Torah keepers and sacred name.

[Mark C]

If not "one jot or one tittle" has passed from the Torah, this is clearly unavoidable and non-negotiable. As I understand it, this would mean that the New Covenant is but an extension to the Old Covenant and we, as believers today, are still under the entire Mosaic Law. I don't agree with this view, but I understand it.

I am definitely not in the preterist/all_fulfilled camp, David, so can't agree with that aspect of your comment.

But as to the above, I don't believe that we are "under" anything, any more than we are "under" the Law of Gravity. But it still exists, still applies, as do the blessings and curses He taught us about - and will, until "heaven and earth pass".

(I won't go through the whole list you referenced. But I note instead that Yeshua did not "do away" with "the Law", or "nail it to the cross", or any such thing. He redeemed us from the CURSE of rebellion, of willful disobedience to His teaching and instruction -- which was death. I've already noted that Yeshua NEVER changed His Sabbath, and nowhere in Scripture can such a change be found -- even less so than the elevation of monogamy to an Idol, arguably. In both those cases, and many others, it was a change instituted by "the Church" at a MUCH later date; the traditions of man continuing to replace the commandments of God.

Just one example - which has been discussed elsewhere here before, so I won't repeat at length. Yeshua's sacrifice did not change the DESIGN of our bodies, or of pigs or shellfish. God made the latter to be scavengers, to clean up toxins and poisons and absorb them in their flesh, and that has not changed. Pork STILL contains well-named enzymes like cadaverene and putrescene. Pig DNA is STILL unique in that it is so close to ours that far more disease organisms can "jump the species barrier" and cause us harm than any other creature now considered "food" by some. Almost every virulent flu epidemic or pandemic can be traced to that source. The stories of deaths attributed to shellfish similarly attests to the fact that God knows more about what He designed us to eat than the gourmets on FoodTV.

I long ago concluded that when Torah-literate Jews like Paul used the Hebrew, or even Greek, words for "food", or "meat", they knew that their intent simply did NOT include things that God clearly did not intend to be "food", any more than we would mean to include dog feces in our definition when we use the English word food. But you could probably eat 'em, if you choose to. As for me and my house...

My own old joke still summarizes the point. Eating pork or shellfish won't affect what happens when you die - just how long it may take.)

He says that He gave us His teaching and instruction for our own good, for blessing. I have found that to be very true.

As to the "Old" and "New" distinctions - I am not a fan of that pop theology terminology, either. There have been a number of Covenants that God made with man, from Adam, to Noah, to Abraham, not to mention the one that He told Jeremiah of. The fact that man has "broken" them does not, and never did, mean that God does not continue, as always, to honor His Covenants.
(Seen any rainbows lately?)


Our God is a Covenant-keeper; His Word is True; He changes not.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't believe that we are "under" anything, any more than we are "under" the Law of Gravity. But it still exists, still applies, as do the blessings and curses He taught us about - and will, until "heaven and earth pass".

Okay, let me rephrase. What I'm hearing you say is that every element (every jot and tittle) of the law still applies to New Covenant believers in Messiah. In other words, God wills us to obey Mosaic Law, just as if we were physical Israel prior to Messiah's arrival. Would that be a correct assessment of your view?

Pork STILL contains well-named enzymes like cadaverene and putrescene. Pig DNA is STILL unique in that it is so close to ours that far more disease organisms can "jump the species barrier" and cause us harm than any other creature now considered "food" by some.

Would it then be safe to say that you view the dietary laws as eternal moral laws reflective of His character? Therefore we are to follow the same dietary regulations given to Moses, if I'm understanding you correctly. I only ask because I view God's moral character as something that never changes, so His views of right and wrong cannot change back and forth. If something is sin today, it was always sin. If something is righteous today, it was always righteous. Is this your understanding as well?

