Messianic Jews?

[visionary]

I noticed that those things that Yeshua was.. "lamb of God" would make the sacrificial laws obsolete, Yeshua becoming High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary would make the temple services on earth obsolete... but how did the feasts become obsolete when only the spring feasts were fulfilled by Him? I noticed that the celebrations of the springs feasts have switched from rehearsal to memorial.

 

[Ubuntu]

The feasts were inseparably tied to the Old Covenant and the sacrifices. I mean, take for instance the Day of Atonement… It becomes meaningless to celebrate it without the existence of a Tabernacle and a High Priest performing sacrifices. Thus, even the aspects of the feasts referring to future events are obsolete for us living under the New Pact. (That said, 1844 and the “Day of Atonement” is a hotly debated topic among progressive and conservative adventists. Remember that the official adventist theology regarding these things were shaped by Millerism, who tended to interpret everything in the light of the second coming of Christ.)

Jesus told us to remember what he did for us by partaking of the Lord's Supper (Luke 22:19). On the other hand Jesus and his apostles never indicated in any way that the feasts were meant to be celebrated as a remembrance once the shadow had met the reality.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Well said Ubuntu...

 

[visionary]

Now you know that you are to see the heavenly temple and Yeshua performing the services now.

It is clear that our adversary, Satan, will try to unsettle the faith of God’s people in the doctrine of the sanctuary in these “latter days.” {CIHS 15.5}

I spent many a long time studying this subject and what she had to say. It is clear that she understood that the complete fulfillment of the "great" day of Atonement was yet to come. She also foresaw Satan as the scapegoat in the symbolism.

It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed. When the high priest, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, removed the sins from the sanctuary, he placed them upon the scapegoat. When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of His people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty. The scapegoat was sent away into a land not inhabited, never to come again into the congregation of Israel. So will Satan be forever banished from the presence of God and His people, and he will be blotted from existence in the final destruction of sin and sinners.—The Great Controversy, 409-422.

So for sure, this "great day of atonement" has yet to occur.

Such was the service performed “unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.” And what was done in type in the ministration of the earthly sanctuary is done in reality in the ministration of the heavenly sanctuary. After His ascension our Savior began His work as our high priest. Says Paul: “Christ 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.”Hebrews 9:24. {CIHS 97.2}

Now having established this... let's not trash God's appointed times when it comes to that which is yet to be fulfilled. I want us to be on the same page so that we can dialogue here. I have dug up quotes that give us a starting point where we can converse on this important subject. So..... has anyone here studied the "great day of atonement" in the "latter days"? It looks like this is the person I would like to converse with.

 

[Dave-W]

About law-keeping and Paul. I strongly recommend Ellen White's take on this. The following quote is taken from the Act of the Apostles. Here Ellen White explicitly teach that the brethren in Jerusalem was mistaken in regard to the ceremonial law. It's somewhat long, but it is quite illuminating, so please take the time to consider the following:

* * *

«Throughout his ministry, Paul had looked to God for direct guidance. At the same time, he had been very careful to labor in harmony with the decisions of the general council at Jerusalem, and as a result the churches were “established in the faith, and increased in number daily.” Acts 16:5. And now, notwithstanding the lack of sympathy shown him by some, he found comfort in the consciousness that he had done his duty in encouraging in his converts a spirit of loyalty, generosity, and brotherly love, as revealed on this occasion in the liberal contributions which he was enabled to place before the Jewish elders. {AA 402.2}

After the presentation of the gifts, Paul “declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.” This recital of facts brought to the hearts of all, even of those who had been doubting, the conviction that the blessing of heaven had accompanied his labors. “When they heard it, they glorified the Lord.” They felt that the methods of labor pursued by the apostle bore the signet of Heaven. The liberal contributions lying before them added weight to the testimony of the apostle concerning the faithfulness of the new churches established among the Gentiles. The men who, while numbered among those who were in charge of the work at Jerusalem, had urged that arbitrary measures of control be adopted, saw Paul’s ministry in a new light and were convinced that their own course had been wrong, that they had been held in bondage by Jewish customs and traditions, and that the work of the gospel had been greatly hindered by their failure to recognize that the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile had been broken down by the death of Christ. {AA 402.3}


