OT Feasts

[tall73]

I was just about to post this question when I noticed some had a head start over in the reformed board.

In any case, what do you see as the significance of the feasts today, if any?

Just for more discussion, I just started reading the selected chapters here on Bacchiocchi's site.

I am reading it partly due to some things in the Sabbath thread, and because there are some obvious passages in the NT that show that Paul at least still wanted to be around for the feasts.

 

[StormyOne]

Feasts ended when the whole priest/sacrificial system ended.... though some find a reason to observe them.... they are no longer binding....

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

Feasts ended when the whole priest/sacrificial system ended.... though some find a reason to observe them.... they are no longer binding....

If the feasts ended then the Seventh Day Sabbath ended along with them..... Ive explained that on this thread.... http://www.christianforums.com/t2445067

Strong's Col. 2:16-18 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17. Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. 18. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

Yeshua My Salvation> "sabbath," as used in Col 2:16;

sabbaton, Greek 4521, Strong’s
sabbaton, sab'-bat-on; of Hebrew origin [Hebrew 7676 (shabbath)]; the Sabbath (i.e. Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension a se'nnight, i.e. the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all the above applications :- sabbath (day), week.

 

[OntheDL]

I was just about to post this question when I noticed some had a head start over in the reformed board.

In any case, what do you see as the significance of the feasts today, if any?

Just for more discussion, I just started reading the selected chapters here on Bacchiocchi's site.

I am reading it partly due to some things in the Sabbath thread, and because there are some obvious passages in the NT that show that Paul at least still wanted to be around for the feasts.

The feasts or the annual sabbaths were shadows of Christ's sacrifice. Jewish writings indicate the daily/continual sacrifice was never interrupted by the feasts.

In the midst of last week of the Daniel 70 week prophecy, Jesus caused the sacrifice and offerings to cease (when the ultimate sacrifice was made). Daniel 9:27.

430 years after Abraham found grace, the law of Moses was added because of transgressions until the seed (Jesus) should come. And now faith is come, we are no longer under the law that was the schoolmaster to bring us upto Christ. Galations 3:17-29.

Reading Galations 1,2,3&4 will clearly reveal Paul's teaching.

In fact, for the purpose of warning the early christians some who still kept the feasts of the coming disaster of 70AD, Paul wrote the book of Hebrews in the 60s to urge the early christians to set their hearts on the heavenly reality rather than earthly shadows.

The entire jewish sacrifical system was to vividly reveal Christ and His work of salvation. The animal sacrifice which was required of all offerings is no longer needed.

Now, if someone uses the feasts to better understand Christ's character, I'm for it. But we are not under the OT law and the feasts therein. God's provisional covenant had given ways to His eternal covenant that was ractified at the cross.

The Ten commandments and Sabbath commandment are expressions of Christ's eternal characters. They are not shadows therefore can never be done away.

We can not build a doctrine upon the translation of a simple word or an interpretation of one verse. All the scriptures have to reconcile. The trick of understanding the bible is let one part that's clear shed light on the part that is unclear.

Any attempt of bringing the believers of Christ under Mosaic or 'Noahide' laws is a diversion from Jesus's now heavenly ministry and a part of the Jesuit's Futuristic endtime desception.

For SDA friends, Ellen White wrote it plainly in Desire of Ages P84:

From its earliest years the Jewish child was surrounded with the requirements of the rabbis. Rigid rules were prescribed for every act, down to the smallest details of life. Under the synagogue teachers the youth were instructed in the countless regulations which as orthodox Israelites they were expected to observe. But Jesus did not interest Himself in these matters. From childhood He acted independently of the rabbinical laws.

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

The feasts or the annual sabbaths were shadows of Christ's sacrifice. Jewish writings indicate the daily/continual sacrifice was never interrupted by the feasts.

Col 2:14-18, 21-22

The GREEK WORDS "Cheirographon Tois Dogmasin" in verse 14 of Col 2 in Apocaliptic literature indicates the written record of our sins, not any LAW codes, the GREEK word "Cheirographon" occures only ones in scripture in Col.2:14, in the context of Col.2:14 the word law “ nómos. . is not even mentioned, the accusing witness in verse 14 is the record of our sins, which Christ has taken out of the way and nailed to his cross.

Paul affirms how complete God's forgiveness is towards us that God through his son Jesus has cancelled the "written record of our sins" which because of it's regulations "prescribed the death penalty for the transgressor", was against us, what Christ obrogated on the cross was not the LAW but the "written record of our sins".

