Divine Invitation

[macher]

Been reading the Divine Invitation paper by FFOZ. I think the paper/theology is misunderstood. Actually it's contradictory.

 

[Avodat]

...and?

 

[macher]

...and?

Just wanted to hear others thoughts.

 

[Avodat]

Just wanted to hear others thoughts.

Do you not a think a link to it might help? I'm not going to rummage through the internet searching for something to which you'd like me to respond.

 

[macher]

Do you not a think a link to it might help? I'm not going to rummage through the internet searching for something to which you'd like me to respond.

http://ffoz.org/_php/download.php?file=Divine_Invitation.pdf

 

[pat34lee]

Just doing a quick scan of the paper, it seems the main thing they changed was this:

Before: Believers are obligated to keep the Torah.
After: Believers do not have to keep the Torah, but should do so anyway.

The rest of the paper just explains why they changed.

 

[Yahudim]

Since when do we have to have an invitation to love and obey our Father?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

http://ffoz.org/_php/download.php?file=Divine_Invitation.pdf

Interesting to consider - and going through it, I thought there were many beautiful aspects to it which were very necessary to point out. of D. T. Lancaster’s commentary on Galatians and other texts is very beneficial, IMHO...and I'm glad for the work they do.

• Lancaster on Galatians: The Preservation of Jewish Identity
• D. Thomas Lancaster – The Holy Epistle to the Galatians, full review

As they said:

“The difference between the One-Law and Divine-Permission positions does not change our message or objectives. We are still working to bring Christianity back to her Jewish foundations and to encourage all believers to keep the Torah, including the holy days and the biblical diet. We are still committed to our mission: “Proclaiming the Torah and its way of life, fully centered on Messiah, to today’s people of God.” The only difference is that you will no longer find us making sweeping over-generalizations that diminish the distinction between Jewish people and non-Jewish believers. You will not hear us saying that Gentile believers who do not choose a Messianic, Torah-observant, Jewish lifestyle are walking in sin.
The Difference: No longer ignoring distinction between Jewish people and Gentile believers. No longer teaching that it is a sin for Gentiles to fail to keep the commandments of circumcision, Sabbath, festivals, and Leviticus 11 dietary standards.

Still the Same: Still teaching Jewish and Gentile believers to keep Torah. Still encouraging Gentiles to take hold of the biblical Sabbath, festivals, and dietary laws as disciples of Messiah from the nations, grafted in to Israel.”

​

FFOZ now teaches that Gentile believers are not obligated to every commandment of Torah that a Jew is obligated to. While the broad spectrum of commandments that deal with love of neighbor and heart-devotion to God are assumed to be binding on Gentile believers throughout the New Testament, the Apostles chose to subject them to only three “ritual” prohibitions, and all of them were dietary: food sacrificed to idols, blood, and meat from an improperly slaughtered animal. Practically (and broadly) speaking, this exempts Gentile believers from the following categories of commandments: bris, tzitzit, tefillin, kashrut, Shabbat, mo’edim, and (if I am not mistaken) tohoros. As all of these commandments are tied to Jewish ethnic identity or to Temple worship (from which Gentiles are forbidden), they are widely assumed throughout the New Testament not to be binding on Gentiles (cf. Col. 2:16, 1 Cor. 7:17-24, Acts chs. 15 and 21).

The other side of the debate, “One Law”, puts forth the argument that because there is to be “one law” for the native and for the alien (Ex. 12:49, Lev. 24:22, etc.), Gentile believers are bound to the “ritual” commandments listed above. They reinterpret the writings of Paul and the other Apostles to conform to this view. Unfortunately these reinterpretations are very difficult to sustain and are not generally backed up by solid scholarship.

The biggest problem for many Messianic Fellowships (paticularly those that are Gentile dominated) is the broad willingness of certain people to condemn other people for not adhering to their specific standard. Not only that, but many are willing to condemn people for not teaching that everyone should be held to their standard – and again, there is no monolithic standard, because with the jettisoning of both Christian and Rabbinic tradition, there is no precedent for interpretation.