Gen. 1:29: "And Elohim said, "See, I have given you every plant that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed, to you it is for food." (prior to the fall: fruit from plants and trees)

Gen. 3:19: "By the sweat of your face you are to eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are, and to dust you return." (after the fall: still no mention of any animal life given for food)

Gen. 6:21: "As for you, take of all food that is eaten and gather it to yourself. And it shall be food for you and for them." (nobody was eating the animals on this voyage)

Gen 9:2-3: "And the fear of you and the dread of you is on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the heavens, on all that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea -- into your hands they have been given. Every moving creature that lives is food for you. I have given you all, as I gave the green plants." (after the flood: all living creatures, everything that rode on the ark and everything in the sea, became food for mankind. Noah even knew the difference between clean from unclean animals yet God gives ALL of them, "every moving creature", as food for man)

Lev. 11:46-47: "This is the Torah of the beasts and the birds and every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth, to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the living creature that is eaten and the living creature that is not eaten." (With the Mosaic law, the clean and unclean distinction was specifically applied to food laws for Israel, permitting only clean animals to be eaten.)

It seems like the Scriptural evidence is that God permitted different things to be eaten at different points in time. At no point did Mosaic dietary requirements ever apply to gentiles prior to Messiah, but aren't all moral laws applicable to all men at all times? Wasn't adultery and sodomy and murder still condemned and punished by God regardless whether Israel or gentile? It just seems to me that regardless of the possible health benefits of eating or not eating specific foods, we're not really talking about eternal law here. Physically clean and unclean foods have as much in common with morality as physical circumcision does. These were given to physical Israel to teach spiritual realities, were they not?

Eating pork or shellfish is probably very unhealthy, but I could make the same argument against margarine or sodas or red dye #5. Does potentially unhealthy mean sinful? If something is truly sinful, then we, as believers, must condemn the sin in other believers. Paul wouldn't have allowed the man to continue laying with his father's wife without a Godly condemnation of his sin. And if it's not sin, then we're talking about degrees of values, not absolute morals. Anyway, just a thought...

David

 

[^_^]

That's part of the reason I don't 'call someone out' for eating certain creatures, because it's not a moral issue.
Yet I would exhort that a creature who at one point Yahweh called an abomination should not be eaten by a person who says they are in like mind with Yahweh. If he veiwed eating them as an abomination, then what must he think we are thinking when people consume them?

 

[Anonymous]

That's part of the reason I don't 'call someone out' for eating certain creatures, because it's not a moral issue.
Yet I would exhort that a creature who at one point Yahweh called an abomination should not be eaten by a person who says they are in like mind with Yahweh. If he veiwed eating them as an abomination, then what must he think we are thinking when people consume them?

I can understand that, just as long as we're clear we're not talking about "sin". I view smoking in much the same way. It's unhealthy, can shorten our lifespan, has the potential to offend in our culture, and can set a bad example for others. Yet I wouldn't think that smoking, in and of itself, is sinful. It's a values issue and one which changes depending on the person and culture in question. It may not be wise to smoke, but that doesn't make it a sin for everyone else. We each answer to our Master for our own attitudes and actions.

Regarding being an abomination before God, I can't imagine God presenting Peter with a married woman in a blanket and commanding him to lie with her and commit adultery, just to communicate a new spiritual truth. Yet God told Peter to do this three times regarding his eating of unclean animals. I can find no example anywhere in Scripture of God ever commanding anyone to do anything sinful, neither in dream or reality. If it's an "abomination" for us today to eat pork or shellfish, then it's a "sin". How can God say something is an abomination for us but yet it's not REALLY sinful?? So regardless what God was using the clean/unclean distinction to communicate to Peter, clearly something changed regarding the status of what He Himself once called "unclean". The primary issue was not food, but the implications in God's analogy still apply. Either the wall of separation between clean and unclean has been removed or it hasn't.

Would we say the same is true of physical circumcision? Were all those men who lived prior to Abraham sinning by not slicing off a piece of their skin, or was remaining uncircumcised never a sin in the first place? God has the right to require different things from different people, but when we're talking about sin and righteousness and morals, we're talking about absolutes that do not change over time.

David

 

[Mark C]

Thoughtful reply, David...

Okay, let me rephrase. What I'm hearing you say is that every element (every jot and tittle) of the law still applies to New Covenant believers in Messiah. In other words, God wills us to obey Mosaic Law, just as if we were physical Israel prior to Messiah's arrival. Would that be a correct assessment of your view?

I don't "call anyone out", either. I choose not to eat pork, or shellfish, or smoke for that matter, simply because I love Him, and He says "If you love Me, keep My commands." (He also says, elsewhere, to be kadosh because He is kadosh; separate is probably a more comprehensible word there than "holy", which has come to have little meaning to many OUTSIDE that context. Likewise, we are even to attempt to be "perfect". I don't claim any of those, but do try to "study", to show myself approved, and be obedient to Him to the best of my understanding.)