By destroying the written record of our sins, CHRIST JESUS has disarmed "principalities and powers" Verse 15.

16 ¶ Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

First things first, Paul is not the one passing judgment in this passage, but certain false teachers were passing judgment on how the believers observe
these days, so it should be noted that Paul is not warning the Colossians against the "observance of these practices" as such but rather against those that were passing judgment on how to eat, drink, and to observe Holy Days, New Moons, and the "Seventh Day Sabbath".

17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

In verse 17.. Paul is not reffering to the five mentioned practices in the previous verse but to the "regulations regarding these practices that were promoted by the false brethern.

18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

The context is a whole theological discussion when Paul attempts to help the Colossians that were being mislead by these false brethern. These false brethern taught them that they had to call for help from "principalities and powers of angels". Paul is saying in effect why are you trying to seek Salvation (OUTSIDE OF JESUS) by submitting to these "nonsensical rules and regulations" don't you realize that Christ has forgiven you "all of your trespasses" and yes he has even done more than that, he has made null, and void, nailed to his cross the written record of your sins, so keep your eyes on what Christ did for you and don't put your faith in men that will try to beguile you of your reward by intraducing the false worship of angels.

21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?

God's laws are not Commandments and doctrines of men, they are Commandments and Doctrines of God almighty. Neither does God remove guilt by " Cancelling LAWS", so what Paul is condeming is not the principle of "Sabbath keeping" but the perversion.

430 years after Abraham found grace, the law of Moses was added because of transgressions until the seed (Jesus) should come. And now faith is come, we are no longer under the law that was the schoolmaster to bring us upto Christ. Galations 3:17-29.

Yeshua My Salvation> It doesn't say anywere that the Law of Moses was added because of trangression, the Law that i know was added 430 years later was the Administration of the law. Obiviously the death penalty was required for trespassing it..

Galatians 3: 17-19
And this I say, that the Covenant which was confirmed earlier by God in Christ cannot be annulled by the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, so as to make the promise of no effect.

For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. For what then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels through the hand of a mediator.

Were does it say in the context of these passages that the law of Moses was added because of transgression? It doesn't say.. what was added was the penalty that the law demanded for breaking it which was death. Whomever broke it had to pay the consequences one way or another. The Law of Moses is the same Law of God there is no monolistic distinction...

Reading Galations 1,2,3&4 will clearly reveal Paul's teaching.

In fact, for the purpose of warning the early christians some who still kept the feasts of the coming disaster of 70AD, Paul wrote the book of Hebrews in the 60s to urge the early christians to set their hearts on the heavenly reality rather than earthly shadows.

Paul never said that you did ...Plus Paul did not write the book of Hebrews...

Now, if someone uses the feasts to better understand Christ's character, I'm for it. But we are not under the OT law and the feasts therein. God's provisional covenant had given ways to His eternal covenant that was ractified at the cross.

God's (- Torah -) is his very word and yes the feasts continue they are part of his very word (-Torah-) and he does not altar his word because his word is eternal... Remember what Yeshua said in Matt 5:17-20....

the blood of bulls and goats were never meant to take away ones sins (-Yeshua is our perfect sacrifice-). Yeshua's discourse in (-Matt 5:17-20-) is cut and dry. The fulfillment of the LAW and the Prophets. That not one jot or tittle will pass away, from the LAW. Jesus refers to the smallest Hebrew letter and the decorations on some of the letters that can be found in the LAW. Meaning that alot of us as Seventh Day Adventist have a misunderstanding of what Yeshua is saying not one jot or tittle "means the whole LAW", not just the Ten Commandments are binding as we are lead to believe, the whole LAW is.

Yeshua is saying that the LAW as a whole is important and still binding. And that not the slightest bit of the LAW would pass until ALL is fulfilled. Not everything has been fulfilled yet. Yeshua hasn't come back, so it would be safe to say that the LAW is still binding all of it.

The Ten commandments and Sabbath commandment are expressions of Christ's eternal characters. They are not shadows therefore can never be done away.

Well, if you say that the feasts are done away by logic and reason we most conclude that along with it was the Seventh Day Sabbath and thus the 4th Commandment is also abolished with the shadows as you put it. So maybe you have a misunderstanding of what shadows mean..