“Divine Invitation” advocates would not condemn a Gentile believer taking on more than is required of him, in a way that is respectful to Jewish identity (remember, 1 Cor. 7:17-24), as long as they are not pushy about it.

Nonetheless, with FFOZ, I've thought it to be noteworthy in seeing some of the responses that others have brought. As another said best:

FFOZ has recently provided a 70 page document explaining their shift in position. Our pastor has already spoken of some of the concepts in this paper, and in a private meeting with my husband he encouraged us to “take this journey and see where it leads”. Note that FFOZ claims salvation through grace, and they state
“We do not keep the Torah in order to be saved, we keep it because we are saved.”


We see this new theological position as “walking a fine line”… i.e., as a Gentile believer you aren’t obligated to submit to a “Torah observant” lifestyle like a Jewish believer, but are encouraged (expected?) to become “Torah submissive” to the fullest extent possible for you to achieve.


While the shift by FFOZ is promoted as “better balanced”, we remain very uncomfortable with the continued focus on pursuit of holiness through the Old Covenant (Sinai) law versus a focus on living the New Covenant law of love for God and for others (which we believe fulfills the heart or intent of the Old Covenant). We do not believe that the New Covenant (Christianity) is “lawless” as described in some Messianic forums. We fully support (and view as critical and necessary) the study of the Old Testament. We are concerned because we feel that this new theology of “Divine Invitation” is simply a more palatable path that ultimately leads to legalism or to “neo-Ebionism”.
​

Ironically enough, groups like FFOZ and other "Torah Observant" ministries often do not truly understand what the Torah really means. Torah is a "function word" that expresses our responsibility in light of the covenantal acts of God. As the author of the Book of Hebrews makes clear: "When there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the Torah as well" (Heb. 7:12). The Levitical priesthood expresses the truth of the Covenant of Sinai; the priesthood of Yeshua (after the order of Malki-Tzedek) expresses the truth of the New Covenant.

For more, see http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articl ... icles.html



​

 

[pat34lee]

As they said:

“The difference between the One-Law and Divine-Permission positions does not change our message or objectives. We are still working to bring Christianity back to her Jewish foundations and to encourage all believers to keep the Torah, including the holy days and the biblical diet. We are still committed to our mission: “Proclaiming the Torah and its way of life, fully centered on Messiah, to today’s people of God.” The only difference is that you will no longer find us making sweeping over-generalizations that diminish the distinction between Jewish people and non-Jewish believers. You will not hear us saying that Gentile believers who do not choose a Messianic, Torah-observant, Jewish lifestyle are walking in sin.
The Difference: No longer ignoring distinction between Jewish people and Gentile believers. No longer teaching that it is a sin for Gentiles to fail to keep the commandments of circumcision, Sabbath, festivals, and Leviticus 11 dietary standards.
​

​

Someone asked on another thread why the President would have a messianic give an invocation. The bigger question for me is why would a real believer attend? Here is the answer.. Messianics are jumping on the ecumenist train. Don't offend. Don't teach right and wrong.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

[/indent]Someone asked on another thread why the President would have a messianic give an invocation. The bigger question for me is why would a real believer attend? Here is the answer.. Messianics are jumping on the ecumenist train. Don't offend. Don't teach right and wrong.

One, which thread are you talking on? Second, where is it the case that disagreeing with a stance someone has is to automatically be deemed "don't offend or teach right and wrong?" For people still take heat teaching that Yeshua is LORD and KING - the way to salvation - and sharing his standards is a big deal today throughout Christendom....and teaching that a Gentile was never called to be circumcised as a Jewish believer was in the OT is not a matter of avoiding "right and wrong" as much as it's a matter of teaching what it right correctly instead of having right desire and yet teaching wrong concepts - as many do in their zeal of looking throughout the OT/assuming all commands given at Sinai for the Hebrews were meant for Gentiles and basically trying to get all to do so without understanding the context - the distinctions, sub-laws and categories.

