Do I have to celebrate Roshashona and Yum Kipur (might've spelled that wrong lol)

[Soyeong]

Context is important here:

Therefore, with minds that are alert and fully sober, set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming. As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.” (1 Peter 1:13-16)
​

Clearly Peter is teaching that sanctification is by grace through faith.

Grace and peace,
Mark

We have received grace to bring about the obedience of faith (Roman 1:5). It is by God's grace that our salvation involves being trained to do what He has revealed to be godly, righteous, and good, (which includes keeping His holy days) and trained to renounce doing what God has revealed to be ungodly, sinful, and lawless (Titus 2:11-4). It is through faith that we demonstrate that we believe that God's commands are for our own good through living in obedience to them (Deuteronomy 10:13). It is by sanctification that we are made to be like Christ in doing what is godly, righteous, and good in accordance with the law, as he did.

 

[mark kennedy]

I used to use this these verses to argue against keeping God's holy days, but upon closer inspection of the context, it is doing no such thing:

Galatians 4:8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods.

True, the Gentile church is in focus here. Yes, he is talking about their former way of life, he is also taking about the encroachment of Judaism in Galatians.

Paul addressed these verses to those who formerly did not know God, also known as former pagans. They were not formerly keeping God's commands, so they could not be turning back to them and they could not be enslaved by them all over again. Paul would never have referred to the holy, righteous, and good commands of God as weak and miserable principles of the world, so whatever is being talking about in verse 10 is in the context of paganism, not in regard to God's commands.

The, 'observing special days and months and seasons and years!' Gal. 4:10 are obviously Jewish Sabbaths, special days...etc. Paul complains, 'I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.' (Gal. 4:11). The book of Galatians was the direct result of the incursion of Levitical law being imposed on Gentile Christians. As a devout Hebrew he makes a brief reference to their 'former way of life', leads in to taking on the yoke of legalistic Judaism. He is saying like Peter, don't take this yoke that neither we nor our fathers could bear. He still practiced Judaism but was never enslaved to it again.

This is one of the passages that opened my eyes to the systematic bias against God's law in how we interpret the NT, and once my eyes became opened to it, I started seeing it everywhere. There is a theme throughout the Bible that we must obey God rather than man, so we should be careful not to mistake something that was against obeying man's law as being against obeying God's law. When you are careful not to do this, then you will that the Bible never speaks against anyone obeying God's law. And really, it should be a pretty clear indication of how upside down the theology that we have been taught is that we actually believe that we should not obey the law of the God that we follow, especially when the law was given to reveal to us which things are sin and we are told not to sin. The Jews delighted in obeying God's law (Psalms 1:1-2, Psalms 119:16, Psalms 119:42, Romans 7:22) and did not consider it to be a heavy burden no one could bear, contrary to Deuteronomy 30:11 and 1 John 5:3, but rather it was man's laws that were the heavy burden in agreement with Matthew 23:3-4. The Bible has so much more continuity and makes much more sense when you read the NT as though the authors were in full agreement with the view of the law that is expressed in Psalms 119. Jesus set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to God's law, so he taught obedience to the law both by word and by example, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), and to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:3-6).

According to Romans 4:1-8, Abraham and David were justified by faith, and the one and only way to become justified is by faith, so Moses was justified by faith before the law was given to him, which means that the law was never needed nor given for that purpose. Obedience to the law has never been about what to do in order to become righteous, but rather it has always been God's instructions for what to do by faith because we have been declared righteous by faith. We are saved by grace through faith, not by doing good works, but for the purpose of doing them (Ephesians 2:8-10). According to Titus 2:11-14, our salvation involves being trained by grace to do what God has revealed to be godly, righteous, and good, and trained to renounce doing what God has revealed to be ungodly, sinful, and lawless. Trying to keep the law in order to become justified is in fact a legalistic perversion of it, but rather we should obey the law because we love God (John 14:15) and because we trust God about how we should live (Deuteronomy 10:13), and to do otherwise is sin.