We can not build a doctrine upon the translation of a simple word or an interpretation of one verse. All the scriptures have to reconcile. The trick of understanding the bible is let one part that's clear shed light on the part that is unclear.

By ignoring lenguistics we are not shedding any light at all. In the Greek the word "Sabbaton" is as i pointed out before in every instance used when speaking of the weekly Sabbath, not yearly not monthly but weekly, look at the Strongs concordence, look at the Greek lexicons we cannot countinue to ignor lenguistics..

Any attempt of bringing the believers of Christ under Mosaic or 'Noahide' laws is a diversion from Jesus's now heavenly ministry and a part of the Jesuit's Futuristic endtime desception.

For SDA friends, Ellen White wrote it plainly in Desire of Ages P84:

So i guess we have to throw away the original languages and guide ourselves by some mistaken view Ellen White had 100 and something years ago...

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

Well i'm going to repeat this guys take a look at the Greek Lexicon for yourselves....

Yeshua My Salvation> Holydays are the yearly Sabbaths which means festivals, the Greek word is translated as feast or festival in every other verse where it is used. Most translations actually translate it as festival in that verse:

http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/gr...mber=1859&l=en

The new moon is the monthly Sabbaths.


http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/gr...mber=4521&l=en

Yeshua My Salvation> Then we have the Sabbath. This is the weekly Sabbath. When we see this Greek word being used in other verses in scripture it refers to the weekly Sabbath always not once does it refer to yearly Sabbaths as most Adventist claim, and if it did Paul would have been needlessly repeating himself by saying yearly Sabbaths, new moons, and yearly Sabbaths.

 

[winslow]

.

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

Studying the feasts can be very rewarding, but those that have wandered from the Adventist message in the past have started their error by pointing to the neccessity of keeping the feasts. Not stating their validity one way or the other, but it seems we need to tread that ground very carefully.

So are we supposed to ignore the original languages to hold on to long charished belifes not founded on the sure word of God?

 

[OntheDL]

Greetings,

[/font]
[/color][/color][/size]
Yeshua My Salvation> It doesn't say anywere that the Law of Moses was added because of trangression, the Law that i know was added 430 years later was the Administration of the law. Obiviously the death penalty was required for trespassing it..

Galatians 3: 17-19
And this I say, that the Covenant which was confirmed earlier by God in Christ cannot be annulled by the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, so as to make the promise of no effect.

For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. For what then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels through the hand of a mediator.

Were does it say in the context of these passages that the law of Moses was added because of transgression? It doesn't say.. what was added was the penalty that the law demanded for breaking it which was death. Whomever broke it had to pay the consequences one way or another. The Law of Moses is the same Law of God there is no monolistic distinction...

Well, all one needs to do is to read the context of this letter to know Paul was comparing the law and salvation by keeping the law with grace and salvation by grace through faith.
It said very clearly: 'what serves the law?' Answer:' It was added because of transgressions til the seed should...'
What law was institute 430 years after God made pact with Abraham? The law of Moses. God wrote the 10 commandments on 2 stone tablets at the same time. However, 10 commandments had been in effect long before that. Proof: sabbath was instituted after creation.
The 10 commandments are perfect and cover every aspect of our lives. Moses added more regulations to rid the Israelites all the paganism they brought with them from Egypt after 400 years of slavery and to bring them closer to God, until the seed should come.

Paul never said that you did ...Plus Paul did not write the book of Hebrews...

Would you say on the levitical priesthood still apply today? What about the the laws on land pertain to Israel, on war? I'd think not.

Most scholars agree Paul wrote Hebrews. The arguments against it are lacking in logic. I'm not going to present the story here.

God's (- Torah -) is his very word and yes the feasts continue they are part of his very word (-Torah-) and he does not altar his word because his word is eternal... Remember what Yeshua said in Matt 5:17-20....

the blood of bulls and goats were never meant to take away ones sins (-Yeshua is our perfect sacrifice-). Yeshua's discourse in (-Matt 5:17-20-) is cut and dry. The fulfillment of the LAW and the Prophets. That not one jot or tittle will pass away, from the LAW. Jesus refers to the smallest Hebrew letter and the decorations on some of the letters that can be found in the LAW. Meaning that alot of us as Seventh Day Adventist have a misunderstanding of what Yeshua is saying not one jot or tittle "means the whole LAW", not just the Ten Commandments are binding as we are lead to believe, the whole LAW is.