Third, as it concerns the Messianic at the convocation, a big question to ask is where does it say at any point a Christian is to not be involved in civil life? For it's easy to focus on an invocation - but it can be selective if only that the invocation of the president currently isn't to be attended - and yet all others before are different. The same thing goes as well for pledging allegiance to the flag in classrooms across the country/other historical practices. I don't see anywhere in scripture where believers weren't involved in everyday life - as even Obadiah ( palace administrator of the corrupt King Ahab in 1 Kings 18:3-5 / 1 Kings 18 ) was hiding the Lord's prophets in caves. Joseph worked in Egypt as an administrator and Daniel as a govenor/administrator over 3 differing Empires - Babylon, the Medes and Persians. Nehemiah worked as a cup-bearer to the King while getting later support for the Walls - and Esther was Queen over Babylon. And Paul had an associate known as Erastus, who was the city’s director of public works according to Romans 16:22-24 and a good friend of his according to Acts 19:21-23 /2 Timothy 4:19-21 - a man who worked in the government/paved the way for other believers to do as they did.

The Old Testament examples of people other than the rulers of the nation of Israel serving in government are accounts of God calling people who were not seeking office to serve in times of unusual circumstances. Two were specifically used to save God's Old Covenant people (Joseph and Esther). The others—Daniel and Daniel's friends—were used to witness God's power to Gentile rulers (of course, Joseph and Esther also did this). There are three examples only of people who were employed by the government at the time they became Christians. They were Cornelius (Acts 10-11), Erastus, and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8). Cornelius was a centurion (a military captain over 100 men), but we do not know exactly what he did or whether he stayed in the military after becoming a Christian. Certainly, he might have faced some tough choices between serving God and serving the Roman rulers: would he have followed orders to arrest Christians? Would he have participated in the sacking of Jerusalem? It seems likely that remaining a centurion would eventually have put him at odds with his Christians beliefs. Tradition (of course, not necessarily reliable) says that he became a bishop in either Caesarea or Scepsis in Mysia.

The King James Version calls Erastus "the chamberlain of the city." The Greek word translated "chamberlain" is oikonomos, the word from which we get the English word economist. This means Erastus was a city manager or treasurer (it is not clear exactly what his job entailed) before he became a Christian. 1 Corinthians 7:20-21 indicates a person should remain in the calling wherein he was called, whether free or slave or whatever. The principle can apply to occupations. God called Erastus while he was the city manager/treasurer. The principle is that he should stay in that occupation unless there arose a conflict of interest. Apparently, no conflict had arisen in Erastus's case, at least up until the time Paul wrote. We do not know whether Erastus's duties included making official decisions, but history may answer what happened to him as it says he was killed shortly after Paul (Ada R. Habershon, The Bible and the British Museum, p. 4).

As far as the Ethiopian eunuch is concerned, he also was already serving his queen before he became a Christian. We do not know what happened to him after he was baptized in Acts 8 and returned to Ethiopia.

 

[ContraMundum]

Been reading the Divine Invitation paper by FFOZ. I think the paper/theology is misunderstood. Actually it's contradictory.

FFoZ's position both before and after that paper seems to be a little shallow, and not very well thought out. A lot more theological and linguistic maturity is needed for that denomination before they figure this out. I'm still waiting to see what happens.

 

[annier]

Interesting to consider - and going through it, I thought there were many beautiful aspects to it which were very necessary to point out. of D. T. Lancaster’s commentary on Galatians and other texts is very beneficial, IMHO...and I'm glad for the work they do.
As they said:

“The difference between the One-Law and Divine-Permission positions does not change our message or objectives. We are still working to bring Christianity back to her Jewish foundations and to encourage all believers to keep the Torah, including the holy days and the biblical diet. We are still committed to our mission: “Proclaiming the Torah and its way of life, fully centered on Messiah, to today’s people of God.” The only difference is that you will no longer find us making sweeping over-generalizations that diminish the distinction between Jewish people and non-Jewish believers. You will not hear us saying that Gentile believers who do not choose a Messianic, Torah-observant, Jewish lifestyle are walking in sin.
The Difference: No longer ignoring distinction between Jewish people and Gentile believers. No longer teaching that it is a sin for Gentiles to fail to keep the commandments of circumcision, Sabbath, festivals, and Leviticus 11 dietary standards.

