47 And if your eye offends you, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes to be cast into hell fire
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Act 14:22 confirming the souls of the disciples, calling on them to continue in the faith and that through much tribulation we must enter into the kingdom of God.
I heard once that Billy Graham is the best preacher in the world, so long as you die on the way home from the revival. I absolutely agree that the gift of salvation is free, but we must accept it. We must believe, repent, and be baptized in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. But the challenge then comes on the way home from church. Are you really saved if you just add Jesus to your sinful life? Or will you allow the Holy Spirit to guide you to as righteous a life as one can lead?
Check this one out:
Mat 9:20 And behold, a woman, who had a flow of blood for twelve years, came up behind Him and touched the hem of His garment. Mat 9:21 For she said within herself, If only I shall touch His robe, I will be whole. Mat 9:22 But turning and seeing her, Jesus said, Daughter, be comforted; your faith has saved you. And the woman was saved from that hour.
Now, Jesus says her faith saved her, and it did, but she risked a whole lot touching a Rabbi while being in a constant state of menstruation, huh?
Here you have a filthy, despised Gentile woman risking her kneck to approach the Lord. Again, her works demonstrate her faith!
Mat 15:22 And behold, a woman of Canaan coming out of these borders cried to Him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is grievously vexed with a demon. Mat 15:23 But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and begged Him, saying, Send her away, for she cries after us. Mat 15:24 But He answered and said, I am not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Mat 15:25 Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, Lord, help me! Mat 15:26 But He answered and said, It is not good to take the children's bread and to throw it to dogs. Mat 15:27 And she said, True, O Lord; but even the little dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' tables. Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said to her, O woman, great is your faith! So be it to you even as you wish. And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
You should have been pinged to 187.
Thank you...and blessed Sabbath to all.
I don't think so. I just think you are wrong.
Dude, the 10 Commandments were written in STONE.
Fair enough, and I take that to mean the moral principles are still binding on all men. But some of the details are not, e.g., "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you." Has the Lord given you any land recently? Isn't it "literally" referring to the promised land that God was about to give Israel? Didn't even Paul alter the meaning in Eph. 6:2,3?
The point being, of course, that the apostles were charged to upodate and renew the convenat stipuation for the new covenant era. The last day sabbath, just like the "land promise", was pecular to old covenant Israel and was part of what was decaying and passing away, as we are tld in Heb. 8:13.
Clearly from the NT and early church history we know that the apostles had the church worshipping on the first day of the week, not the last. The church had moved from the shadows to the substance, as the early church testimony records:
"And on the Lord's own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure." (The Didache)
"Everything but the greek."
My electronic Bible does not have a number for "might",
That's because it is not in the Greek. That was my point. The aorist passive of "save" does not indcate a "maybe it will be saved but maybe it won't" sort of relationship, which is the way you read it. That's not the meaning of what the English translators have given us as "might be saved". As I said, the English is actually closer to "may be being saved", but that does not map well to English grammar.
Before I go on, are you saying that everyone is going to be saved?
Nope, but neither am I saying that the kosmos will be lost.
Yes, the Lord has given me land recently, and, coincidentally, my folks are considering retiring on it. The Lord has been incredibly good to me, far more than a sinner like me deserves. I pray nightly that I use these blessings to give Him Glory and that He makes my path plain before my face.
Incidentally, my folks are Catholic. Here is a very fine line I must navigate. I must honor them per the commandment, but I also have to live according to this precept:
Mat 10:34 Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. Mat 10:35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Mat 10:36 And a man's foes shall be those of his own household. Mat 10:37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
However, the land God gave me is no where near the Holy Land. I ask, does the lattitude and longitude of Israel matter today, or is it more a state of mind?
Gal 6:13 For they themselves, having been circumcised, do not even keep the Law, but they desire you to be circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh. Gal 6:14 But may it never be for me to boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world. Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision has any strength, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. Gal 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them and upon the Israel of God.