Agree. However, there's a difference between the moral law (10 commandment) and law of Moses. 10 commandments are never done away. But the law of Moses was provisional and expired at the cross. You don't have the furnitures, you don't even have the temple and more importantly you don't even the high priest to conduct these rituals. Jesus is our heavenly high priest and He made the blood offerings once for all. How do you keep these laws on the sanctuary services?

Yeshua is saying that the LAW as a whole is important and still binding. And that not the slightest bit of the LAW would pass until ALL is fulfilled. Not everything has been fulfilled yet. Yeshua hasn't come back, so it would be safe to say that the LAW is still binding all of it.

Jesus said all be fulfilled. He was talking about the prophet part of 'law and prophet' that He didn't come to destroy. He fulfilled the requirement of the law for you and me because we can not, we all have sinned.

Well, if you say that the feasts are done away by logic and reason we most conclude that along with it was the Seventh Day Sabbath and thus the 4th Commandment is also abolished with the shadows as you put it. So maybe you have a misunderstanding of what shadows mean..

7th Day Sabbath is not a shadow. 7th Day sabbath was not given as part of Mosaic law nor was it given to the the jews only. 7th Day sabbath was given to all people after creation. 7th Day sabbath is not part of the feast. Annual sabbath/feasts do not always fall on sabbath like Jan 1st do not always fall on the same day of the week.

By ignoring lenguistics we are not shedding any light at all. In the Greek the word "Sabbaton" is as i pointed out before in every instance used when speaking of the weekly Sabbath, not yearly not monthly but weekly, look at the Strongs concordence, look at the Greek lexicons we cannot countinue to ignor lenguistics..

We can not depend on the acuracy of the translation of a word and the selections of the manuscripts as sole evidence of our belief. The bible as whole, yes.

I don't mean any of these as offence to what you believe or what you are acustomed to. But there is inherent danger in this teaching and HRM as a whole.

 

[winslow]

.

 

[tall73]

Well, if you say that the feasts are done away by logic and reason we most conclude that along with it was the Seventh Day Sabbath and thus the 4th Commandment is also abolished with the shadows as you put it. So maybe you have a misunderstanding of what shadows mean..

I have recently come to agree with this statement. It is clear from Col. 2 that the Sabbath mentioned is not the yearly feast Sabbaths.

Wholly apart from Greek you have the fact that the feasts were already mentioned. Plus the order is the same as in the OT listings (albeit in reverse)

Yearly, Monthly, Weekly.

Finally, as Yeshuamysalvation points out, as well as Bacchiocchi and some others, the terms used in the Septuagint for weekly and yearly are different. While it is an easier explanation to say it is speaking of Yearly Sabbaths, it just doesn't fit. Nor does it really make sense of the overall context. While I at first was a bit taken back by the whole thought, what Yeshuamysalvation makes far more sense with the whole of Colossians.

Moreover, you definitely have the Christian community keeping passover for some time, on the traditional date. And you have Paul referencing feasts more than once.

Bacchiocci shows some evidence that EGW herself had no problem with feast keeping in the link I posted, but I will let you all weigh that for yourself.

In any case, EGW didn't settle things without the Bible, so i am not going to either.

Now, having said that, Paul certainly did not approve of keeping the law for salvation, etc.

Nor is there any reason to sacrifice anymore. But the feasts themselves, some of which are not fulfilled yet, could still be a good illustration.

At this point I would say there are only two ways to interpret the evidence in Romans 14, Galatians and col. 2.

1. The Sabbath is gone
2. Both the Sabbath and the feasts were kept, but not with sacrifices, and certainly not for salvation.

 

[tall73]

Studying the feasts can be very rewarding, but those that have wandered from the Adventist message in the past have started their error by pointing to the neccessity of keeping the feasts. Not stating their validity one way or the other, but it seems we need to tread that ground very carefully.

Carefully, I agree.

It is a detailed subject. Far more complicated than sometimes we would like to admit.

Yet, even if in the end we leave the Advent message by our findings, if it is to follow Bible truth, then how could we not? We call people to the truth of the Bible all the time. We must follow it ourselves.

 

[tall73]

Greetings,


Well, all one needs to do is to read the context of this letter to know Paul was comparing the law and salvation by keeping the law with grace and salvation by grace through faith.
It said very clearly: 'what serves the law?' Answer:' It was added because of transgressions til the seed should...'
What law was institute 430 years after God made pact with Abraham? The law of Moses. God wrote the 10 commandments on 2 stone tablets at the same time. However, 10 commandments had been in effect long before that. Proof: sabbath was instituted after creation.
The 10 commandments are perfect and cover every aspect of our lives. Moses added more regulations to rid the Israelites all the paganism they brought with them from Egypt after 400 years of slavery and to bring them closer to God, until the seed should come.