That's more like it. There is a balance between legalism (works righteousness) and licentiousness (grace being a license to sin). Going down the narrow path, does it really matter if you veer one way or another, you still end up in a ditch. After this big controversy over encroaching legalism from Judaism the serious problems with pagan culture some of the Gentile Christians were importing into the churches. I have no problem with special occasions, Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving are given Christian meaning in our day and there is nothing wrong with that. What we are talking about is how you can be holy even as God is holy and the Mosaic Law is really just a witness to the righteousness that is by faith. It's not a tight rope but it is a narrow path. We do well to avoid both extremes.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Soyeong]

True, the Gentile church is in focus here. Yes, he is talking about their former way of life, he is also taking about the encroachment of Judaism in Galatians.



The, 'observing special days and months and seasons and years!' Gal. 4:10 are obviously Jewish Sabbaths, special days...etc. Paul complains, 'I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.' (Gal. 4:11). The book of Galatians was the direct result of the incursion of Levitical law being imposed on Gentile Christians. As a devout Hebrew he makes a brief reference to their 'former way of life', leads in to taking on the yoke of legalistic Judaism. He is saying like Peter, don't take this yoke that neither we nor our fathers could bear. He still practiced Judaism but was never enslaved to it again.



That's more like it. There is a balance between legalism (works righteousness) and licentiousness (grace being a license to sin). Going down the narrow path, does it really matter if you veer one way or another, you still end up in a ditch. After this big controversy over encroaching legalism from Judaism the serious problems with pagan culture some of the Gentile Christians were importing into the churches. I have no problem with special occasions, Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving are given Christian meaning in our day and there is nothing wrong with that. What we are talking about is how you can be holy even as God is holy and the Mosaic Law is really just a witness to the righteousness that is by faith. It's not a tight rope but it is a narrow path. We do well to avoid both extremes.

Grace and peace,
Mark

It is important to understand the distinction between God's law that was given to Moses and Jewish works of the law that consisted of customs, traditions, rulings, and fences in regard to how they thought God law was intended to be obeyed. For instance, there are 24 chapters worth of traditions in the Mishna for just how to keep the Sabbath in regard to things like how far someone could walk or how much someone could lift before it counted as work. In Mark 7:6-8, Jesus criticized the Pharisees for setting aside the commands of God to follow their own traditions, and in Matthew 23:3-4, he compared their traditions for how to keep God's law as being a heavy burden, while he contrasted that with his way of keeping God's law as being light and easy (Matthew 11:28-30, Jeremiah 6:16-19). In Acts 15:1, it was not about whether Gentiles should keep the laws of the God that they follow, but rather it was about whether Gentiles were required to obey the law according to the customs of Moses in order to become saved, so Paul was not fighting against the encroachment of Judaism, but the encroachment of needing to follow Jewish traditions in order to become saved.

Again, we need to be careful not to take something that was against following Jewish works of the law as being against following God's law. While Paul spoke against the need to obey God's law in order to become justified, the law was never given for that purpose and Paul did not speak against obeying it for the purposes for which it was intended, especially seeing as how he continued to live in obedience to the law (Acts 21:24). While Paul spoke against keeping Jewish traditions in Galatians, that was not what he was speaking against them in Galatians 4:10 because he addressed that passage specifically to former pagans who were going back to some of their pagan practices, and could not be going back to something they had never done in the first place.

John 1:16-17 For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.[e] 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

It says grace was added upon grace, so the grace of Christ was added upon the grace of the law. I think a big misconception is that God's grace is opposed to His law rather than what trains us to obey it, as though a house divided against itself could stand. Strong's defines "grace" as "the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life", and when God's will is reflected in our lives, it takes the form of obedience to His commands.

Jesus celebrated Hannukah (John 10:22), so I see nothing inherently wrong with celebrating certain days as part of human traditions, but we should be careful not set aside the commands of God in order to follow our own traditions.

