Law, commands, or instructions?

[Verifyveritas76]

@Slumberfreeze Nicely done.

@Mark C Those things are irrelevant to the statement and do nothing to discredit it.
It's funny, when I just went back and looked at the passage, this jumped out at me.
For if ye thoroughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye thoroughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbour;
If ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt:
Then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gaveto your fathers, for ever and ever.
Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit.
Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not;

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the resemblance to the Big 10? Also, maybe I missed it but I saw no reference to the Law except the negative declaration above and the Big 10. On the other hand, the entire passage is about the spoken word of God. Coincidence?

 

[Mark C]

In Mathew 21:1-8, Jesus's disciples were being jammed up by the Pharisees for doing what was unlawful on the Sabbath, namely picking grain to eat.

Says who? The Pharisees, but not His instruction. (There is a LOT on this in the Torah, including how the 'corners' of a field were to be LEFT for the poor and strangers.) Over and over again, He makes the point that it is THEIR 'law' concerning (for example) the Sabbath that they were concerned about, thus "making the commandments of YHVH of no effect" by their traditions. (And, they were "hypocrites" for so doing, because they KNEW BETTER...and were "adding to" what He had Written about Sabbath. (there are over 1700 'laws' added by men to the Sabbath, not counting changing the day, but only a handful of unique commandments in all of the Bible ).

...There is a whole class of people who are allowed to break the law...

Ouch. That's a non-sequitor. One does not "break" INSTRUCTION, but some just ignore it. There are special COMMANDMENTS (etc) for kings, men, women, priests, and so on. It doesn't mean they "break" something that doesn't apply to them. And when we seek to 'choose life' there will be times when we use the brains He gave us to interpret His instruction to do just that. (Obvious example: 'ox in a ditch'. There are many "good deeds" that might otherwise constitute "work" on Sabbath that are a "mitzvah". Healing among them.)

The showbread is interesting, and makes the same point. David and his men were not priests (kohenim), and were not supposed to eat it. But a pre-eminent commandment of Scripture is to "choose life" (Deut. 30, etc). It is never a violation of His instruction to preserve life, and when there appears to be a contradiction that is how we are instructed to resolve the issue.

Now look again at the disciples eating grain...

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Another interesting document to read is the Epistle of Barnabas. It gives a perspective on the Mosaic dietary restrictions that aligns perfectly with the story of Peter with the cloth of unclean beasts. It also has a very real perspective of the First Century Christianity reason for a first day Sabbath. Yet another can of worms.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Says who? The Pharisees, but not His instruction. (There is a LOT on this in the Torah, including how the 'corners' of a field were to be LEFT for the poor and strangers.) Over and over again, He makes the point that it is THEIR 'law' concerning (for example) the Sabbath that they were concerned about, thus "making the commandments of YHVH of no effect" by their traditions. (And, they were "hypocrites" for so doing, because they KNEW BETTER...and were "adding to" what He had Written about Sabbath. (there are over 1700 'laws' added by men to the Sabbath, not counting changing the day, but only a handful of unique commandments in all of the Bible ).

The showbread is interesting, and makes the same point. David and his men were not priests (kohenim), and were not supposed to eat it. But a pre-eminent commandment of Scripture is to "choose life" (Deut. 30, etc). It is never a violation of His instruction to preserve life, and when there appears to be a contradiction that is how we are instructed to resolve the issue.

Now look again at the disciples eating grain...

Is it about choosing life, not according to the Law. It's pretty specific
Exodus 31:14,15
Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doethany work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 16:27&28
And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none.
And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?
(Note, they were only getting enough to eat that day, and it was only the size of coriander seed, much smaller than corn)

Lev. 24:7
And thou shalt put pure frankincense upon each row, that it may be on the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto the LORD.
Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant.
And it shall be Aaron’s and his sons; and they shall eat it in the holy place: for it is most holy unto him of the offerings of the LORD made by fire by a perpetual statute.
Numbers 4:7&15
And upon the table of shewbread they shall spread a cloth of blue, and put thereon the dishes, and the spoons, and the bowls, and covers to cover withal: and the continual bread shall be thereon:
And when Aaron and his sons have made an end of covering the sanctuary, and all the vessels of the sanctuary, as the camp is to set forward; after that, the sons of Kohath shall come to bear it: but they shall not touch any holy thing, lest they die. These things are the burden of the sons of Kohath in the tabernacle of the congregation.