Certainly whatever he was talking about was instituted at Sinai. Actually the whole law was in some ways given because of transgression. it used to be written on the heart, not on stone. And under the new covenant it is again!

Would you say on the levitical priesthood still apply today? What about the the laws on land pertain to Israel, on war? I'd think not.

The levitical priesthood is displaced for our true High Priest, as are the sacrifices, as are the national laws, etc.

Agree. However, there's a difference between the moral law (10 commandment) and law of Moses. 10 commandments are never done away. But the law of Moses was provisional and expired at the cross. You don't have the furnitures, you don't even have the temple and more importantly you don't even the high priest to conduct these rituals. Jesus is our heavenly high priest and He made the blood offerings once for all. How do you keep these laws on the sanctuary services?

Even if there were a temple, sacrifices would be a denial of the true Sacrifice. However, that doesn't mean the feasts might not still be noted, even as the early Christian community continued to keep Passover in some way, simply re-interpreted, with Christ's sacrifice as the center.

7th Day Sabbath is not a shadow. 7th Day sabbath was not given as part of Mosaic law nor was it given to the the jews only. 7th Day sabbath was given to all people after creation. 7th Day sabbath is not part of the feast. Annual sabbath/feasts do not always fall on sabbath like Jan 1st do not always fall on the same day of the week.

True, and Yeshuamysalvation is not saying that the Sabbath is a shadow. But the facts are that it is the weekly Sabbath talked about in that passage. The question is whether the passage is speaking about people who were imposing needless rigors on the body, regulating food and drink etc. on the prescribed holy days. in fact in Galatians and Col. it appears that some of it was a holdover from their pagan days. Paul keeps saying they are going back to their old ways, etc. In fact when he speaks of days and months and years in Galatians he specifically mentions their time BEFORE they knew God. So that is not the feasts. It is their pagan days. Apparently they were reinterpreting some of their old theology/philosophy, and combining it with Judaism to form a new legalistic religion.

Paul was saying don't buy into that. Christ is the fulfillment, so don't let them judge you by their human traditions and philosophy.

We can not depend on the acuracy of the translation of a word and the selections of the manuscripts as sole evidence of our belief. The bible as whole, yes.

But the Bible as a whole shows some continuing interest in the feasts, as well as in this text. Moreover, the new covenant itself was with the Jews for whom the feasts were a LASTING ORDINANCE. So it is not completely clear in that respect.

I don't mean any of these as offence to what you believe or what you are acustomed to. But there is inherent danger in this teaching and HRM as a whole.

I am sorry, but as much as I would love to believe the way i used to, that this is a yearly feast Sabbath, the evidence doesn't allow. So I must deal with what is in the text. And as I said, there are only two options.

 

[tall73]

No, we should always be searching the scriptures, I was only pointing out that others that have gone down that road ended up in apostacy. The point was to do it carefully. We must ensure we don't trample those beliefs that ARE founded on the sure word of God. New truths do not contradict old truths, they bring more light to them. Again I am not denying or validating the neccessity of keeping the feasts, I am only pointing to where it brought others.

yes, I have met many people who were confronted with a seeming difficulty to which there was an answer, but they never looked for it. Once they found out something they believed was not right, they threw it all out.

We can't do that. But we also have to be honest with the text.

 

[OntheDL]

I have recently come to agree with this statement. It is clear from Col. 2 that the Sabbath mentioned is not the yearly feast Sabbaths.

Wholly apart from Greek you have the fact that the feasts were already mentioned. Plus the order is the same as in the OT listings (albeit in reverse)

Yearly, Monthly, Weekly.

Finally, as Yeshuamysalvation points out, as well as Bacchiocchi and some others, the terms used in the Septuagint for weekly and yearly are different. While it is an easier explanation to say it is speaking of Yearly Sabbaths, it just doesn't fit. Nor does it really make sense of the overall context. While I at first was a bit taken back by the whole thought, what Yeshuamysalvation makes far more sense with the whole of Colossians.

Moreover, you definitely have the Christian community keeping passover for some time, on the traditional date. And you have Paul referencing feasts more than once.