 

[Catherineanne]

I've only VERY recently accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. And, to be honest, I really don't want to celebrate these holidays, but I don't actually even know if I have to or not

I kinda just want to follow the same standards that any Christian would. Does being born Jewish mean that I have to obey a different set of rules? Because I really, really don't want to observe these holidays.

You can choose for yourself on this one. There is nothing to forbid you following Jewish feasts, and nothing to demand that you do so.

If you don't want to observe them, then don't.

 

[danny ski]

You can choose for yourself on this one. There is nothing to forbid you following Jewish feasts, and nothing to demand that you do so.

If you don't want to observe them, then don't.

Leviticus 16 29-34 says otherwise.

 

[mark kennedy]

In Acts 15:1, it was not about whether Gentiles should keep the laws of the God that they follow, but rather it was about whether Gentiles were required to obey the law according to the customs of Moses in order to become saved, so Paul was not fighting against the encroachment of Judaism, but the encroachment of needing to follow Jewish traditions in order to become saved.

Specifically legalism starting with circumcision and obligating you to obey the whole law. The solution was justification by grace through faith, It's associated with Protestantism and Pauline theology but it goes back to the Apostles doctrine.l

Again, we need to be careful not to take something that was against following Jewish works of the law as being against following God's law. While Paul spoke against the need to obey God's law in order to become justified, the law was never given for that purpose and Paul did not speak against obeying it for the purposes for which it was intended, especially seeing as how he continued to live in obedience to the law (Acts 21:24). While Paul spoke against keeping Jewish traditions in Galatians, that was not what he was speaking against them in Galatians 4:10 because he addressed that passage specifically to former pagans who were going back to some of their pagan practices, and could not be going back to something they had never done in the first place.

Galatians mentions their former way of life but the 'observing special days and months and seasons and years!' Gal. 4:10 are Jewish observances. Your not going to get that interpretation from that context:

As to the bearing of this passage on the general question of the observance of seasons, it is to be noticed that the reference is here to the adoption by the Galatians of the Jewish seasons as a mark of the extent to which they were prepared to take on themselves the burden of the Mosaic law. (Commentaries Gal. 4:10 Bible Hub)
​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Catherineanne]

Leviticus 16 29-34 says otherwise.

Leviticus may well be binding on observant Jewish people. It is not binding on Christians.

I was addressing a Christian, and so answered accordingly. Christians are not bound to celebrate Rosh Hashana or Yom Kippur. Some may choose to do so; none is obliged to.

 

[Soyeong]

Specifically legalism starting with circumcision and obligating you to obey the whole law. The solution was justification by grace through faith, It's associated with Protestantism and Pauline theology but it goes back to the Apostles doctrine.l

The one and only way that there has ever been to become justified is by grace through faith, so it goes back much farther than the Apostles. According to Romans 4:1-8, Abraham and David were justified by faith and Moses was likewise justified by faith apart from the law before the law was given to him. They were not giving a new solution, but were taking the position of what it has always been against those who misunderstood the law as being about what you need to do in order to become justified. At no point does God's law require all Gentiles everywhere to become circumcised and at no point is obedience to any of God's commands required by the Bible in order to become justified, including circumcision, so needing to become circumcised and obey all of God's law according to the customs of Moses is purely a manmade requirement, and by rejecting it they were upholding God's law. This is not to say that circumcision wasn't commanded by God, but that it wasn't commanded for the purpose of becoming justified. On the other hand, if God had required all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, and you think that the Jerusalem Council was trying to countermand God, then do you think that they had a higher authority than God? Are you a follower of God or are you a follower of the Jerusalem Council? The Jerusalem Council was given no authority to tell anyone not to obey any of God's commands, nor did they try to do so.