This was the golden opportunity for all the leading brethren to confess frankly that God had wrought through Paul, and that at times they had erred in permitting the reports of his enemies to arouse their jealousy and prejudice. But instead of uniting in an effort to do justice to the one who had been injured, they gave him counsel which showed that they still cherished a feeling that Paul should be held largely responsible for the existing prejudice. They did not stand nobly in his defense, endeavoring to show the disaffected ones where they were wrong, but sought to effect a compromise by counseling him to pursue a course which in their opinion would remove all cause for misapprehension. {AA 403.1}

“Thou seest, brother,” they said, in response to his testimony, “how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.” {AA 403.2}

The brethren hoped that Paul, by following the course suggested, might give a decisive contradiction to the false reports concerning him. They assured him that the decision of the former council concerning the Gentile converts and the ceremonial law, still held good. But the advice now given was not consistent with that decision. The Spirit of God did not prompt this instruction; it was the fruit of cowardice. The leaders of the church in Jerusalem knew that by non-conformity to the ceremonial law, Christians would bring upon themselves the hatred of the Jews and expose themselves to persecution. The Sanhedrin was doing its utmost to hinder the progress of the gospel. Men were chosen by this body to follow up the apostles, especially Paul, and in every possible way to oppose their work. Should the believers in Christ be condemned before the Sanhedrin as breakers of the law, they would suffer swift and severe punishment as apostates from the Jewish faith. {AA 404.1}


Many of the Jews who had accepted the gospel still cherished a regard for the ceremonial law and were only too willing to make unwise concessions, hoping thus to gain the confidence of their countrymen, to remove their prejudice, and to win them to faith in Christ as the world’s Redeemer. Paul realized that so long as many of the leading members of the church at Jerusalem should continue to cherish prejudice against him, they would work constantly to counteract his influence. He felt that if by any reasonable concession he could win them to the truth he would remove a great obstacle to the success of the gospel in other places. But he was not authorized of God to concede as much as they asked. {AA 405.1}

When we think of Paul’s great desire to be in harmony with his brethren, his tenderness toward the weak in the faith, his reverence for the apostles who had been with Christ, and for James, the brother of the Lord, and his purpose to become all things to all men so far as he could without sacrificing principle—when we think of all this, it is less surprising that he was constrained to deviate from the firm, decided course that he had hitherto followed. But instead of accomplishing the desired object, his efforts for conciliation only precipitated the crisis, hastened his predicted sufferings, and resulted in separating him from his brethren, depriving the church of one of its strongest pillars, and bringing sorrow to Christian hearts in every land.»

I quite disagree with her on this in both presentation of the case and in conclusion.

First off, it was not the entire Jerusalem Jewish sector saying that - it was James (the brother of the Lord) and ONLY James. There was none of the "They said..." And if you think James did NOT speak from God, then you are gravely mistaken.

And Yes, James wanted unequivocal proof that Paul: A) did NOT preach to abandon Moses to the Jews he encountered; and B) he himself STILL obeyed the Law of Moses. Please note that in reference to that James quotes from the decision from Acts 15 ("which seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us") that it applied ONLY to believing gentiles; and NOT to Jewish believers, Paul included.

Perhaps THAT was the point that Ellen White missed?

She said "They assured him that the decision of the former council concerning the Gentile converts and the ceremonial law, still held good. But the advice now given was not consistent with that decision."

How was it inconsistent? According to Acts 15.19, that was to "those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles." It never mentioned Jewish believers at all. And THIS discussion was all about Jewish believers, NOT gentiles.

It was a golden opportunity all right. One for Paul to set the record straight that Torah was no longer applicable to Jewish believers; if he really believed that. Apparently he did NOT believe that.