The sons of Kohath were the designated family to care for the shewbread and utensils of the tabernacle. The shewbread was covered up so that they couldn't touch it lest they die once it was on the table or it was being moved. And it's no big deal if David and his men eat it? Say what? For someone who is so specific and strict on the dietary laws, I'm surprised you don't use the same level of proof for your statements above.

 

[Mark C]

The trouble with the story of Acts 10 "As Twisted" is that people don't read the punchline. Kefa ('Peter') TELLS us what the moral is:
It's not about "food" ('cause he said he never eats things that are "not food" -- it's about MEN!!!
Acts 10:28 -- the claim is that it's "unlawful" to "keep company" with pagans. "But Elohim has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean."

He is NOT talking about food! But YHVH used the dream to make the point in a dramatic way.

Here, however, is the Big Lie that taking that whole thing out of context to claim that it somehow "changes the law" just plain overlooks;

This guy -- Kefa/Peter -- walked with, talked with, ate with, studied with the very Word Made Flesh Himself!

And yet, in ALL that time -- and in the years since, too, long after presumably, had the "law been done away with" this guy says "not so...for I have NEVER eaten [things that His instruction says is "not food".] What -- didn't he get the memo?

I don't try to tell people what to eat. Most won't listen. I simply urge them to read what He says, and what He says has NOT changed, or been "done away with," but also promises WILL have consequences. Choose life.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

It's not about "food" ('cause he said he never eats things that are "not food" -- it's about MEN!!!

Exactly!!! If its not about food, what's the issue? We just have to avoid unclean men!!! Or wait, according to Peter we don't have to avoid unclean men. Now it all makes perfect sense!

Is it just me or did something just change?
BTW. That's exactly what the Epistle of Barnabas explains in great detail and it also explains why God told Noah that everything that moves is food for you. Don't be that kind of man, but do reach that kind of man with the Gospel.

 

[Mark C]

And it's no big deal if David and his men eat it?

I never said it was "no big deal". It was a big enough deal that Yahushua made a point of it!

 

[Verifyveritas76]

In David's day it was a huge deal, because he disregarded the Law. In Christs' day it was still a huge deal, according to Exodus 16. Pre Legislated Law. How is it that God is not displeased with the disciples for following Christs example? They were certainly not the Son and were certainly subject to the Law, unless of course, being followers of Christ freed them from the ordinances of the Law that was contrary to them. Seems to follow the promise that Christ's burden is lighter and His yoke is easier.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I never said it was "no big deal". It was a big enough deal that Yahushua made a point of it!

The Law says its death. No wiggle room

How about the guy that was picking up sticks on the Sabbath. The Law stated that they couldn't kindle a fire on the Sabbath. He hadn't even gotten to the point where he was rubbing two sticks together and the sentence was still death. I'm sorry, but I just cant verify your statement about choosing life over death. If that was their perspective, they would have given him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he was just collecting them for a day when the Law allowed him to kindle a fire.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

The Big Lie that I've seen is that Jesus was this strict Torah observer and never deviated in one iota. It's a great starting point and would be believeable if not for the record.

Did he subject himself to it? Yes! But ONLY where it did not conflict with the directives from His Father. Thus, he only observed it to prove a point.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Says who? The Pharisees, but not His instruction. (There is a LOT on this in the Torah, including how the 'corners' of a field were to be LEFT for the poor and strangers.) Over and over again, He makes the point that it is THEIR 'law' concerning (for example) the Sabbath that they were concerned about, thus "making the commandments of YHVH of no effect" by their traditions. (And, they were "hypocrites" for so doing, because they KNEW BETTER...and were "adding to" what He had Written about Sabbath. (there are over 1700 'laws' added by men to the Sabbath, not counting changing the day, but only a handful of unique commandments in all of the Bible ).