As I've said above, I DO believe there is a blessing for obedience, because He promised one. The curse associated with eating unclean things is obvious, as well. Likewise the curse for "disobedience" to the equally-still-extant law of gravity.

So, no - I don't accept the assessment that God "wills us to obey"; He always gives us a choice. But His "teachings and understandings" (the "school master", if you prefer) still apply, too. I do my best to obey because I love My Master, and pray that He will someday tell me, "Well done, good and faithful servant."

Would it then be safe to say that you view the dietary laws as eternal moral laws reflective of His character?

No. They reflect His DESIGN, just as do the laws of motion, "Maxwell's equations", the DNA double-helix, and the beauty of a flower or the night sky.

[Oh, and as to Peter, the interpretation of the dream is given right in the story. God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. It was those PEOPLE who had been redeemed, and cleansed, by the Savior.)

Furthermore, you may note I have resisted using the word "sin" in this discussion. (Even male homosexuality, which I WOULD advise every believer against, regardless of what some "churches" may teach, is called abomination rather than something which translates as sin. Seems like a stronger word to me anyway.)

Finally, as to the "food" question again. I do neither believe or claim that it is a "salvation" issue - it is about blessing and obedience. I note that the standard for resolving apparent "conflict" in Torah has always been (Deut 30) to "choose life"! Were I ever stranded on a mountain after a emergency landing in a plane, without any clean food, I would eat (and give thanks!) for anything He brought - including buffalo chips if I had to! :lol:

And I would pray that He keep us safe from disease, too.

So I'll try my own summary, David. Yeshua railed against those who "added to" or "subtracted from" His Word (and from Pharisees to Popes, that problem has not gone away), said that He didn't come to change any of His Word until "heaven and earth pass", and that those who break His commandments and "teach others to do so" would be called "least in the kingdom".

He gave us His Word for our good.

All of it is

given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...

[II Tim 3:16]

(And note that Paul was referring here to the only "scripture" that then existed - the "Torah, Writings, and Prophets" -- the same thing Yeshua was quoting when He said It is Written.)

 

[Brian]

Shalom everyone ! I'm new to this forum . I've spent 23 years learning and keeping Torah and our fathers set apart name ,and just a few months ago the truth about polygamy jumped up and hit me right between the eyes so to speak. I was studying another issue about marriage involving my daughter that was tearing our little assembly apart . The issue about what makes one married ? A minister and 2 witnesses or becoming one flesh? As Yahuah would have it I came across this web sight and the announcement for the Oregon retreat a mere couple of weeks away and 30 to 40 miles away from home. Long story short I got to meet Nathan and his 2 lovely wives and their children along with another pro polygamy family that lives within driving distance. Yah's timing is perfect. Brian

 

[Anonymous]

That language would have been Hebrew or an Aramaic version of it. It certainly didn't contain a word 'theos'. Nor was any messiah named Jesus as the J wasn't invented until about 150 years ago or so.

Randy,
This reminded me of the brief conversation we had at the retreat about the theory that the Messianic scriptures were originally written in Aramaic. I just wanted to post that Wikipedia link I mentioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_primacy

Hello Brother,

There is a lot to consider about this issue. It should be recognized that although most scholars agree that Aramaic was spoken by Jesus, these same scholars do not believe that the Aramaic texts are more accurate than the Greek texts. Why? It may not mean that they are correct, but it should push us to study this issue very carefully, examining all the real evidence and arguments before embracing the Aramaic Primacy viewpoint, don't you agree?

There's abundant evidence that Jesus also spoke Greek as well as Aramaic. And Aramaic is not Hebrew, either.

A good book on this is available online:

http://www.sacrednamemovement.com/NTisGreekContents.htm


John

 

[Anonymous]

"Heaven and earth" have certainly not passed; indeed, there is much of prophecy yet to be fulfilled. (I am one who teaches that He fulfilled His Spring Feasts perfectly during His first coming; I believe will will see the Fall Feasts, starting with Trumpets and culminating with Tabernacles and a joyous feast, in the future.)