Paul was no slouch, no dummy and certainly no wimp. Had there been duplicity on the part of James (trying to get him to do something against what he believed) Paul would have seen thru it. And Paul never backed down or wimped out in anything his entire life. Certainly not here. If the instructions were not from God, Paul had discernment enough to see that as well. So in the end we must conclude the instructions WERE from God and Paul gave a true testimony both in word and deed.

 

[Dave-W]

Well, what Ellen White says here is that the Church in Jerusalem conformed to the ceremonial law, but this was done in order to escape persecution from the Jews. This was an “unwise concession” and it was the “fruit of cowardice”.

That was interesting, given that the HEAD of the Jerusalem church was ALSO at the same time the head of one of the schools of Phariseeism in Jerusalem. Not sure which one, but probably Beit Shammai rather than Beit Hillel (where Paul went). It is said James was cast down from the pinnacle of the Temple by irate students that wanted him to denounce faith in his Brother. Of course he would not.

If James was faithful to the end in that matter, why think any less of him in this?

 

[tall73]

I quite disagree with her on this in both presentation of the case and in conclusion.

First off, it was not the entire Jerusalem Jewish sector saying that - it was James (the brother of the Lord) and ONLY James. There was none of the "They said..." And if you think James did NOT speak from God, then you are gravely mistaken.

And Yes, James wanted unequivocal proof that Paul: A) did NOT preach to abandon Moses to the Jews he encountered; and B) he himself STILL obeyed the Law of Moses. Please note that in reference to that James quotes from the decision from Acts 15 ("which seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us") that it applied ONLY to believing gentiles; and NOT to Jewish believers, Paul included.

Perhaps THAT was the point that Ellen White missed?

She said "They assured him that the decision of the former council concerning the Gentile converts and the ceremonial law, still held good. But the advice now given was not consistent with that decision."

How was it inconsistent? According to Acts 15.19, that was to "those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles." It never mentioned Jewish believers at all. And THIS discussion was all about Jewish believers, NOT gentiles.

It was a golden opportunity all right. One for Paul to set the record straight that Torah was no longer applicable to Jewish believers; if he really believed that. Apparently he did NOT believe that.

Paul was no slouch, no dummy and certainly no wimp. Had there been duplicity on the part of James (trying to get him to do something against what he believed) Paul would have seen thru it. And Paul never backed down or wimped out in anything his entire life. Certainly not here. If the instructions were not from God, Paul had discernment enough to see that as well. So in the end we must conclude the instructions WERE from God and Paul gave a true testimony both in word and deed.

Agreed. The decision in the Acts 15 Council was what to do with the gentiles.

The reason James quoted the decision is that the suggestion was in line with it, not out of line with it.

 

[tall73]

About law-keeping and Paul. I strongly recommend Ellen White's take on this.

Take? Don't you mean inspired writing?

I strongly suggest you lay Sister White to one side and just look at the Bible.

“Thou seest, brother,” they said, in response to his testimony, “how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.” {AA 403.2}


The brethren hoped that Paul, by following the course suggested, might give a decisive contradiction to the false reports concerning him.

Note....false reports. If you think they were false reports then Paul was not in fact turning Jewish believers from Moses.

They assured him that the decision of the former council concerning the Gentile converts and the ceremonial law, still held good. But the advice now given was not consistent with that decision.

Explain how.

Many of the Jews who had accepted the gospel still cherished a regard for the ceremonial law and were only too willing to make unwise concessions, hoping thus to gain the confidence of their countrymen, to remove their prejudice, and to win them to faith in Christ as the world’s Redeemer. Paul realized that so long as many of the leading members of the church at Jerusalem should continue to cherish prejudice against him, they would work constantly to counteract his influence. He felt that if by any reasonable concession he could win them to the truth he would remove a great obstacle to the success of the gospel in other places. But he was not authorized of God to concede as much as they asked. {AA 405.1}

So now Ellen White accuses Paul of buckling under pressure and going against what God wanted--yet, gives no evidence from the Bible that this is the case.

When we think of Paul’s great desire to be in harmony with his brethren, his tenderness toward the weak in the faith, his reverence for the apostles who had been with Christ, and for James, the brother of the Lord, and his purpose to become all things to all men so far as he could without sacrificing principle—when we think of all this, it is less surprising that he was constrained to deviate from the firm, decided course that he had hitherto followed.