Heb 8:10 "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Laws into their mind and write them in their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
If you are a believer in Christ, isn't it logical that you would want to follow the Commandments of God?
"And on the Lord's own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure." (The Didache)
The Didache, huh. I thought you were Sola Scriptura.
Yes, and today the commandments of God are found in the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments. So when we read about the fact that the church -- baptized Jews and gentiles -- in Acts met on the first day of the week to worship by hearing the apostles teach about Jesus and to break bread (observe the Lord's Supper) and we read nothing about the church -- baptized Jews and gentiles -- meeting on the last day of the week for worship, it tells us something very important about the commandments of God.
The Didache, huh. I thought you were Sola Scriptura.
I am, but I'm not a solo Scriptura person. I respect the testimony of the church through the centuries when it is agreement with the word of God. I have found no ggod reason to challenge the view regarding first day worship. It agrees with all the Bible. That is what I confess.
That appears to be the difference between those who are part of the true catholic (little "c") church, and those who are part of cults, like the one formed by Ellen White and other castoffs from the Millerite movement.
Actually your interpretation here isn't correct. Here's why:
Act 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
For starters, it doesn't say they were there for the "Lord's Supper". It says they came together to "break bread", a common term for eating. If the author of Acts wanted to say "Lord's Supper", he would of. But he didn't. So your supposition that it's the "Lord's Supper" is unwarranted.
Second, they met on Saturday night, after the sabbath had ended at sundown:
Act 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
We know it's Saturday night because it's after the sabbath ended at sundown. The literal translation of "first day of the week is "first of the sabbaths". Now this alone shows that the author, Luke, a gentile Christian, still considered the sabbath binding because he is marking time by it. In fact, the "Good News" bible translates the passage as:
Act 20:7 On Saturday evening we gathered together for the fellowship meal. Paul spoke to the people and kept on speaking until midnight, since he was going to leave the next day.
Not a Sunday service at all, but a fellowhip meal. There are countless sabbatarians today, myself included, who meet with the brethren every week after sabbath services for fellowship meals. As a matter of fact, I had one tonight with about 16 members of my church, disciples of Christ. We talked, reasoned together about God, Christ, the scriptures and a variety of other topics for 3 1/2 hours. We literally broke bread, hard dinner rolls. By your reasoning, this would have been an example of Sunday worship by a group of sabbatarians. Nope.
Third:
Act 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
The word translated "preach" in the King James is rendered in other translations variously as "reasoned", "talked", "discoursed", "discussion", and "addressed". Now if you want to make the case that it means "preached" as how a Christian minister preaches, then you have to accept the fact that this very same greek word is used in the following verses:
Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with(preached to) them out of the Scriptures,
Act 18:4 And he reasoned in(preached in) the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
So Paul, according to the greek, did the same exact thing on the sabbath MUCH more often then he did on Saturday night.
and we read nothing about the church -- baptized Jews and gentiles -- meeting on the last day of the week for worship, it tells us something very important about the commandments of God.
Absolute nonsense. Example after example has been cited from scripture of sabbath observance and worship of God on the sabbath by Christians.
Act 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
When does Paul preach? Why, we've already seen that it was his custom to preach ON THE SABBATH.
Act 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
Act 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
The whole city comes to hear the word of God preached on the day that God commanded his followers to gather on...the sabbath.
We've been over this before. You're whole argument is built on the shifting sand of denial and suppositions. The entire argument of sabbatarians is based on the commadments of God, the creator of the universe. We win.
Solo Scriptura is nothing but poor grammar. Latin words have gender. a=feminine o=masculine.
I respect the testimony of the church through the centuries when it is agreement with the word of God. I have found no ggod reason to challenge the view regarding first day worship. It agrees with all the Bible. That is what I confess.