Galatians mentions their former way of life but the 'observing special days and months and seasons and years!' Gal. 4:10 are Jewish observances. Your not going to get that interpretation from that context:

As to the bearing of this passage on the general question of the observance of seasons, it is to be noticed that the reference is here to the adoption by the Galatians of the Jewish seasons as a mark of the extent to which they were prepared to take on themselves the burden of the Mosaic law. (Commentaries Gal. 4:10 Bible Hub)
​

Grace and peace,
Mark

I used to hold your position because that is what I've was taught, but with all do respect to the commentary, I think its bias against God's law is showing by inserting Jewish seasons into a description of the pagan practices that they were returning to. If they were never keeping Jewish observances in the first place, then they could not be returning to them and could not be enslaved by them all over again. He was describing weak and miserable principles of the world, which does not at all fit the holy, righteous, and good commands of God, so the special days and months and season and years are in regard to pagan holy days that they were formally keeping. Galatians only comes against obeying man's commands, not against God's commands, though it does come against trying to obey God's commands in order to become justified because they were never commanded for that purpose.

However, if your interpretation is correct, and Paul was speaking against obeying God's commands, then do you obey God or do you obey Paul? According to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from God's law, so if Paul had been trying to subtract God's holy days, then he would have been sinning. Furthermore, according to Deuteronomy 13:4-6, the way that God instructed His people to determine whether someone was a false prophet, even if they performed signs and wonders, was if they taught them against obeying what God had commanded them, so if your interpretation is correct, then you should reject Paul as being a false messenger of God and disregard what he said in favor of obeying God instead. On the contrary, according to Acts 21:24, Paul continued to live in obedience to God's law, which included God's appointed times (Acts 18:20-21, 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, Acts 20:6, Acts 20:16). He also encouraged the Colossians to continue observing God's holy days as they had been instructed and to not let any man keep them from obeying God (Colossians 2:16).

 

[Winken]

I've only VERY recently accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. And, to be honest, I really don't want to celebrate these holidays, but I don't actually even know if I have to or not

I kinda just want to follow the same standards that any Christian would. Does being born Jewish mean that I have to obey a different set of rules? Because I really, really don't want to observe these holidays.

You don't have to.

 

[Winken]

@Soyeong and @Mark Kennedy --- Thanks for a great discussion.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Leviticus 16 29-34 says otherwise.

Are you a New Covenant believer under the blood of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sin?

I'm just asking for clarification because I see your religious designation is Judaism.

If you are not a Christian, then I can understand your answer

 

[ToBeLoved]

@Soyeong and Mark Kennedy --- Thanks for a great discussion.

I agree. It has been a very good discussion.

 

[mark kennedy]

The one and only way that there has ever been to become justified is by grace through faith, so it goes back much farther than the Apostles. According to Romans 4:1-8, Abraham and David were justified by faith and Moses was likewise justified by faith apart from the law before the law was given to him. They were not giving a new solution, but were taking the position of what it has always been against those who misunderstood the law as being about what you need to do in order to become justified. At no point does God's law require all Gentiles everywhere to become circumcised and at no point is obedience to any of God's commands required by the Bible in order to become justified, including circumcision, so needing to become circumcised and obey all of God's law according to the customs of Moses is purely a manmade requirement, and by rejecting it they were upholding God's law. This is not to say that circumcision wasn't commanded by God, but that it wasn't commanded for the purpose of becoming justified. On the other hand, if God had required all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, and you think that the Jerusalem Council was trying to countermand God, then do you think that they had a higher authority than God? Are you a follower of God or are you a follower of the Jerusalem Council? The Jerusalem Council was given no authority to tell anyone not to obey any of God's commands, nor did they try to do so.