Bacchiocci shows some evidence that EGW herself had no problem with feast keeping in the link I posted, but I will let you all weigh that for yourself.

In any case, EGW didn't settle things without the Bible, so i am not going to either.

Now, having said that, Paul certainly did not approve of keeping the law for salvation, etc.

Nor is there any reason to sacrifice anymore. But the feasts themselves, some of which are not fulfilled yet, could still be a good illustration.

At this point I would say there are only two ways to interpret the evidence in Romans 14, Galatians and col. 2.

1. The Sabbath is gone
2. Both the Sabbath and the feasts were kept, but not with sacrifices, and certainly not for salvation.

Greetings,

The feasts such as Day of atonement, Feast of Tabernacle and Eighth of Assembly are shadows of future events and are not fulfilled. They are good illustration and study of the plan of salvation. But they are not to be performed. The center piece of all feasts is the blood sacrifice that was fulfilled. Any other offerings (meal and drink offerings) are not accepted by God without the accompany of blood offering as was the case with Cain.

We don't have to go into the argument of single or plural form sabbath to understand what Paul was saying. In verse 18, Paul wrote: 'let no man beguile you ... of worshipping of angels...' Paul was not advocating for us to break the 1st commandment but rather saying let no man judge the new believers' faith base on outward apperance.

Paul was not, in this letter, referring to their past pagan background. He was referring to the jewish regulations. This was consistant with all of his teaching begins with the council of Jerusalom recorded in Acts 15. This is also clear in Reading Col 2. Notice he mentioned again circumcision made without hand. The clearest indication is in vs 20, 21 & 22

Col 2
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?

Clearly "touch not, taste not, handle not" are parts of jewish laws, not part of 10 commandments nor of pagans. The pagan cared not of such things.

We need to read Galations again to hear what Paul was clearly saying.
Gal 1
13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
Gal 2
3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage
Galations 4
9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

True, Ellen White never say against keeping the feast and she encouraged us to study these them. But that's different from keeping them. How are we to keep them while the sacrifice can and should no longer be performed? And aren't we supposed to keep the circumcision, agricultural, civil laws...to keep the whole law of Moses?

Lastly, about the sabbath(s)...a single word does not make the case. There is a third alternative to the two options.

 

[OntheDL]

Certainly whatever he was talking about was instituted at Sinai. Actually the whole law was in some ways given because of transgression. it used to be written on the heart, not on stone. And under the new covenant it is again!

The moral laws were not added because of transgressions. They reflect Christ's character. They are eternal, not given at Mount Sinai. Besides the proof of the sabbath commandment, Joseph would not commit adultry because he would not sin against God. So the moral law was revealed (through understanding God's character) to the believers long before they were explicitly written down at Sinai. However the same can not be said about the rituals.

The levitical priesthood is displaced for our true High Priest, as are the sacrifices, as are the national laws, etc.

Even if there were a temple, sacrifices would be a denial of the true Sacrifice. However, that doesn't mean the feasts might not still be noted, even as the early Christian community continued to keep Passover in some way, simply re-interpreted, with Christ's sacrifice as the center.

Yes. But this contradict the belief that the feasts must be kept since sacrifice is the center piece of all feasts.

True, and Yeshuamysalvation is not saying that the Sabbath is a shadow. But the facts are that it is the weekly Sabbath talked about in that passage. The question is whether the passage is speaking about people who were imposing needless rigors on the body, regulating food and drink etc. on the prescribed holy days. in fact in Galatians and Col. it appears that some of it was a holdover from their pagan days. Paul keeps saying they are going back to their old ways, etc. In fact when he speaks of days and months and years in Galatians he specifically mentions their time BEFORE they knew God. So that is not the feasts. It is their pagan days. Apparently they were reinterpreting some of their old theology/philosophy, and combining it with Judaism to form a new legalistic religion.

Paul was saying don't buy into that. Christ is the fulfillment, so don't let them judge you by their human traditions and philosophy.

Agree. No arguements.

But the Bible as a whole shows some continuing interest in the feasts, as well as in this text. Moreover, the new covenant itself was with the Jews for whom the feasts were a LASTING ORDINANCE. So it is not completely clear in that respect.

Nowhere in the bible, it says the feasts are lasting ordinance. It did say the law of Moses which the feasts are defined in is a schoolmaster until Jesus should come.