Still the Same: Still teaching Jewish and Gentile believers to keep Torah. Still encouraging Gentiles to take hold of the biblical Sabbath, festivals, and dietary laws as disciples of Messiah from the nations, grafted in to Israel.”

​

FFOZ now teaches that Gentile believers are not obligated to every commandment of Torah that a Jew is obligated to. While the broad spectrum of commandments that deal with love of neighbor and heart-devotion to God are assumed to be binding on Gentile believers throughout the New Testament, the Apostles chose to subject them to only three “ritual” prohibitions, and all of them were dietary: food sacrificed to idols, blood, and meat from an improperly slaughtered animal. Practically (and broadly) speaking, this exempts Gentile believers from the following categories of commandments: bris, tzitzit, tefillin, kashrut, Shabbat, mo’edim, and (if I am not mistaken) tohoros. As all of these commandments are tied to Jewish ethnic identity or to Temple worship (from which Gentiles are forbidden), they are widely assumed throughout the New Testament not to be binding on Gentiles (cf. Col. 2:16, 1 Cor. 7:17-24, Acts chs. 15 and 21).

The other side of the debate, “One Law”, puts forth the argument that because there is to be “one law” for the native and for the alien (Ex. 12:49, Lev. 24:22, etc.), Gentile believers are bound to the “ritual” commandments listed above. They reinterpret the writings of Paul and the other Apostles to conform to this view. Unfortunately these reinterpretations are very difficult to sustain and are not generally backed up by solid scholarship.

The biggest problem for many Messianic Fellowships (paticularly those that are Gentile dominated) is the broad willingness of certain people to condemn other people for not adhering to their specific standard. Not only that, but many are willing to condemn people for not teaching that everyone should be held to their standard – and again, there is no monolithic standard, because with the jettisoning of both Christian and Rabbinic tradition, there is no precedent for interpretation.

“Divine Invitation” advocates would not condemn a Gentile believer taking on more than is required of him, in a

FFOZ has recently provided a 70 page document explaining their shift in position. Our pastor has already spoken of some of the concepts in this paper, and in a private meeting with my husband he encouraged us to “take this journey and see where it leads”. Note that FFOZ claims salvation through grace, and they state
“We do not keep the Torah in order to be saved, we keep it because we are saved.”


We see this new theological position as “walking a fine line”… i.e., as a Gentile believer you aren’t obligated to submit to a “Torah observant” lifestyle like a Jewish believer, but are encouraged (expected?) to become “Torah submissive” to the fullest extent possible for you to achieve.


While the shift by FFOZ is promoted as “better balanced”, we remain very uncomfortable with the continued focus on pursuit of holiness through the Old Covenant (Sinai) law versus a focus on living the New Covenant law of love for God and for others (which we believe fulfills the heart or intent of the Old Covenant). We do not believe that the New Covenant (Christianity) is “lawless” as described in some Messianic forums. We fully support (and view as critical and necessary) the study of the Old Testament. We are concerned because we feel that this new theology of “Divine Invitation” is simply a more palatable path that ultimately leads to legalism or to “neo-Ebionism”.
​

Ironically enough, groups like FFOZ and other "Torah Observant" ministries often do not truly understand what the Torah really means. Torah is a "function word" that expresses our responsibility in light of the covenantal acts of God. As the author of the Book of Hebrews makes clear: "When there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the Torah as well" (Heb. 7:12). The Levitical priesthood expresses the truth of the Covenant of Sinai; the priesthood of Yeshua (after the order of Malki-Tzedek) expresses the truth of the New Covenant.