The Jerusalem Council decision was reflected in unanimous affirmation by the Apostles and the church. The only other time I know of that happening was when the Canon of the New Testament was agreed upon. When Paul went to Jerusalem that last time he took Timothy whose father was Jewish and had him circumcised. He also sacrificed a peace offering which included a fellowship meal before the Lord. All this sort of thing was necessary to be sanctified as a Jew to be ceremonially clean in order to participate in the feasts and ceremonies. The Old testament forbids catfish and pork, I'm still allowed to participate in Christian rites and rituals if I eat them, in Levitical Law I would not.

used to hold your position because that is what I've was taught, but with all do respect to the commentary, I think its bias against God's law is showing by inserting Jewish seasons into a description of the pagan practices that they were returning to. If they were never keeping Jewish observances in the first place, then they could not be returning to them and could not be enslaved by them all over again. He was describing weak and miserable principles of the world, which does not at all fit the holy, righteous, and good commands of God, so the special days and months and season and years are in regard to pagan holy days that they were formally keeping. Galatians only comes against obeying man's commands, not against God's commands, though it does come against trying to obey God's commands in order to become justified because they were never commanded for that purpose.

Its not really a position, its the obvious inference from the historical and literary context. I did go back and check a couple of commentaries and uniformly it was Jewish custom.

However, if your interpretation is correct, and Paul was speaking against obeying God's commands, then do you obey God or do you obey Paul? According to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from God's law, so if Paul had been trying to subtract God's holy days, then he would have been sinning. Furthermore, according to Deuteronomy 13:4-6, the way that God instructed His people to determine whether someone was a false prophet, even if they performed signs and wonders, was if they taught them against obeying what God had commanded them, so if your interpretation is correct, then you should reject Paul as being a false messenger of God and disregard what he said in favor of obeying God instead. On the contrary, according to Acts 21:24, Paul continued to live in obedience to God's law, which included God's appointed times (Acts 18:20-21, 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, Acts 20:6, Acts 20:16). He also encouraged the Colossians to continue observing God's holy days as they had been instructed and to not let any man keep them from obeying God (Colossians 2:16).

What Paul is saying is don't let world, human authority intimidate you. Thing like do not touch, do not taste etc. There are multiple examples of not getting taken in by religious pretense.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Brother Mark... as you are well aware I am sure, no word has one meaning. Both Thayer and Liddel-Scott (the latter is one of the most respected Greek lexicons ever) include as one possible definition of pleroo "to fulfil, i.e. to cause God’s will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God’s promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment." Not "fulfill" as in "there is no space left for any more" but rather fulfill in the sense of filling it up, doing it in it's FULLNESS, walking it out "as intended." Like I said before, if the common mainstream understanding is accurate (i.e. pleroo in Matthew 5:17 means done away with, abolish) then that verse literally contradicts itself. Therefore, we cannot use that definition even if that definition is the only one that happens to stand in harmony with our current understanding. That is where I was a decade ago... I realize my position pitted Scripture against Scripture and that isn't how it should be. I found an alternate meaning that stands in harmony not only with the rest of verse 17, but also verses 18 and 19 seeing they would also contradict the common mainstream definition of pleroo.

If you see it otherwise, that is fine brother, I really am not interested in cloning myself.



Will give me a 3-5 minutes of your time?

In the days of Messiah, there were TWO sects, two SCHOOLS of Pharisees. One was Beit Hillel (School of Hillel) and it had a slogan... "Spirit of the Law." The other was known as Beit Shamai, or, the School of Shamai. It also had a slogan, "letter of the law." Interestingly this is exactly where the argument that Paul presents between the "letter" and the "spirit" comes from. But, to a degree, I digress.

Hillel and Shamai engaged in a debate about proselytes. The argument hinged on what was expected of a new convert to Judaism. Hillel's position for the NEW convert, was that he should be expected to "abstain from pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." Sound familiar? That is "exactly" what came out of the Jerusalem Council. Shamai was more stringent, letter of the law... and his position was ALSO for a new convert to abstain from pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. BUT... he ADDED to that one needed to be circumcised AND recite all 613 commandments. Both men agreed that this was the "beginning of a new converts walk," and that they would learn the rest as they moved forward. Shamai's position was accepted as Halacha (Jewish law) and that was the rule of the day during the time of the Apostles.