I'm confused. You're saying that "Heaven and earth have certainly not passed". Yet Jesus is quoted in Matt. 5:18 that "till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done." If "heaven and earth" (whatever that might mean) have not passed away, then surely neither has the slightest bit of the Torah. If we take Jesus at His Word, then every single element of Torah would have to still be applicable to us today. Is this how you see things? I don't see any way around Jesus' words if you assume "heaven and earth" did not pass away yet. My eschatology is very different from the usual pop theology but I believe He fulfilled ALL the Torah and ALL the Prophets. Otherwise, we are still waiting for fulfillment and not all has been fulfilled/completed. I don't see how we can have it both ways.

David

Actually, the Heaven and Earth don't have to pass, in order for the Law to be done and pass away. That's a misunderstanding of the Greek grammar. Essentially, all it is saying is that it is as unlikely for Heaven and Earth to pass as it is for the Law to pass away until it is fulfilled. It's a Greek idiom for the inconceivable.


John

 

[Anonymous]

But as to the above, I don't believe that we are "under" anything, any more than we are "under" the Law of Gravity. But it still exists, still applies, as do the blessings and curses He taught us about - and will, until "heaven and earth pass".

(I won't go through the whole list you referenced. But I note instead that Yeshua did not "do away" with "the Law", or "nail it to the cross", or any such thing. He redeemed us from the CURSE of rebellion, of willful disobedience to His teaching and instruction -- which was death. I've already noted that Yeshua NEVER changed His Sabbath, and nowhere in Scripture can such a change be found -- even less so than the elevation of monogamy to an Idol, arguably. In both those cases, and many others, it was a change instituted by "the Church" at a MUCH later date; the traditions of man continuing to replace the commandments of God.

Just one example - which has been discussed elsewhere here before, so I won't repeat at length. Yeshua's sacrifice did not change the DESIGN of our bodies, or of pigs or shellfish. God made the latter to be scavengers, to clean up toxins and poisons and absorb them in their flesh, and that has not changed. Pork STILL contains well-named enzymes like cadaverene and putrescene. Pig DNA is STILL unique in that it is so close to ours that far more disease organisms can "jump the species barrier" and cause us harm than any other creature now considered "food" by some. Almost every virulent flu epidemic or pandemic can be traced to that source. The stories of deaths attributed to shellfish similarly attests to the fact that God knows more about what He designed us to eat than the gourmets on FoodTV.

I long ago concluded that when Torah-literate Jews like Paul used the Hebrew, or even Greek, words for "food", or "meat", they knew that their intent simply did NOT include things that God clearly did not intend to be "food", any more than we would mean to include dog feces in our definition when we use the English word food. But you could probably eat 'em, if you choose to. As for me and my house...

My own old joke still summarizes the point. Eating pork or shellfish won't affect what happens when you die - just how long it may take.)

He says that He gave us His teaching and instruction for our own good, for blessing. I have found that to be very true.

As to the "Old" and "New" distinctions - I am not a fan of that pop theology terminology, either. There have been a number of Covenants that God made with man, from Adam, to Noah, to Abraham, not to mention the one that He told Jeremiah of. The fact that man has "broken" them does not, and never did, mean that God does not continue, as always, to honor His Covenants.
(Seen any rainbows lately?)

Our God is a Covenant-keeper; His Word is True; He changes not.

Two errors in your thinking: (1) That gentiles were ever under the Mosaic Law or the Covenant God made with Israel--gentiles are not, and (2) That the Covenant God made with Israel is eternal and unconditional--it wasn't, it had conditions which were broken by all but Jesus.

The Law has passed away along with the conditional Old Covenant God made with Israel (whose conditions Israel broke many times), and gentiles have never been under the Law. To be "under the Law" means it still exists and applies. We are all "under" the law of gravity. You simply misunderstand the terminology of Scripture. What alternative explanation do you have for "under the Law", if not that it still applies? That is the accepted meaning of the phrase...


John

 

[^_^]

Abundant evidence Yahushua spoke Greek? Yes, what we have is recorded in Greek, that proves nothing.
In 2000 years we'll have evidence he spoke English while he walked the earth, LOL. Yep, King James Old English, sure enough :lol:

 

[Mark C]

Two errors in your thinking: (1) That gentiles were ever under the Mosaic Law or the Covenant God made with Israel--gentiles are not, and (2) That the Covenant God made with Israel is eternal and unconditional--it wasn't, it had conditions which were broken by all but Jesus.