And yet none of this is what Jesus chose to answer the Pharisees with here. He didn't contest that the act was unlawful. If anything He reaffirmed it with the scripture He quoted.

Ouch. That's a non-sequitor. One does not "break"

Very well. A whole class of people who may profane the Sabbath, if that sits better.

It is never a violation of His instruction to preserve life, and when there appears to be a contradiction that is how we are instructed to resolve the issue.

Now look again at the disciples eating grain...

I truly do not think that the disciples are shown to be in desperate need of sustenance here. Even if they hadn't eaten for several days, one more day wasn't going to kill them. Which for the disciples to have not eaten for any great length of time seems... unlikely. It was well known that unlike John's disciples, Jesus and His disciples did not do much fasting.

 

[FollowingHim]

All the disciples did was pick up food and put it in their mouths. This is not work, it is what everyone does on the Sabbath, and every day. In this case they picked the food up directly from the source, but it's still not work. If you've ever eaten grain directly from the crop, and tried to harvest that same crop manually with a scythe, you'll vividly know the difference!
A distinction between the two is drawn in Scripture, in that it is lawful to pick anyone's grain or fruit and eat it as you walk through their property, but theft to put any in a bag. Slightly different matter but it illustrates that there is a clear difference between snacking and harvesting.
So like Mark, I fail to see how they disobeyed Torah in the first place. They only disobeyed the Pharisees ultra-conservative interpretation of Torah.
Having said that, Yeshua's explanation of the matter doesn't clearly align with this option only, it is strange that He didn't just say that they weren't sinning so the Pharisees were wrong.

 

[Mark C]

Having said that, Yeshua's explanation of the matter doesn't clearly align with this option only, it is strange that He didn't just say that they weren't sinning so the Pharisees were wrong.

But He did call them 'hypocrites'. Over and over and over again. (Not to mention 'sons of vipers' and worse...)

The point is simple, but deliberately overlooked. There's man's so-called-law, and there are His "statutes, judgments, and commandments," which apply to those intended. (Come on, does ANYBODY here still think that "male and female He created them" doesn't mean there are differences? And that some things apply to women, or to men, but not vice-versa?)

The undeniable statement is made in Matthew 5:17-19. He refers to the same two witnesses called in Deuteronomy 30:15 and 19 and then says unequivocally that "not one yod or tiddle" of His Word will pass away, become "void", of no effect, so long as they still exist. This is not hard, and He is not a liar.

Furthermore, and here is the logical disconnect: If He HAD DONE SO, He could NOT have been the promised Messiah! (See Deuteronomy 7, 12, 13, and most of the witness of the prophets. The point of the story is to show Who He Is. And if He can't keep His own Word, As Written, or tries to change it at ALL, then He IS a liar, and the Truth is not in Him. Which is why Shaul/Paul warned in II Cor. 11:4 that he was already seeing indications that people would fall for that Big Lie.)

[re: Sabbath 'additions' ] And yet none of this is what Jesus chose to answer the Pharisees with here. He didn't contest that the act was unlawful.

Do you really think they didn't know what He was talking about? They knew what was Written better than most who read that story today, and knew WHY He was calling them out, clearly questioning their presumed authority to 'make law'. Some weren't happy about it, evidently, either.

Which brings me to this, and a distinction that is usually [deliberately] overlooked by the "torah-less" (Matthew 7:21-23). There is a big difference between ignorance and deliberate Rebellion. (Have those who teach that 'the law is done away with' because of His 'sacrifice' EVER studied His Torah enough to note that there IS no specified "sacrifice" (korbon) for DELIBERATE rebellion to His statutes, judgments, or commandments? That there is atonement and restitution to be made for wronging one's neighbor, but the korbon to YHVH (Lev. chapter 5, for example) is specifically for "unintentional sin". It's kind of hard to keep doing something, make a chattat offering, and then claim you didn't know better. Which is the point of Romans, especially the parts of chapter 6 that are so often twisted. It's why he makes the point those who KNOW better, once having come to a knowledge of the Truth, are held to it, and shouldn't put Him to death again.)

How about the guy that was picking up sticks on the Sabbath. The Law stated that they couldn't kindle a fire on the Sabbath. He hadn't even gotten to the point where he was rubbing two sticks together and the sentence was still death.