TC, if I post any more scriptures that plainly refute switching God's Sabbath to Rome's, I risk infringing on copywrites. The fact is, you keep moving the bar. When I post this:
Act 13:42 As Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people kept begging that these things might be spoken to them the next Sabbath. Act 13:43 Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God. Act 13:44 The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord.
You say "well, they weren't Baptized". But you post this at other points:
Act 10:14 But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." Act 10:15 Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."
Which you know full well ends up with Gentile believers receiving the Holy Spirit before they were Baptized!
Act 10:47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" Act 10:48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.
Then you say that, "well, Sunday has been the "Christian" Sabbath for 2000 years." Well, we are coming up on the 1900th aniversary of the first time Sunday worship was documented, but just because someting is old, doesn't make it right:
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.
At any rate, if you are going to use the longevity of the error to justify the error, why are you Protestant? The logical conclusion of that line of thinking ought to lead you to marionism, transubstantiation, infant Baptism, the Sacramnent of Confession, et. al. Are you prepared to admit your error and convert to the One Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and adjective generating Church?
That appears to be the difference between those who are part of the true catholic (little "c") church, and those who are part of cults, like the one formed by Ellen White and other castoffs from the Millerite movement.
It warms my heart to see such an attack, TC. There is a HUGE difference between Ellen White and John Calvin. That difference is body count. I can't believe that you guys, in all seriousness, take the theology of Grace Alone from a man who actually murdered people who disagreed with him. How exactly was that "trading up" from Rome?
And always another good indicator is this. A comparison of King James to Young's Literal.
The "King James" says it is the "first day of the week." "Young's literal" says it is the "first of the week"....both correct, but "first" is more descriptive of the first day beginning at sundown and Paul continuing to preach until midnight.
Many lights being on would indicate an evening, after Sabbath fellowship meal, as they are breaking bread and listening to Paul speak..... until midnight. We also know that the upper room had windows to allow light to enter (if there had been any) because a young man went to sleep and fell out one. (Now we know why the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to tell us the lights were on!)
As a young man, my Grandparents (both sets from the old country) inviting someone over for dinner would say, "Come and Break Bread with Us."
Excellent post, Douglas!
Sorry, 1 Cor. 10:16 tells us precisely what was meant by the phrase "break bread" in the context of the church gathering, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"
One other reason we know this was the Lord's Supper and not simply the Jewish passover was the use of the Greek word artos which refers to leavened bread.
We know it's Saturday night because it's after the sabbath ended at sundown.
If it was after sundown on Saturday, then it would be "Sunday" according to our reckoning. The "first day of the week" would have run from subdown on Saturday to sundown on Sunday.
So Paul, according to the greek, did the same exact thing on the sabbath MUCH more often then he did on Saturday night.
Of course the difference, which you seem to be missing, is that he did it in the Jewish synagogues -- among unbaptized Jews -- on the sabbath, but he did it in the church -- with the baptized Jewish and gentile brethren -- on the first day.
We've been over this before.
Yep, we have. Your arguments are no better now than they were before, and these same arguments have been rejected by the church for 2000 years simply for this reason: they do not fit will all that the Bible teaches on the subject.
My friend, I'm sorry you cannot see this, but you have not posted one single verse that teaches the church -- baptized Jews and gentiles -- ever came together to worship on the Jewish last day sabbath. Not one!
The only thing you have done is to prove that unconverted Jews continued to worship on the last day sabbath as was their custom, and that Paul went into their assemblies to preach Christ to them.
Until you can manufacture such a verse to the contrary, I think you ought to admit the case.
But it was still the "first day of the week", not the last, according to Jewish reckoning. The last day was from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
This contrivance only indicates how desperate the last day sabbatarians have become.
Well, I'm glad you are admitting you are a cultist after the likes of EG White and other former Millerites, and your disdain for the catholic (universal) church.
from a man who actually murdered people who disagreed with him.
Since Calvin never murdered anyone (according to the historians) I have no clue what you are talking about. And I'm sure neither do you.
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.