Hardly; wrong on both counts.

1) Some of us pray to be "grafted in". There's too else much wrong with that simplistic criticism to deal with in a single post; from Ezekiel's "two stick" prophecy to lost northern tribes to the prophecies about stirring them "to jealousy", etc.

And the "under the law" oversimplification is precisely that. It was the CURSE of the law that was the issue, not God's "teaching and instruction that Paul referred to as the 'schoolmaster'.

"If you love Me, keep My commands," seems like a pretty "reasonable service" to me.

2) Another "error in your thinking", and assumptions. I never claimed that those Covenants were "unconditional"; what do you think the word "obedience" means?

...That is the accepted meaning of the phrase...

The "accepted meaning" is all too often WRONG. Witness the idolatry associated with Monogamy Worship, for just one topical example. Be like the Bereans.

 

[Anonymous]

Jesus is quoted in Matt. 5:18 that "till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done." If "heaven and earth" (whatever that might mean) have not passed away, then surely neither has the slightest bit of the Torah. If we take Jesus at His Word, then every single element of Torah would have to still be applicable to us today. Is this how you see things? I don't see any way around Jesus' words if you assume "heaven and earth" did not pass away yet.

Actually, the Heaven and Earth don't have to pass, in order for the Law to be done and pass away. That's a misunderstanding of the Greek grammar. Essentially, all it is saying is that it is as unlikely for Heaven and Earth to pass as it is for the Law to pass away until it is fulfilled. It's a Greek idiom for the inconceivable.

John

Matt. 5:18: "For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done."

You're going to have to help me out with this one then. You say "Heaven and Earth don't have to pass, in order for the Law to be done and pass away", yet Jesus said that "till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle SHALL BY NO MEANS PASS" from the Law. Both of these statements cannot be true, and I have read this verse every imaginable way and keep coming to the exact same conclusion. I can see no way to read this other than as it is written. What form of Greek grammar makes this verse say the exact opposite of what it says in English? If "heaven and earth" have not passed away, then neither has the slightest element of the Law.

Truly, I say to you... (absolute verification of truthfulness)
Till heaven and earth pass (until X passes)
not the slightest bit shall pass from the law. (none of Y shall pass)

What am I missing here?

 

[sixth_heretic]

I pity the fool that try to mess with face

 

[The Duke Of Marshall]

What am I missing here?

David,
I read it the same way that you do. However, some people may be looking at it from a preterist viewpoint. I only barely know anything about preterism, but if you want to know more about it you could contact Pastor Randy or Mariachu. After getting a little bit of knowledge about preterism then you might understand better where they're coming from.

 

[Anonymous]

What am I missing here?

David,
I read it the same way that you do. However, some people may be looking at it from a preterist viewpoint. I only barely know anything about preterism, but if you want to know more about it you could contact Pastor Randy or Mariachu. After getting a little bit of knowledge about preterism then you might understand better where they're coming from.

Yeah, that's the way I understand it as well. Preterism (as opposed to futurism) is the only consistent way I can read all the imminence passages in the New Testament. Many places in the Old Testament Scriptures, when the terms "heaven" and "earth" are used in apocalyptic speech, they refer to God's judgment coming against a nation. For example, in Lev. 26-14-20, when God is spelling out what will happen if the nation of Israel fails to do all He commands, He says "And I shall break the pride of your power, and shall make your heavens like iron and your earth like bronze."

In Isaiah 1:1-2, God says "Hear, O heavens, and listen, O earth", when He is clearly speaking to national Israel. He's not carrying on a conversation with the natural universe but with the powers and people of Israel. In Isaiah 51, when God is describing how He took the children of Israel out of Egypt and formed them in the wilderness into a covenant nation, He says, "with the shadow of My hand I have covered you, to plant the heavens and lay the foundations of the earth, and to say to Tsiyon, You are My people." Israel obviously constitutes a "heaven" and "earth".