For more, see


​

I just finished reading the link concerning oral torah. I have a question that I have never seen mentioned concerning the need for oral torah, for the purpose of filling in the gaps for the written Torah, so to speak.
The urm and thummim were in the breastplate of the high priests garments. These were used by the high priest to receive oracles from God, when they needed to know his will in a matter. This being so, as well as the scriptures say....
De 17:8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose;
De 19:17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;
De 21:5 And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried:

Matters to difficult for the lower courtrs, were to go to the priest, and to obey his decision in the matter. Why would there be a need for oral tradition, if the high priest could consult the urim??

Another curious thing concerning this. Evidently the priests did have a book concerning their own traditions. Called the book of decrees. The Pharisees refused the decisions of this book for the fact that they had written them down, instead of by mouth. Oddly, that is exactly what the misneh itself is. Oral tradition written down. So while the Pharisees abolished this book of jurisprudence of the Sadducees (priestly sect) for having written their decrees, They themselves turned around and did the exact same with their own traditions.

 

[visionary]

Practically (and broadly) speaking, this exempts Gentile believers from the following categories of commandments: bris, tzitzit, tefillin, kashrut, Shabbat, mo’edim, and (if I am not mistaken) tohoros.

You post the FROZZ teaches this.. but do you personally believe this?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

You post the FROZZ teaches this.. but do you personally believe this?

I have already stated what I believe - multiple times - and thus, I don't really see the logic in restating it again EVerytime the subject comes up as if there's some rule dictating one do so - and that's not the focus of the OP, anyhow:

Been reading the Divine Invitation paper by FFOZ. I think the paper/theology is misunderstood. Actually it's contradictory.

The focus of the OP is addressing the paper/understanding the position, from what I saw. If you want to know what I believe on the matter, you can ask Contra, Shimshon and a host of others who've noted it - in addition to what I already wrote on the issue before in previous discussion...but what is of focus here - per the OP - is what FFOZ believes ..and thus, it is why I noted what I saw of their views in summation. Simple as that, really.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I just finished reading the link concerning oral torah. I have a question that I have never seen mentioned concerning the need for oral torah, for the purpose of filling in the gaps for the written Torah, so to speak.

The urm and thummim were in the breastplate of the high priests garments. These were used by the high priest to receive oracles from God, when they needed to know his will in a matter. This being so, as well as the scriptures say....

De 17:8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose;
De 19:17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;
De 21:5 And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried:

Matters to difficult for the lower coutrs, were to go to the priest, and to obey his decision in the matter. Why would there be a need for oral tradition, if the high priest could consult the urim??
.

There's much to be said on the ways that Oral Tradition developed in the midst of a corrupted priesthood and many not believing that it could be trusted when the line of Zadok was replaced during the time of the Maccabees - with Jewish nationalism helping the people to avoid idolatry at first and later opening the door for a lot of mess. Oral tradition became something of an additional means of keeping consistency with what was felt to be truth.

Personally, some of the dynamics with going to the priests are interesting in light of what also happened with things like casting lots - which occurred throughout Jewish culture. For the apostles lived within a culture that loved God's Torah/Law--and the Torah gave many examples of others casting lots in order to discern the Will of the Lord..with the Lord giving divine guidance on things through that methodology. ..including things such as Urim and Thummim. One would walk in wisdom, of course, in making decisions...but it was perfectly acceptable to cast lots on important decisions, no different than praying and asking the Lord to reveal something in a dream or a vision or a sign for confirmation (more#5#19 and #25/#45 as it concerns the Biblical history of casting lots). The apostles did pray/ask the Lord to reveal whom to chose...and it fell to Mattias. and

Another curious thing concerning this. Evidently the priests dfid have a book concerning their own traditions. Called the book of decrees. The Pharisees refused the decisions of this book for the fact that they had written them down, instead of by mouth. Oddly, that is exactly what the misneh itself is. Oral tradition written down. So while the Pharisees abolished this book of jurisprudence of the Sadducees (priestly sect) for having written their decrees, They themselves turned around and did the exact same with their own traditions

Very interesting to consider.

