Posted on 09/30/2005 9:26:35 AM PDT by HarleyD
No, I'm not saying that at all. I’m saying the Galatians were pagan Gentiles who converted to Christianity. Some Judaizers sought to have them follow the Law of Moses in the act of circumcision and other traditions. What is especially interesting is that Paul compares his Jewish customs to the pagan Gentiles. He makes the case that if he rejected his Jewish customs under the Law why on earth would pagan Gentiles seek to adopt those practices?
Please consider Paul’s comparison recognizing he is speaking to pagan Gentiles :
Here he compares the Gentile Titus and his example of not having him circumcised.
The Judaizers were guilty of wanting the Gentile Christians to follow the Law even though they were living like Gentiles (e.g. under grace-not under the law).
Our righteousness does not come from “things” we carry out. It comes from Christ.
The sons of Abraham are those who live by faith – not works of the Law. (From a previous discussion)
The “days and months and seasons and years” Paul is referring to is the Jewish traditions that the Gentile Christians felt they needed to uphold-not pagan Gentile holidays.
Paul wants them to become as he, one who no longer follows the Law.
Paul felt very strongly that observing the Law, especially circumcision, was wrong and had grave words for those who taught such things.
Paul in Gal 6:12 states the primary reason for the Judaizers insistance on following the law was simply so that they could all get along and harmonize with other Jews. Well, sorry. Paul didn’t buy into that nonsense. He welcomed persecution.
You can't compromise your faith for the sake of getting along. We are not under bondage. We are under our Lord Jesus' righteousness and NOTHING we can do will change that. Our works are to be done in secret so our heaven Father will award us. Any outward apperance is show whether it be circumcism, religious celebrations, or whatever. These do not do anything for our righteousness as some would have us believe.
From post #486:
Actually, there's no evidence that He did any such thing. It doesn't seem that the meal Jesus had with His disciples was a passover meal.
Except of course, for:
Mt 26:17 Now on the first day of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying to Him, "Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?"Just how twisted and anti-Jewish does your theology have to be to try to deny that the Last Supper was a Passover Seder?Mt 26:18 And He said, "Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, 'The Teacher says, "My time is at hand; I will keep the Passoverat your house with My disciples."'"
Mt 26:19 So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover.
Mr 14:12 Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the Passover lamb, His disciples said to Him, "Where do You want us to go and prepare, that You may eat the Passover?"
Mr 14:14 "Wherever he goes in, say to the master of the house, 'The Teacher says, "Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passoverwith My disciples?"'
Mr 14:16 So His disciples went out, and came into the city, and found it just as He had said to them; and they prepared the Passover.
Lu 22:7 Then came the Day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passovermust be killed.
Lu 22:8 And He sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passoverfor us, that we may eat."
Lu 22:11 "Then you shall say to the master of the house, 'The Teacher says to you, "Where is the guest room where I may eat the Passoverwith My disciples?"'
Lu 22:13 So they went and found it just as He had said to them, and they prepared the Passover.
Lu 22:15 Then He said to them, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passoverwith you before I suffer;
the greek word used to decide the bread, artos, always refers to leavened bread in the NT
Manifestly untrue, since in Mk. 2:26 it is used of the showbread in the Tabernacle, which was always unleavened:
The Bread on the Table. It is in the passage from Leviticus that we find the particulars of the loaves "And thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof: two tenth deals shall be in one cake. And thou shalt set them in two rows, six on a row, upon the pure table before the Lord. 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." (Lev. 24: 5-9.)See also The Passover Bread - Which Bread did Jesus Eat before he died?(1) The loaves or cakes were made of fine flour. This at once points to the meat-offering, which in like manner was made of fine flour, with the addition of oil and frankincense. (See Lev. 2) No leaven is mentioned, whereas in the two wave loaves (Lev. 23: 17) leaven is expressly specified - for the obvious reason that, in this case, the loaves represent the Church, and therefore leaven - emblem of evil - is found in them. But the fine flour is a type of the humanity of Christ, and hence the loaves of the shewbread are without leaven, He being holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, absolutely without sin. –From The Christian’s Friend (1879)
Why would they speculate about buying things for the feast if they were in the process of celebrating the feast?
Maybe they thought he was being sent out for more wine (a distinct possibility, since the 14th of Nisan, when Passover took place, is not a Sabbath, while the 15th, the first day of the Feast of Matza, is). That’s a pretty weak argument against a total of eleven verses that say in no uncertain terms that this was a Passover meal.
One has to wonder at the kind of bias that would even attempt to explain this very basic fact away.
You want to be like Jesus. Under the old covenant gentiles that wanted to fully participate in the old covenant ceremonies, esp. passover, were also required to be circumcised.
Yep. That’s one element which I do believe has changed, since He gave a general command that the Passover should be done in remembrance of Him. I’d get into the details of why, but you don’t care; you just want to argue.
If you want to figure it out for yourself, think about why Passover, alone of all the Feastdays, was for the circumcised only when it was in commemoration of being saved from Egypt.