There are numerous such passages of "heaven and earth" being used in Scripture to describe the fall of a nation. Isaiah 13:1 clearly says that God is describing the judgment that is about to fall on Babylon. Yet look at the apocalyptic terminology used in verses 9-13. "See, the day of Yahweh is coming, fierce, with wrath and heat of displeasure, to lay the earth waste, and destroy its sinners from it. For the stars of the heavens and their constellations do not give off their light. The sun shall be dark at its rising, and the moon not send out its light. And I shall punish the world for its evil, and the wrong for their crookedness, and shall put an end to the arrogance of the proud, and lay low the pride of the ruthless. I shall make mortal man scarcer than fine gold, and mankind scarcer than the golf of Ophir. So I shall make the heavens tremble, and the earth shake from her place, in the wrath of Yahweh of hosts and in the day of the heat of His displeasure.

This sure sounds like world wide destruction, but He earlier states that He is speaking about the destruction of Babylon. If I was a Babylonian living in those times, it would most certainly seem to me like my world was destroyed. Look at Isaiah 13:17: "See, I am stirring up the Medes against them, who do not regard silver, and as for gold, they do not delight in it." We know this was an historical event that took place in 539 BC when the Medes destroyed Babylon. In verse 6, the destruction is said to come from God, yet the Medes constituted the means by which God accomplished His task. The physical heaven and earth were still in tact, but for Babylon, they had collapsed.

This is the nature of apocalyptic language throughout Scripture. This is the way the Bible discusses the fall of a nation. In Isaiah 24-27, we see the invasion of Israel by Nebuchadnezzar, but look at the terminology used to describe the event in Chapter 24: "the earth is completely emptied and utterly plundered...The earth shall mourn and wither, the world shall languish and wither, the haughty people of the earth shall languish...a curse shall consume the earth, and those who dwell in it be punished. Therefore the inhabitants of the earth shall be burned, and few men shall be left...The earth shall be utterly broken, the earth shall be completely shattered, the earth shall be fiercely shaken. The earth shall stagger like a drunkard. And it shall totter like a hut, and its transgression shall be heavy upon it, and it shall fall, and not rise again." Notice how many times God refers to Israel as the "earth".

There are far too many examples to cover right now (see Isaiah 34 and the description of the fall of Edom: "And mountains shall be melted with their blood. And all the host of the heavens shall rot away. And the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll, and all their host fade like a leaf fading on the vine, and like the fading one of a fig tree. For My sword shall be drenched in the heavens. Look, it comes down on Edom, and on the people of My curse, for judgment." or look at Nahum 1 and the judgment against Ninevah: "Yahweh has His way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of His feet. He is rebuking the sea and dries it up. And all the floods He has made dry, Bashan and Karmel are withering, and the flower of Lebanon is languishing. Mountains have shaken before Him, and the hills have melted. And the earth is lifted up at His presence, and the world and all who dwell in it.")

Yet when we come to the New Testament, we make these apocalyptic passages mean the destruction of the universe. Those who recognize the clear time statements throughout the New Testament and know their history of those fulfillments during the seven year Jewish war recognize that the old "heaven and earth" have violently passed away (and precisely within the generation that Jesus said would witness it) and the new "heaven and earth" are here now and forever. We live in the Messianic age, not the Mosaic age. We live in what Scripture referred to as "the age to come". If we view Daniel and Revelation as speaking of events thousands of years in their future, we make a mockery of Jesus' clear words throughout the New Testament. We also fall victim to the incorrect understanding that Mosaic Law is still in effect for God's people, since "one jot or one tittle" must not have passed from the Torah if their "heaven and earth" survived beyond 70 AD.

A proper understanding of eschatology (end times) can be more controversial than patriarchy and polygyny combined, but the reason for this web site is to help one another learn and grow in His Word. I encourage everyone to take from this what they can and to "Do your utmost to present yourself approved to Elohim, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly handling the Word of Truth."

In His love,
David

 

[Joe]

Our family has learned a lot during the past 18 months or so about the Sabbath, feasts, the place of the law in the believer's life, and more. We've been so blessed as we walk in what God is showing us and have had many questions answered as God helps us to understand more.

We have known several people in this group for several years (in person) and met several more at the retreat in Charlotte last fall. It is a great group of people to hang out with.

Joe

Hello Joe,

1. So, why do you believe that the feasts are still to be followed?
2. Do you have any passages that show that the Sabbath was for worship?