In fact, sanctuary study itself shows clearly, the feasts are overwritten by daily sacrifices. Jesus's sacrifice overwrote/fulfilled the sacrificed required for every feast.

Read Acts 15. Paul was dead set against judaizing the christians. He brought the case to the church Jerusalem. The early church concluded the new christians are free from the law of Moses except fornication, idols and eat meat with blood. Read James conclusion:

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.
22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.

 

[tall73]

Greetings,


Paul was not, in this letter, referring to their past pagan background. He was referring to the jewish regulations. This was consistant with all of his teaching begins with the council of Jerusalom recorded in Acts 15. This is also clear in Reading Col 2. Notice he mentioned again circumcision made without hand. The clearest indication is in vs 20, 21 & 22

i have no doubtthat he was also referring to the Jewish services. In fact, we contend that he referred to all of them....yearly, monthly and weekly. But the context also mentions non-Jewish ideas:

COL 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

I think they were aware of philosophy and human tradition. Nor was the Jewish system mere philosophy, though Paul obviously sees that with the death of Christ the sacrificial part changed.

Moreover, the restrictions you mentioned, do not taste, etc. were not just common to Judaism. In fact some see here a proto-gnosticism, etc. In any case worship of angels, bodily punishment etc. are not Jewish notions. And it specifically again says they are traditions of men, referring back to the statement in 2:8.

The Jewish elements seem to be mixed also with other elements.

We need to read Galations again to hear what Paul was clearly saying.
Gal 1
13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
Gal 2
3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage

no problems so far....

Galations 4
9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

now, let's look at the context...

GAL 4:8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you know God--or rather are known by God--how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

The elements they are returning to (the same phrase as in Col.) could not in fact be the Jewish rites, because in their former life they were slaves to idols who were not gods. They did not know God at all. They are turning back to astral powers, to elements, by blending these elements into a strict judaism, with the intent of earning salvation through rigors of the flesh etc.

Indeed Paul was right to tell them he was wasting his efforts, for they turned back to simply a modified form of their pagan days.

True, Ellen White never say against keeping the feast and she encouraged us to study these them. But that's different from keeping them. How are we to keep them while the sacrifice can and should no longer be performed? And aren't we supposed to keep the circumcision, agricultural, civil laws...to keep the whole law of Moses?

I will for the time being leave EGW out of this. There are some statements by her that seem to indicate the possibility of something different. But I have not examined all that yet, and the biblical evidence is the primary in any case.

And one can make rememberance of the feast without the sacrifices. It would certainly be a reworking of course, just as Jesus reworked the Passover into the communion service. The bigger point is that the church there apparently was keeping them, whether we decide to or not. But it should give us pause to reflect on the possibility.

Lastly, about the sabbath(s)...a single word does not make the case. There is a third alternative to the two options.

Please share your other option. Because he clearly says them in the order expected when referring to the weekly Sabbath. And why would he say:

yearly, monthly, yearly

rather than

yearly, monthly, weekly, as all indications suggest?

Now, the only other option I see, and it has problems as well, is that the Sabbath, along with the others ARE shadows (which seems contradictory with the Sabbath preceding the sacrificial system), of which th reality is in Christ, so we can keep them or not. This of course would fit with Romans 14 if you equate the two, which is a bit of a jump. But I simply mention it as a possibility.

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

i have no doubtthat he was also referring to the Jewish services. In fact, we contend that he referred to all of them....yearly, monthly and weekly. But the context also mentions non-Jewish ideas:



I think they were aware of philosophy and human tradition. Nor was the Jewish system mere philosophy, though Paul obviously sees that with the death of Christ the sacrificial part changed.

Moreover, the restrictions you mentioned, do not taste, etc. were not just common to Judaism. In fact some see here a proto-gnosticism, etc. In any case worship of angels, bodily punishment etc. are not Jewish notions. And it specifically again says they are traditions of men, referring back to the statement in 2:8.

The Jewish elements seem to be mixed also with other elements.



no problems so far....



now, let's look at the context...



The elements they are returning to (the same phrase as in Col.) could not in fact be the Jewish rites, because in their former life they were slaves to idols who were not gods. They did not know God at all. They are turning back to astral powers, to elements, by blending these elements into a strict judaism, with the intent of earning salvation through rigors of the flesh etc.

Indeed Paul was right to tell them he was wasting his efforts, for they turned back to simply a modified form of their pagan days.