But this would be sacrificing principle.

But instead of accomplishing the desired object, his efforts for conciliation only precipitated the crisis, hastened his predicted sufferings, and resulted in separating him from his brethren, depriving the church of one of its strongest pillars, and bringing sorrow to Christian hearts in every land.»

Notice, predicted suffering. Paul had already been shown it was God's will for him to be taken captive. So there is no need to read into this anything other than fulfillment, not hastened fulfillment.

Nowhere did Paul object to their plan. And the plan was in line with the Acts council, which was why James quoted it.

 

[tall73]

Well, what Ellen White says here is that the Church in Jerusalem conformed to the ceremonial law, but this was done in order to escape persecution from the Jews. This was an “unwise concession” and it was the “fruit of cowardice”.

Thus, we shouldn't repeat the fatal error of the Church in Jerusalem. The Church paid the price for this error when its foremost champion and defender was put into prison as a result of trying to avoid controversy and please the Jews.

Paul being put in prison was God's will, not a mistake.


Act 21:10 While we were staying for many days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea.
Act 21:11 And coming to us, he took Paul's belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, "Thus says the Holy Spirit, 'This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.'"
Act 21:12 When we heard this, we and the people there urged him not to go up to Jerusalem.
Act 21:13 Then Paul answered, "What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be imprisoned but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus."
Act 21:14 And since he would not be persuaded, we ceased and said, "Let the will of the Lord be done."


Act 20:22 And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there,
Act 20:23 except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me.
Act 20:24 But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.

 

[tall73]

From an adventist point of view the Old Covenant and its ritual laws are rendered obsolete by the New Covenant. Both gentile believers and believers of Jewish descent are no longer under any obligation to follow the ritual laws. Yet, we're all bound by the “Law of Freedom” (James 2:12), the moral law which includes the Sabbath.

James also quotes from other parts of the law, as did Jesus.

Jas 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well.

Adventists would also argue that there are certain Old Testament laws that we shouldn't think of as “ritual laws”. Laws prohibiting eating unclean food (including blood) were first and foremost given from the point of view of health, not due to ritual considerations.

When the distinction between clean and unclean was first made people were not even eating animals. Before the flood Noah was aware of which animals were clean and unclean, yet it was not until after the flood that they ate meat.

 

[Ubuntu]

@DaveW-Ohev, @visionary, @tall73

I'll get back to you all when I get the opportunity.

For now I just wanted to make a brief comment on this:

James also quotes from other parts of the law, as did Jesus.

Jas 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well.

There are many parts of the Old Testament that I believe still are valid today. The OT law isn't all “ritual” law.

When the distinction between clean and unclean was first made people were not even eating animals. Before the flood Noah was aware of which animals were clean and unclean, yet it was not until after the flood that they ate meat.

Well, sure!

Some animals were fitted to represent Christ in the sanctuary service, and some were unfitted. For instance, snakes, lions or hyenas are predators/scavengers, and thus unsuited to represent Christ who was supposed to be meek as a lamb.

But because of their diet and habits, these animals are also unsuited for food. Scavengers and predators are on top of the food chain, thus they accumulate poisons in their meat. Such animals have never been healthy.

The animals sacrificed in the sanctuary service were supposed to be eaten, so even if the distinction between clean and unclean animals was made before the flood, all the “clean” animals nevertheless had to be suitable for human consumption. That we're told to abstain from eating unclean meats was no arbitrary decision from God. He didn't flip a coin when he decided which animals to declare “clean”, and which animals to declare “unclean.” He knew that some animals were more risky to eat than others, and he wanted to spare us from contracting unnecessary diseases.

Thus, it's not possible to use the health laws as an argument for keeping the ritual laws.

 

[tall73]

@DaveW-Ohev, @visionary, @tall73

I'll get back to you all when I get the opportunity.

For now I just wanted to make a brief comment on this:


There are many parts of the Old Testament that I believe still are valid today. The OT law isn't all “ritual” law.