1. As for following the feasts, for starters, Jesus and the early church observed them, even well after the resurrection (there are many references to the feasts throughout Acts and the New Testament). Secondly, there is a lot of significance in the feasts that reveal and reflect God's plan for humanity. Also, our family has been greatly blessed as we've celebrated the feasts with other like-minded believers. Our family has only been observing/celebrating the feasts for the past year and half, and already our kids look forward to the Feast of Tabernacles more than any other time of the year.

2. As for worship on the Sabbath, there's Ex 31:16 "The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant" (celebrating sounds like it would include worship to me), Lev 23:3 "There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, a day of sacred assembly", Deut 5:12 “Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you" (my understanding of keeping something holy is keeping it dedicated to God, which implies special focus on God, including worship), and Isa 56:6-7 "And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to serve him, to love the name of the Lord, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant— these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” Of course, "as was his custom" (Lk 4:16) Jesus went to the synagogue on the Sabbath and taught (Mk 6:2, Lk 4:31, Lk 6:6). And Paul did the same (Acts 17:2). In addition, the special feast days were referred to as the Sabbaths of the Lord (Lev 16:31, Jn 19:31).

I don't regard observing the feasts and the Sabbath as a legalistic, "Old Testament Jewish custom" as many Christians commonly assume, but as a part of God's blessings for us. For that matter, as my understanding of the law has changed the past couple of years, I've begun to see how all of the law was intended by God as a blessing and not a burden (Deut 11:27, Deut 28, Ps 119, Lk 11:28, Jas 1:25). The reason Jesus came down hard on the Pharisees was not their keeping of God's law, but all their manmade additions to the law that made it an unbearable burden.

And as far as the change in the day of worship from the Sabbath to Sunday, it doesn't take much research to figure out that that change occurred because of efforts of the church in the 300's to distance themselves from any practices associated with Jews, as they were persecuted severely during that time. In spite of what many Christians assume about the change from Sabbath to Sunday, it is well documented that that change was undertaken by the "authority" of the Catholic church in the 300s, rather than something started in the New Testament times. It's not that I consider worship on Sunday to be wrong in itself (we currently still fellowship with a church that meets on Sunday), but I would say it is just a manmade tradition from the Catholic church that has carried over into the Protestant church in spite of a lack of biblical basis.

 

[sixth_heretic]

I have really wanted to celebrate those holidays could you send me information on when they are. I have been going crazy not knowing when they are or what to do when celebrating them. Dude if you do this you will be an answer to my prayers.

 

[^_^]

http://www.karaite-korner.org/holiday_dates.shtml
That's my favorite place to find dates, they believe in literal reckoning as recorded in Scripture, with the feasts starting the night before at sundown.
No, they aren't messianic, as it's a form of Judahism, yet since they take the scriptures literally, it's a reliable resource

 

[DaPastor]

Hi Joe...

I am not trying to be contentious, but what like to see how you think about these things.

1. As for following the feasts, for starters, Jesus and the early church observed them, even well after the resurrection (there are many references to the feasts throughout Acts and the New Testament). Secondly, there is a lot of significance in the feasts that reveal and reflect God's plan for humanity. Also, our family has been greatly blessed as we've celebrated the feasts with other like-minded believers. Our family has only been observing/celebrating the feasts for the past year and half, and already our kids look forward to the Feast of Tabernacles more than any other time of the year.

1. Do you have the references to the feasts in the New Testament?
2. Do the feasts you practice come from the Bible or from post AD70 Judaism?
3. I understand the typology of the feasts as a teaching tool if they come strictly from Scriptures.
4. What exactly does the family look forward to concerning the feasts?

2. As for worship on the Sabbath, there's Ex 31:16 "The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant" (celebrating sounds like it would include worship to me), Lev 23:3 "There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, a day of sacred assembly", Deut 5:12 “Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you" (my understanding of keeping something holy is keeping it dedicated to God, which implies special focus on God, including worship), and Isa 56:6-7 "And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to serve him, to love the name of the Lord, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant— these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” Of course, "as was his custom" (Lk 4:16) Jesus went to the synagogue on the Sabbath and taught (Mk 6:2, Lk 4:31, Lk 6:6). And Paul did the same (Acts 17:2). In addition, the special feast days were referred to as the Sabbaths of the Lord (Lev 16:31, Jn 19:31).