I will for the time being leave EGW out of this. There are some statements by her that seem to indicate the possibility of something different. But I have not examined all that yet, and the biblical evidence is the primary in any case.

And one can make rememberance of the feast without the sacrifices. It would certainly be a reworking of course, just as Jesus reworked the Passover into the communion service. The bigger point is that the church there apparently was keeping them, whether we decide to or not. But it should give us pause to reflect on the possibility.



Please share your other option. Because he clearly says them in the order expected when referring to the weekly Sabbath. And why would he say:

yearly, monthly, yearly

rather than

yearly, monthly, weekly, as all indications suggest?

Now, the only other option I see, and it has problems as well, is that the Sabbath, along with the others ARE shadows (which seems contradictory with the Sabbath preceding the sacrificial system), of which th reality is in Christ, so we can keep them or not. This of course would fit with Romans 14 if you equate the two, which is a bit of a jump. But I simply mention it as a possibility.

Firstly i want to congratulate tall 73 for nailing this thread so very accurately with his past five posts... buddy you nailed it...

Now i'm going to add, that there is no such thing as a distinction between the Law of Moses and God's law, the law of Moses is God's law. The scriptures teach that God gave the Law of Moses.....(Ezra 7;6 and Neh 8:1 John 7:19 -)... And in the same twist Moses gave the Law of God - (Neh 10:29 - 2 Chron 34:14)...

Plus one more thing before i go the Two Commandments Yeshua mentions....(Matt 22: 36 - 40-) are not contained in the decalouge, they are cotained in the Book of the Law...
(God's Torah-) Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5.....

God gave One law for everyone not Two .....


Exodus.12:49 49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Num.15:14-16 15 One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD.
16 One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.


Deut.29:10-15 10 ¶ Ye stand this day all of you before the LORD your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel,

11 Your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp,
from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water: 12 That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the LORD thy God, and into his oath, which the LORD thy God maketh with thee this day:

13 as That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

14 Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath;

15 But with him that standeth here with us this day before the LORD our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day:


Isaiah.56:2-8 2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.

3 ¶ Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.

4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;

5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be
accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

8 The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.


One wonders why do some still keep on insisting that kosher laws and the Tithing principle should be kept... If they believe the ceremonial laws are abolished? What happened to Homosexuality, beastiality, fornication, drunkeness, and all of the other gross sins that are not contained in the decalouge but are contained in the book of the Law of Adonai. Are we supposed to believe that they are no longer sins if we are to practice them? If they are abolished then we can certainly practice those acts without transgressing...

And finally, not one person was able to address our aurgument with a logical progression concerning those posts that i posted on the greek languages that sucessfully refute the assertions that were made by those that don't share our view.

I'm really sorry, but it's not as simple as someone just saying it and it becoming true all of a sudden... I quoted (James Strong -), Who is a respected scholar of the languages and he defines Col 2:16 differently.

I have offered an explanation backed up with scripture, definition and a logical progression and the best that those that oppose our view can come up with is that it's not true just because it's not true. No argument has been presented... Why should we just believe someone's opinions over the sure word of God? Again, i quoted a respected scholar and his researched definition in a widely accepted authoritative book on the original languages.

The scriptures have been presented and the meanings of the word have been discussed. Those that don't share our view have to come up with more than a personal opinion repeated over and over...

Thanks guys for posting your opinions...

God bless you all...

In Christ,

Ralph..

 

[winslow]

.

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

Another verse some people use to try and say the sabbath was abrogated at the cross. The usual Adventist response is that the sabbaths reffered to are annual sabbaths and not the weekly seventh day sabbath. This interpretation is questionable and can't stand to critical analysis. The important thing to remember is to take the verse in it's context. The issue Paul was addressing here is not whether or not the sabbath was abrogated, but how it is being observed. Paul was addressing a heresy that had fallen on the local church. They had relegated the sabbath day to a day of false humility and angel worship (v18) and putting regulations on food and drink (v 21). The leaders of the church were saying you had to observe the sabbath in a certain manner [not according to scripture]. It wasn't a matter of "to observe or not to observe", but a matter of "how to observe". The sabbath day not only points forward to the rest at the second coming(shadow), it is symbolic of our recreation and redemption. Hebrews 4:9 tells us that there remains a (sabbath) rest for the people. The word translated rest is used only in this place in the NT. In other writings it always denotes the seventh day sabbath rest.

Thanks Winslow, excellent post!!!