Agreed. But then please remember:

Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Mat 5:18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Mat 5:19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

So please explain why you want to remove some of the laws. And even in Matt. 5 it is not just about the ten commandments.

Well, sure!

Some animals were fitted to represent Christ in the sanctuary service, and some were unfitted. For instance, snakes, lions or hyenas are predators/scavengers, and thus unsuited to represent Christ who was supposed to be meek as a lamb.

But because of their diet and habits, these animals are also unsuited for food. Scavengers and predators are on top of the food chain, thus they accumulate poisons in their meat. Such animals have never been healthy.

The animals sacrificed in the sanctuary service were supposed to be eaten, so even if the distinction between clean and unclean animals was made before the flood, all the “clean” animals nevertheless had to be suitable for human consumption. That we're told to abstain from eating unclean meats was no arbitrary decision from God. He didn't flip a coin when he decided which animals to declare “clean”, and which animals to declare “unclean.” He knew that some animals were more risky to eat than others, and he wanted to spare us from contracting unnecessary diseases.

Thus, it's not possible to use the health laws as an argument for keeping the ritual laws.

Sorry, doesn't match up:

Gen 9:2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered.
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

The clean and unclean distinction existed prior to the eating of animals, but Noah was not told to eat only the clean ones.

Nor does they text say it was for health reasons.

 

[Dave-W]

The OT law isn't all “ritual” law.

Where in scripture can you show me that there is a distinction between "ritual" law and universal moral law? Or civil law?

If you cannot, then I submit you are making an artificial distinction where none is supposed to exist.

 

[visionary]

Where in scripture can you show me that there is a distinction between "ritual" law and universal moral law? Or civil law?

If you cannot, then I submit you are making an artificial distinction where none is supposed to exist.

Moses wrote laws on parchment, God wrote laws on stone... in this you will find the distinction between the moral laws and the rest.

 

[Dave-W]

No - that is the distinction between the Mosaic Covenant proper, and the addendum that contains the statutes and regulations. (a separate document)

 

[Ubuntu]

Agreed. But then please remember:
Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. [...]

So please explain why you want to remove some of the laws. And even in Matt. 5 it is not just about the ten commandments.

Where in scripture can you show me that there is a distinction between "ritual" law and universal moral law? Or civil law?

If you cannot, then I submit you are making an artificial distinction where none is supposed to exist.

Let me first point out that I agree that following the expressed will of God is a moral obligation. Yet some laws were limited to specific situations.

And we do have biblical examples of laws that were fulfilled and made obsolete by Jesus:

“For he is our peace, the one who made both groups into one and who destroyed the middle wall of partition, the hostility, when he nullified in his flesh the law of commandments in decrees. He did this to create in himself one new man out of two, thus making peace, and to reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by which the hostility has been killed.” (Ephesians 2:14-15.) Thus, the OT laws that made a separation between Jew and gentile are now nullified, his bride is now one.

Paul furthermore argues that the Levitical priesthood was set aside when Jesus ascended into heaven as our High Priest. He uses quite strong language:

“On the one hand a former command is set aside because it is weak and useless, for the law made nothing perfect. On the other hand a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.” (Hebrews 7:18-19.)

* * *

Many OT laws are dependent on the circumstance they were given in. There are examples of laws given to the Israelites in the desert, which was nullified when they later entered Canaan. And the civil laws that you mentioned were mostly obsolete even at the time of Jesus. Israel hadn't been independent since before Babylon. This explains why the Jews tried to trap Jesus by referring to civil laws. They tried to make him pronounce a death sentence on the adulterous woman, knowing that only the Romans were allowed to condemn someone to death.

Furthermore, Jesus even went so far as to claim that certain of the civil laws weren't God's original plan for mankind. They were temporary rules given due to the “hardness of hearts”. (Mark 10:5.)

Thus, according to the civil laws in the OT a person was allowed to divorce his wife for no reason at all; yet Jesus said that a person would cause the moral law to be violated if he divorced his wife. (Matthew 5:32.) Thus, in some cases the civil laws and the moral laws were even conflicting! This is impossible to explain unless there indeed is a fundamental difference between moral and civil laws.