1. How do you deal with the Scriptures written in the New Testament that seem to suggest that it is no longer necessary to practice Sabbath keeping and the feasts (Col. 2:14-16; Gal. 4:10; Rom. 14:5)?
2. Yes, there are references to Jesus following the Law. However, I do not recall any believers meetings taking place by Paul on the Sabbath, just evangelism. If you have any that I am unaware of could you give those references please? Furthermore, it seems that the believers met on Sunday, the Lord's Day (Acts 206-7). It is also interesting to note that, evidently, all the churches of Galatia and the church of Corinth gathered together on Sundays too (1 Corinthians 16:1-2).

I don't regard observing the feasts and the Sabbath as a legalistic, "Old Testament Jewish custom" as many Christians commonly assume, but as a part of God's blessings for us. For that matter, as my understanding of the law has changed the past couple of years, I've begun to see how all of the law was intended by God as a blessing and not a burden (Deut 11:27, Deut 28, Ps 119, Lk 11:28, Jas 1:25). The reason Jesus came down hard on the Pharisees was not their keeping of God's law, but all their manmade additions to the law that made it an unbearable burden.

I do not believe following the Law is legalistic, in and of itself, unless one is doing it to earn God's favor. I believe in the continuity of the Law for all times unless Scripture affirms a modification. For example, under the Law the one who had sex with his father's wife that Paul addresses in the book of Corinth would have been stoned under the Law, but Paul does not exhort the Church of Corinth to have this man arrested and stoned. So, we know God has modified some things!

And as far as the change in the day of worship from the Sabbath to Sunday, it doesn't take much research to figure out that that change occurred because of efforts of the church in the 300's to distance themselves from any practices associated with Jews, as they were persecuted severely during that time. In spite of what many Christians assume about the change from Sabbath to Sunday, it is well documented that that change was undertaken by the "authority" of the Catholic church in the 300s, rather than something started in the New Testament times. It's not that I consider worship on Sunday to be wrong in itself (we currently still fellowship with a church that meets on Sunday), but I would say it is just a man made tradition from the Catholic church that has carried over into the Protestant church in spite of a lack of biblical basis.

1. I am assuming that you believe that because worship changed from the Sabbath to Sunday, this is why Christians worship on Sunday today? Do you have historical evidence of this?
2. What if it could be proven historically that the Church always worshiped on Sunday before the 300's, would this make a difference to you in practice?
3. Did the Catholic Church exist as an authority as early as the 300's?

 

[Mark C]

Pastor Randy --

I don't have a lot of time right now to answer all your questions in the detail they deserve, but since we also practice God's feasts, and can witness to the great blessings of obedience to Him, I'll take a pass at a couple of your questions.

1. Do you have the references to the feasts in the New Testament?

Sure - Pesach/Passover is referenced repeatedly (and at least once in the KJV the reference was changed to Ishtar/Astarte/Easter!); Pentecost is Shavuout; and the upcoming "Wedding Feast" of the Lamb is obviously Sukkot/Tabernacles. I cannot help but note as well the references to 'trumpets', the first of the fall feasts. Note there that essentially the only commandment is that we blow, and learn to recognize the sound, I submit, of a shofar or trumpet. That seems important.

2. Do the feasts you practice come from the Bible or from post AD70 Judaism?

When in ANY doubt, we go directly to the Bible. (There are in general, two summaries of the dates and details of each of His appointed times in Torah, as well as other historic [i.e., Pesach] and/or prophetic references.)

Some of the customs in Rabbinic Judaism are Biblical, others are not. Even in some of the latter cases, however, there may be wonderful insight to be gained from understanding. The Messianic seder points out some of the prophetic symbolism associated with Yeshua's sacrifice. The matzah, "pierced and striped", and the affikomen, is a wonderful example. The beautiful movie, "The Messiah", with Nick Mancuso, makes many of these points, and we find it a blessing to show during the Passover season - especially to Christians who are unfamiliar with many such details.

4. What exactly does the family look forward to concerning the feasts?

We look forward to the seder meal, as I mentioned above. I cannot help but see the Feast of Trumpets as a time of anticipation for the Fall Feasts, and as a prophetic taste of the "season" which now seems to draw so close. Although Atonement is a challenge, and a reminder of how we have fallen short, I DO see that time and the responsibility of forgiveness as a special occasion for doing that which SHOULD be done constantly, but nevertheless is not. And Tabernacles is a joy.