Excuse me, but "duh". You really don't think that guy knew EXACTLY what he was doing? Or that the obvious lesson was lost on everyone who saw it?

I am personally convinced that plagues are coming to this world (in fact, 7 times 7 times 7... see Leviticus 26, and I talked about the implications in detail, just a couple weeks back --
http://markniwot.com/?p=1500 "Bechukotai" -- the last portion in Vayikra/Leviticus

...and yes, some will come through "food" that is in fact NOT 'food')

and that it has never been more important to "come out of " a world that walks in rebellion to Him. How many times does He have to warn us?

 

[Slumberfreeze]

So like Mark, I fail to see how they disobeyed Torah in the first place. They only disobeyed the Pharisees ultra-conservative interpretation of Torah.
Having said that, Yeshua's explanation of the matter doesn't clearly align with this option only, it is strange that He didn't just say that they weren't sinning so the Pharisees were wrong.

Exactly! Any of us would have gone the straightforward route of arguing whether or not there was an infraction, and probably won our case before a jury of our peers because the Pharisees were clearly being ridiculous. My conviction is that the narrative is whatever Jesus said it was, not what we think it should have been. The details of the question of whether or not picking a grains of wheat are not the issue at this time because Jesus didn't make it the issue. It IS strange that Jesus picked what seems to be the mother of all convoluted arguments to use instead of the common sense one. I would argue that every time we identify a strangeness in Scripture, that is where the research is supposed to begin. Usually I see the opposite occurring: The study takes a strange turn, and that ends the study and the decision is made to double down on what is already understood.

But He did call them 'hypocrites'. Over and over and over again.

Yes, but not here He didn't. That the majority of Pharisees are hypocrites is a given, because Jesus said it so often. However, Jesus does not at this time make their hypocrisy an issue. My point at this time is what is Jesus' point at that time?

The point is simple, but deliberately overlooked. There's man's so-called-law, and there are His "statutes, judgments, and commandments,"

But is that Jesus' point in this passage? Could you at all defend that with anything Jesus said here?

The undeniable statement is made in Matthew 5:17-19. He refers to the same two witnesses called in Deuteronomy 30:15 and 19 and then says unequivocally that "not one yod or tiddle" of His Word will pass away, become "void", of no effect, so long as they still exist. This is not hard, and He is not a liar.

Yes, and Jesus is showing the Pharisees that this particular cluster of Laws DO NOT APPLY to Him or His disciples, and backing it up with scripture. Instruction is not broken if instruction tells you when you break it. If the glass says "Break glass in case of emergency", are you breaking the instructions by literally breaking the instructions when there is an emergency? Well... sort of... but only a Pharisee would make that argument.

Do you really think they didn't know what He was talking about?

I can barely find two instances to rub together in the Gospels where Jesus was speaking, and everyone knew what He was talking about. Ascribing ignorance to the Pharisees is not a great leap for me, in this moment. As a matter of fact, if they had any idea what He was on about when He ends His speech with "For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath"... They did a remarkable job of muting their reaction. Generally speaking they should have been rending their clothes and gnashing their teeth at His supposed blasphemy.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!

Jesus never broke His own Laws. He didn't abide by the Pharisees' interpretation of His Laws. From the get go He was preaching against lawlessness. He said Himself a house divided can't stand.

Why the hayhira would God make imperfect commands we're supposed to ignore? Where and how is this spoken word delivered? How is it tested? This is ludicrous. Why do you even worship a God who's word can't be trusted? Please show me a direct and simple teaching that tells me to ignore God's Commands if someone speaks something different? Your whole reasoning is highly speculative and based on exotic assumptions and hard squinting. You have to invalidate almost all of scripture to get where you're going. The sacrifice isn't worth the gain. Especially when there is a much more logical and simpler solution.

 

[Mark C]

But is that Jesus' point in this passage? Could you at all defend that with anything Jesus said here?

[emphasis added]

Does He have to repeat Himself each and every time He makes an obvious point? Would the reporter have necessarily recorded the whole conversation AGAIN?