 

[Ubuntu]

Sorry, doesn't match up:

Gen 9:2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered.
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

The clean and unclean distinction existed prior to the eating of animals, but Noah was not told to eat only the clean ones.

Nor does they text say it was for health reasons.

God allowed mankind to eat animals as long as they were living and moving. Thus, the implication is that they weren't allowed to eat carrion or animals so sick that they barely were moving. True, it isn't stated explicitly that they only should eat clean animals, the reason why this isn't stated is because this must have been self-evident to the original recipients of this commandment. In fact, beginning to eat meat must itself have been quite a hurdle to overcome for Noah who had been a vegetarian for hundreds of years.

Now, I'm a fan of the 'Sola Scriptura' principle, yet I'm not on the side of those who demand that the Bible always should be explicit. The Bible simply isn't always like that, not as a history book nor as religious legislation. We're often left to figure out things for ourselves, many of the truths in the Bible are implicit. We should also use common sense because there is intelligence, love and wisdom behind God's commandments, they aren't arbitrary rules.

Now, did Noah, Abraham and Moses eat unclean meat? There is no evidence from the Bible that they ever did; and when the dietary laws were written down it becomes clear that there's something plain wrong with eating unclean meat from God's point of view. God actually explains why the Israelites shouldn't eat unclean food. He says that they shouldn't eat these creatures because they are “detestable”, (or as the KJV renders it: “abominations”). (Leviticus chapter 11.)

In other words, God appeals to the Israelites common sense when he repeats the dietary laws. They shouldn't eat carnivores, insects, vultures, because they are disgusting to think of as food. This was self-evident to Noah and his sons, but during the Israelites long stay in Egypt they had lived among pagans who had forgotten about the distinction between clean and unclean, so they needed to have this instruction spelled out for them. God promised the Israelites that if they followed his instructions, he would spare them from many of the diseases that were so common among the Egyptians:

“If you will diligently listen to the voice of the Lord your God, and do that which is right in his eyes, and give ear to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, your healer.”

 

[Dave-W]

Paul furthermore argues that the Levitical priesthood was set aside when Jesus ascended into heaven as our High Priest. He uses quite strong language:

“On the one hand a former command is set aside because it is weak and useless, for the law made nothing perfect. On the other hand a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.” (Hebrews 7:18-19.)

Paul did not write Hebrews. In all likelihood he was already dead when it was penned - just before the destruction of the temple in 70 ad.

The MOSAIC COVENANT was in the process of being set aside, disappearing. (Heb 8.13) It was not gone yet.

Many OT laws are dependent on the circumstance they were given in.

True. And that is especially true of living out the commands in a New Covenant environment. Each of the 613 need to be examined individually as to how they could fit.

Israel hadn't been independent since before Babylon.

Not true. Under the Maccabean revolt (164 bc) and after, Israel was independent until about 63 ad when they had a succession problem and they asked Rome to mediate. Instead, Rome just took over.

Enter the new Roman province of Judea.

Furthermore, Jesus even went so far as to claim that certain of the civil laws weren't God's original plan for mankind. They were temporary rules given due to the “hardness of hearts”. (Mark 10:5.)

Thus, according to the civil laws in the OT a person was allowed to divorce his wife for no reason at all; yet Jesus said that a person would cause the moral law to be violated if he divorced his wife. (Matthew 5:32.)

Guess what? People's hearts are STILL hard. Even true believers. That is why the writer of Hebrews warns us several times "Today if you hear His voice do not harden your hearts..." (quoting Psalm 95)

And the divorce could NOT be for "no reason." That was a hyperbole argument by the students of beit Shammai against the teaching of beit Hillel. Deut 24.1 said to if the husband found "ervah" in his wife he could write a get, or certificate of divorce. But what did ervah mean? Shammai contended that it meant not finding her a virgin on the wedding night. Hillel said it was if she continually fell short in any number of ways including burning meals. Shammai students caricatured that as "for any reason." (not exactly true but somewhat close)

And there is no written "moral command" anywhere in the Mosaic system that this violates.