So when we come to Acts 15 we read in verse 1, "And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." From this, and from understanding that Christianity at THIS TIME was still considered a sect of Judaism... we can discern that these "certain men" were adherents of Shamai. So, Paul and Barnabas get rightly angered, come back and they have the council meeting.

What happened there? Was ALL doctrine set for gentiles? Of course not... show me "love God" or "love neighbor" or "don't kill" or "refrain from same sex relations." The Acts 15 letter was NOT meant to be the end of the line in terms of doctrine, it was meant to be the starting line. It undid a BAD 50 year old decision and it said, and I am paraphrasing, "do these few things that will set you apart from your pagan brethren and then learn the rest as you go." Remember what came immediately after the letter? Here it is in some context...


Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: (20) But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (21) For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Don't put too much on them, don't trouble them too much... do these 4 things (two of which modern Christians pay no mind to by the way) and then it says that Moses, an idiomatic reference to Torah (instructions of God) is read every week in the synagogues on the Sabbath. In other words, start with these 4 and then go learn the rest.

The word translated 'fulfill' is the root 'pleroo' in Greek.

In the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT, from about 250 BC) the word 'pleroo' in Greek translates the Hebrew word 'malei'. It almost always means ‘to fill’ But there are other nuances of the word.

Here is the Strong’s definition:

Matthew 5:17 as ‘end, terminate’ is only one possible reading. I believe that the literary/cultural/historical context of this verse lends weight to tranlating 'pleroo' as ‘confirm, authenticate’ and probably also ‘do, keep.’

Mishnah, AVOT 4:9
R. JONATHAN SAID: WHOEVER FULFILS (kum) THE TORAH OUT OF [A STATE OF] POVERTY, HIS END [WILL BE] TO FULFIL IT OUT OF [A STATE OF] WEALTH; AND WHOEVER DISCARDS THE TORAH OUT OF [A STATE OF] WEALTH, HIS END [WILL BE] TO DISCARD IT OUT OF [A STATE OF] POVERTY

Deuteronomy Rabbah 11:6
Halachah: When a Jew goes up to read the Law, he is not permitted to commence reading it before he has recited the blessings. First he must recite the blessings and then he reads. And thus Moses, when he had the privilege of receiving the Torah, first recited a blessing, and then he read it. R. Eleazar asked: What was the blessing which Moses recited before reading it? [It was], Blessed art Thou, O Lord, King of the Universe, who hast chosen this law and sanctified it and hast found pleasure in them who fulfil it. He did not say, ' in them that labour at it,' nor, ' in them who meditate in it,' but, ' in them that fulfil (kum) it,' that is to say, in them who carry out the words of the Torah.

 

[Ken Rank]

The word translated 'fulfill' is the root 'pleroo' in Greek.

In the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT, from about 250 BC) the word 'pleroo' in Greek translates the Hebrew word 'malei'. It almost always means ‘to fill’ But there are other nuances of the word.

Here is the Strong’s definition:

Matthew 5:17 as ‘end, terminate’ is only one possible reading. I believe that the literary/cultural/historical context of this verse lends weight to tranlating 'pleroo' as ‘confirm, authenticate’ and probably also ‘do, keep.’

Mishnah, AVOT 4:9
R. JONATHAN SAID: WHOEVER FULFILS (kum) THE TORAH OUT OF [A STATE OF] POVERTY, HIS END [WILL BE] TO FULFIL IT OUT OF [A STATE OF] WEALTH; AND WHOEVER DISCARDS THE TORAH OUT OF [A STATE OF] WEALTH, HIS END [WILL BE] TO DISCARD IT OUT OF [A STATE OF] POVERTY

Deuteronomy Rabbah 11:6
Halachah: When a Jew goes up to read the Law, he is not permitted to commence reading it before he has recited the blessings. First he must recite the blessings and then he reads. And thus Moses, when he had the privilege of receiving the Torah, first recited a blessing, and then he read it. R. Eleazar asked: What was the blessing which Moses recited before reading it? [It was], Blessed art Thou, O Lord, King of the Universe, who hast chosen this law and sanctified it and hast found pleasure in them who fulfil it. He did not say, ' in them that labour at it,' nor, ' in them who meditate in it,' but, ' in them that fulfil (kum) it,' that is to say, in them who carry out the words of the Torah.