Do a search for how many times YHVH says "these are MY moedim" ('set-apart, or holy, days) that you are to keep "forever", "throughout your generations," "in all your dwelling places," and STILL the church did away with them, calls them "jewish" instead of "His", and not too long after Nicea in 325 AD even made keeping His Feasts a capital offense! (Yes, I imply there was twisting, editing, coercion, and outright lying going on. "Nuthin' new under the sun.")

Yes, He repeats Himself a LOT, because men still ignore Him, and then say He didn't make the same repetitive warning EVERY single time. Scripture is consistent. To claim He is a liar and the Truth is not in Him is to take pieces out of context, and that He failed to repeat Himself ENOUGH.

No offense, but I am not going to keep repeating what He tried so hard to make clear, either.

As Yahushua said when He was so accused,

"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me: for he wrote of Me.
But if ye believe not his Writings, how shall ye believe My words?" (John 5:47)

How much more so, when people have been led not to even believe Moses's words?

I'm ALWAYS happy to answer serious questions about Scripture when the goal is to understand what He actually Wrote, in context. And there are literally hundreds of hours of MUCH more in-depth Scripture teachings on my website, and this topic was a major part of those over the last month or two as well, when the subject was the final chapters of Leviticus (Vayikra).

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Does He have to repeat Himself each and every time He makes an obvious point? Would the reporter have necessarily recorded the whole conversation AGAIN?

Eh? So are we assuming that Jesus did make the point you're alluding to here and it simply wasn't recorded, or that He said it so often He didn't say it at all because there was no need? Either way... the fact remains that He said some stuff here that WAS recorded and not a whole lot of attention is being paid to it.

To claim He is a liar and the Truth is not in Him is to take pieces out of context,

Stahp.

No offense, but I am not going to keep repeating what He tried so hard to make clear, either.

No offense taken.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!

I feel like I've raised some blood pressure today.

Why the hayhira would God make imperfect commands we're supposed to ignore?

Ok there were some rapid fire q's here so I'm only gonna answer them brief. I don't think the commands were not perfect and we aren't supposed to ignore them. The Law tells you what to do if you hate your wife, Paul tells us that we are to Love them with perfect selfless love. That doesn't mean we are ignoring the law, but being mindful of where it is being superseded by grace. The Law is still perfect.

Where and how is this spoken word delivered? How is it tested?

Since that's not what I'm saying, the genesis of that doctrine will not be found.

Why do you even worship a God who's word can't be trusted?

It should be clear that I believe that God's word can and must be trusted. That should be clear.

Please show me a direct and simple teaching that tells me to ignore God's Commands if someone speaks something different?

No, I'll stick with the example given. In part because, well, it was the example Jesus actually gave. Also it is a doctrine that is not found in just one place but is repeated, so we have this matter established by two or more witnesses.

Your whole reasoning is highly speculative and based on exotic assumptions and hard squinting. You have to invalidate almost all of scripture to get where you're going.

Does it seem so? If my dance seems extravagant, you'll have your opportunity in a moment to show me up.

Especially when there is a much more logical and simpler solution.

And here it is. Please explain to me how Jesus' defense in verses 3-4, and 5-6 are relevant to the disciple's case, and vindicates the disciples in a manner that satisfies the Law.

Show me your simple logical solution, for I much desire to see it.

 

[Mark C]

Show me your simple logical solution, for I much desire to see it.

Last time, 'cause I'm starting to doubt that desire. I won't (again) ask things like how the "foundations can be destroyed" (of His Instruction) by He Himself, if in fact He IS Who He foretold, and indeed DID mean what He said.

Just this easy one.

Explain how He can NOT be "a liar" if He meant what He said, right up front in His VERY first public address -- the "Sermon on the Mount" -- in Matthew 5:17-18, for those who claim He did something He said He would NOT:

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from [torah], till all be fulfilled."

Can we at least all agree that heaven and earth are still here? So if He changed so much as "one jot or one tittle" -- Who is the liar?