 

[visionary]

FFoZ's position both before and after that paper seems to be a little shallow, and not very well thought out. A lot more theological and linguistic maturity is needed for that denomination before they figure this out. I'm still waiting to see what happens.

I agree...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

FFoZ's position both before and after that paper seems to be a little shallow, and not very well thought out. A lot more theological and linguistic maturity is needed for that denomination before they figure this out. I'm still waiting to see what happens.

I do think that the paper needs more development - although not in the direction of many of the folks from the One Law camp who often critique them and wrongly so, I might add, for noting Biblical distinctions. But what they have is a start.

 

[yedida]

Since when do we have to have an invitation to love and obey our Father?

I agree. I used to look up to and respect what they printed. I now no longer really trust them. You don't have to do something but go ahead and do it anyway - sheesh. Say what you mean and mean what you say. It's either commanded or it isn't. No middle roads that all lead to the same place - well, maybe there is - just not a road I care to travel, I don't think I'd like the destination.

 

[yedida]

[/indent]Someone asked on another thread why the President would have a messianic give an invocation. The bigger question for me is why would a real believer attend? Here is the answer.. Messianics are jumping on the ecumenist train. Don't offend. Don't teach right and wrong.

that's right. keep it easy and fluffy, smelling really pleasant. People like FFOZ will eventually, I fear, turn Messianic Judaism into just another version of traditional christianity where the distinctions are so badly blurred that there aren't any distinctions anymore. We're heading there fast and furiously.

 

[annier]

There's much to be said on the ways that Oral Tradition developed in the midst of a corrupted priesthood and many not believing that it could be trusted when the line of Zadok was replaced during the time of the Maccabees - with Jewish nationalism helping the people to avoid idolatry at first and later opening the door for a lot of mess. Oral tradition became something of an additional means of keeping consistency with what was felt to be truth.

Personally, some of the dynamics with going to the priests are interesting in light of what also happened with things like casting lots - which occurred throughout Jewish culture. (The apostles did pray/ask the Lord to reveal whom to chose...and it fell to Mattias. and


Very interesting to consider.

I understand the deal concerning the priesthood in the time of the maccabees. But what I was referring to is the Pharisaical story of the ORIGINS of their oral torah, as well as the purpose of it. They said it was given at Sinai, along with the written law. How could that be so when the priests could consult the urim and thumim?
Why wouldn't the priests have done with their jurisprudence, what the Pharisees say they did with theirs? Write it down before they were taken captive. That is pretty much why the Pharisees say they wrote theirs down. Why wouldn't the priests?

Also consider this
Jo 11:47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.



Also many of the priests which served in the first temple were present at the rebuilding of the second temple, in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Why would they not know what thier own jurisprudence by urim and thummim was? Could they have written it down then?

Ezr 3:12 But many of the priests and Levites and chief of the fathers, who were ancient men, that had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice; and many shouted aloud for joy:


Neh 7:73 So the priests, and the Levites, and the porters, and the singers, and some of the people, and the Nethinims, and all Israel, dwelt in their cities; and when the seventh month came, the children of Israel were in their cities.
Neh 8:1 And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.
2 And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.
3 And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law.
4 And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam.
5 And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people and when he opened it, all the people stood up:
6 And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.
7 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.
8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
9 ¶ And Nehemiah, which is the Tirshatha, and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the Levites that taught the people, said unto all the people, This day is holy unto the LORD your God; mourn not, nor weep. For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the law.
10 Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for this day is holy unto our Lord: neither be ye sorry; for the joy of the LORD is your strength.
11 So the Levites stilled all the people, saying, Hold your peace, for the day is holy; neither be ye grieved.
12 And all the people went their way to eat, and to drink, and to send portions, and to make great mirth, because they had understood the words that were declared unto them.