Thanks for the input Steve... how do you process the information you shared? Does fulfill in Matthew 5:17 mean bring an end to or fill up in the sense of walking it according to the intended purpose?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Leviticus 16 29-34 says otherwise.

Since you are a practicing Jew, then yes, Leviticus 16:29-34 absolutely does apply to you.

But keep in mind that this is the Exploring Christianity board, the OP, being a convert to Christianity is seeking answers from Christians on the matter. And the Christian answer to this question, in regard to other Christians, is that there is no compunction to observe the mitzvot which God gave in His Torah--because Torah isn't for me and my religion, it's for you and your religion. Further, Christianity doesn't forbid these things as a matter of personal conscience, and therefore there is nothing in Christianity which forbids observing the mitzvot insofar as one does so with a clear and free conscience and does not judge others.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Steve Petersen]

Thanks for the input Steve... how do you process the information you shared? Does fulfill in Matthew 5:17 mean bring an end to or fill up in the sense of walking it according to the intended purpose?

The latter.

 

[danny ski]

Leviticus may well be binding on observant Jewish people. It is not binding on Christians.

I was addressing a Christian, and so answered accordingly. Christians are not bound to celebrate Rosh Hashana or Yom Kippur. Some may choose to do so; none is obliged to.

The OP seems to suggest that he's of Jewish stock. In that case Leviticus takes precedence over later additions and/or interpretations. Forever means forever.

 

[Ken Rank]

The latter.

Thanks... just wondering.

PS... love the avatar!

 

[Soyeong]

Since you are a practicing Jew, then yes, Leviticus 16:29-34 absolutely does apply to you.

But keep in mind that this is the Exploring Christianity board, the OP, being a convert to Christianity is seeking answers from Christians on the matter. And the Christian answer to this question, in regard to other Christians, is that there is no compunction to observe the mitzvot which God gave in His Torah--because Torah isn't for me and my religion, it's for you and your religion. Further, Christianity doesn't forbid these things as a matter of personal conscience, and therefore there is nothing in Christianity which forbids observing the mitzvot insofar as one does so with a clear and free conscience and does not judge others.

-CryptoLutheran

Jesus did not come to start a new religion, but rather he was born a Jew, raised a Jew, became a Jewish rabbi, had Jewish disciples, is the Jewish Messiah, fulfilled Jewish prophecy, will return as the Lion of Judah, and came to bring fullness to Judaism. At its origin, Christianity was the fullest form of Judaism, but since then Judaism and Christianity have become more distinct, with Jews following the Torah, but not the Messiah, with Christians following the Messiah, but not the Torah, and with both only following half the truth. The Torah is the way (Jeremiah 6:16-19), the truth (Psalms 119:142), and the life (Deuteronomy 30:15, Matthew 19:17), Messiah is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6), the Torah is God's Word, and Messiah is God's Word made flesh.

The Torah is God's revealed instructions for how to do what is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), and as part of the New Covenant, we still instructed to do what God has revealed to be holy, righteous, and good (1 Peter 1:14-16, 1 John 3:10, Ephesians 2:10). The Torah is also God's revealed instructions for how to avoid sin (Romans 7:7), and we are likewise instructed to avoid doing what God has revealed to be sin (Romans 6:15). We are also instructed to restore those who are caught in doing what God has revealed to be sin (Galatians 6:1). Furthermore, Jesus set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to the Torah, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), and to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:3-6).