Bonus points for explaining how Proverbs 28:9 (mentioned here, but conveniently ignored) does NOT say what it so clearly does, or how Shaul's letter to Titus (3:9) "...avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law [uh, whose?] for they are unprofitable and vain," is NOT somehow saying "don't read Scripture". He did, after all, also say that ALL of it was valuable for correction, reproof, and "instruction in righteousness" [which is what torah-obedience means!]

There comes a time to put away childish things, and "lies inherited from our fathers".

And if it seems like I'm hard on 'teachers' who break 'even the least of His commandments' and then "teach OTHERS to do so" --
the clue is right there in the next verse (Matthew 5:19). And He emphasizes the point in the END of that same speech, Matthew 7:21-23. To be told "I never knew you," is not something I'd wish on anybody here.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Last time, 'cause I'm starting to doubt that desire.

Ah, sir. That was directed towards Zec.... and you didn't even address what I was looking for him to address.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

All the disciples did was pick up food and put it in their mouths. This is not work, it is what everyone does on the Sabbath, and every day. In this case they picked the food up directly from the source, but it's still not work. If you've ever eaten grain directly from the crop, and tried to harvest that same crop manually with a scythe, you'll vividly know the difference!
A distinction between the two is drawn in Scripture, in that it is lawful to pick anyone's grain or fruit and eat it as you walk through their property, but theft to put any in a bag. Slightly different matter but it illustrates that there is a clear difference between snacking and harvesting.
So like Mark, I fail to see how they disobeyed Torah in the first place. They only disobeyed the Pharisees ultra-conservative interpretation of Torah.
Having said that, Yeshua's explanation of the matter doesn't clearly align with this option only, it is strange that He didn't just say that they weren't sinning so the Pharisees were wrong.

@FollowingHim, I can see your point about the snack versus harvest or theft. However, I cannot find any positive mention in OT where anyone did this on a Sabbath. The only place I found was the mention in Exodus 16 where it is a decidedly negative mention. If your comparison were correct, they could have gathered and eaten the manna where they gathered it, however, in this instance the manna wasn't provided on the sabbath specifically because they were supposed to have prepared the day prior.

Do a search for how many times YHVH says "these are MY moedim" ('set-apart, or holy, days) that you are to keep "forever", "throughout your generations," "in all your dwelling places," and STILL the church did away with them,

Just finished doing this. Found it in Exodus 12. Found it twice in the same passage in Leviticus 23. Once specifically for Pentecost, the other generically about the feasts. However, the word that is misleadingly translated into the English "for ever" (owlam) actually refers to an indefinite point in time that is simply not visible to the present day audience. It is not an indefinite, it is currently invisible definite. Hmmm.
I found it also interesting in Exodus 23 that all the feasts are mentioned without the reference to forever. This is also the passage that refers to the "Angel" that Israel is to be subject to. Coincidence?
Found it another time in 2 Chron 2:4 but it is included with everything else that happens in the House. It's interesting how when the House goes away, so do the appointed feasts. If these feasts were so important to observe forever, why weren't they observed during the 40 years wandering in the wilderness. Was Moses and Joshua not following the Law?

Aside from the passages in Jer. 7:22 and Is. 1 and 65, I also found Lam. 2:5-7. Hmm. No mention of the church here! Seems as if you've misplaced the blame.
The Lord was as an enemy: he hath swallowed up Israel, he hath swallowed up all her palaces: he hath destroyed his strong holds, and hath increased in the daughter of Judah mourning and lamentation.
And he hath violently taken away his tabernacle, as if it were of a garden: he hath destroyed his places of the assembly: the LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the indignation of his anger the king and the priest.
The Lord hath cast off his altar, he hath abhorred his sanctuary, he hath given up into the hand of the enemy the walls of her palaces; they have made a noise in the house of the LORD, as in the day of a solemn feast.
Hosea 2:9-11. Therefore will I return, and take away my corn in the time (mow'ed) thereof, and my wine in the season (mow'ed) thereof, and will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakedness.
And now will I discover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of mine hand.
I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

The Lord giveth (establisheth) and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord whether you agree with it or not. Eventually, they will be re established in the place where He chooses to place His name. Zechariah makes this clear. However, the only one that He re-establishes is the Feast of Tabernacles. Why only that one? Maybe because the others have reached their previously determined time?