Can you give me chapter and verse that tells me that Deut 24.1 is NOT moral law?

 

[Ubuntu]

@tall73

About Ellen White and Paul.. You've posted quite a lot in the adventist forum, so I assumed that you were an adventist. But perhaps you're not SDA?

I don't think the writings of Ellen White are infallible, nor should they be used to establish doctrines. On the other hand I unashamedly confess that I believe her writings to be inspired. Thus, as an adventist I'm not at liberty to ignore her writings. However, I would not have quoted Ellen White if it wasn't for the fact that I (mistakenly?) assumed you were an Adventist.

There are however a couple of things to remember, one thing has got to do with her intended audience, and the second has to do with literary style. (And this would be relevant for you too, @davew-Ohev…)

Her audience were first and foremost adventists, secondly protestants in 1800's USA. What she wrote here wouldn't be contested by her audience, and I suspect that her reasoning would be a normal protestant 1800's interpretation. So she apparently didn't think it was necessary to go into great detail about something which most of her audience would take for granted.

Secondly, Ellen White wasn't a theologian and didn't really do much of what we would call “exegesis”. Anyone that for instance reads the Great Controversy series will soon find out that she often gives specific interpretations even in cases where the Biblical texts itself are somewhat ambiguous. The implication for the person who believes in the SOP is that Ellen White in some cases had “inside information”.

Anyways, one of the reasons I quoted this was to demonstrate that it's not possible to use her writings as an argument in favour of keeping the feasts/ritual laws.

 

[tall73]

@tall73

About Ellen White and Paul. You've posted quite a lot in the adventist forum, so I assumed that you were an adventist. But perhaps you're not SDA?

I don't think the writings of Ellen White are infallible, nor should they be used to establish doctrines. On the other hand I unashamedly confess that I believe her writings to be inspired. Thus, as an adventist I'm not at liberty to ignore her writings. However, I would not have quoted Ellen White if it wasn't for the fact that I (mistakenly?) assumed you were an Adventist.

There are however a couple of things to remember, one thing has got to do with her intended audience, and the second has to do with literary style. (And this would be relevant for you too, @davew-Ohev…)

Her audience were first and foremost adventists, secondly protestants in 1800's USA. What she wrote here wouldn't be contested by her audience, and I suspect that her reasoning would be a normal protestant 1800's interpretation. So she apparently didn't think it was necessary to go into great detail about something which most of her audience would take for granted.

Secondly, Ellen White wasn't a theologian and didn't really do much of what we would call “exegesis”. Anyone that for instance reads the Great Controversy series will soon find out that she often gives specific interpretations even in cases where the Biblical texts itself are somewhat ambiguous. The implication for the person who believes in the SOP is that Ellen White in some cases had “inside information”.

Anyways, one of the reasons I quoted this was to demonstrate that it's not possible to use her writings as an argument in favour of keeping the feasts/ritual laws.

I sometimes forget that not everyone in this section is familiar with me any longer. Most of the folks who post here however knew me from when I posted here regularly. I was an Adventist until the last 8 years or so, and an Adventist pastor for ten years before resigning due to disagreement over doctrine, particularly the Adventist Sanctuary doctrine.
So I get where she was coming from, and I will not say that everything she wrote was wrong, or even that she did not have quite a bit of insight at times on various texts. I also think on a lot of issues she came to more biblical conclusions over time, which happens for all of us.

However, some things she wrote about again and again (various aspects of the sanctuary message in particular) conflict with the Scriptures, so I cannot accept that she was inspired when she wrote those things.

I do not intend to derail the thread, but I just wanted to give you some background so you can then decide how to approach my posting.

As to the feast keeping etc. yes, I agree, she did not endorse feast keeping, but did obviously see meaning to the days, and saw the Spring feasts as fulfilled. I have read a few works on the subject from Adventist feast keepers, and Samuele Bacchiocchi's approach to it as well.