To post 487:
Hey, I only asked a questionand quoted a verse. What are you getting defensive about. Are you going to answer? What does Luke 21:22 "literally" mean. And what was the theological significance of AD70?
The significance was that God took away the Temple in punishment for Israel not receiving the Messiah, exactly as the prophets had predicted. Nothing more.
Sociologically, it was the beginning of the Church starting to distance itself from Torah and anything else that might seem “too Jewish.”
To post 488:
That’s a denial without an argument, and not even worth bothering with.
To post 489:
How do you distinguish between "Torah" and "Mosiac covenant"?
One is the body of commandments which itself “holy and just and good” (Rom 7:12), which is Spiritual rather than carnal (v. 14) and which tells us what sin is (v. 7), and of which not the least letter or penstroke will pass away until the heaven and earth do (Mt. 5:17-19). The other is Israel’s promise, in their own power, to keep the Torah completely (Ex. 24:6-8, Jer. 31:32, Heb. 8:9). The covenant to keep God’s commands in our own power was replaced by the New Covenant, but the Torah was not—rather, the Torah is written on our hearts by the Spirit so as to enable us to do God’s will (Jer. 31:33, Heb. 8:10, Ezk. 36:27).
How many times exactly do I have to repeat this for you? It’s not like you’ve provided a Scriptural argument that the Torah and the Mosaic Covenant are synonymous—you just make the assumption that they are and argue from there (otherwise known as “begging the question”).
I don't see anywhere in Hebrews of the rest of the Bible how you can make a arbitrary distinction between the law of Moses and the Mosaic covenant.
No, of course you don’t.
To post 493:
I tend to think the first option is what Paul has in mind.
I agree completely. One not eating meat at all would not refer to a Jew, since Judaism nowhere urges vegetarianism; it only forbids certain animals for use as food.
In any event this hardly applies to modern day gentiles who voluntarily place themselves under old covenant cultic practices.
Oi vey. Talk about missing the point. I’d explain further, but since you haven’t gotten it the first twelve times, it’d just be casting pearls before swine.
If you can’t figure out the difference between obeying God’s Law to be saved and obeying it because you are saved, then it’s not just the Tanakh you don’t understand, but the whole of the Gospel.
I am no longer a slave to sin. Instead, I am a bondservant to the Messiah, and I seek to follow His commands.
What then? Shall we sin because we are not under Torah but under grace? Certainly not! Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of Torah-lessness leading to more Torah-lessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.You think Sha’ul was denigrating the Torah? Let’s look at what he thought of it:
--Rom. 6:15-19
For not the hearers of the Torah are just before God, but the doers of the Torah shall be justified. (Rom. 2:13)Hmm . . . gee, that doesn’t seem to fit with your view.Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the Torah, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the Torah, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the Torah? (Rom. 2:26-27) Do we then make void the Torah through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish (i.e., uphold) the Torah. (Rom. 3:1)
Therefore the Torah is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. (Rom. 7:12)
For we know that the Torah is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. (Ro 7:14)
For I delight in the Torah of God according to the inward man. (Rom. 7:22)
For Christ is the end (telos, goal) of the Torah for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Rom. 10:4)
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. (1 Cor. 7:19)
Therefore the Torah was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (Gal. 3:24)
But we know that the Torah is good if one uses it lawfully. (1 Ti. 1:8)
All Scripture (including the Torah, one would assume) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Ti. 3:16-17)
We need to run to the merciful High Priest who can release us from all our bondage, the one who has paid the price not after the shadowy and decayed priesthood of Aaron and his sons, but according to the order of Melchizedek.
I agree to the greater point. If you had come to my Yom Kippur service last night, you would have seen exactly that. Nevertheless, the Scripture is clear, and you have not yet managed to put together a cogent argument against it, that the Aaronic priesthood was given to the children of Phinehas as an eternal covenant, and that God has promised in no uncertain terms in Jer. 33 that He would preserve the line to once again offer sacrifices.
From post 496:
And Paul says that any mingling of law and grace is a basic denial of what Christ came to accomplish.
So once again, boast to us of all the sins you deliberately committed today to demonstrate the “freedom” that this “grace” has brought you. Oh, you try to not sin out of love for the Lord that freely redeemed you? Good. So do I.
Actually he does impose these views on others.
Nope. I recognize the freedom we have in Messiah for you to disagree with me. I do believe that God is not neutral in this matter, but I don’t think He needs me to be His enforcer. My only job is to speak the truth, as best as I understand it, in love, which I have done.
But speaking of imposing views, topcat, who is it who’s been running around posting thread after thread advocating his brand of Calvinism for the last year? Who was it who joined in on the bash-fest of those who drop the vowels of G-d and L-rd because they don’t want to treat God’s Name lightly, just because he doesn’t personally care for the custom? Who is it who joined the charge to call me a heretic because while I affirm that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all One God eternally and all at once, I prefer to use other models than to say, “One God in Three Persons”? Who was it who posted this thread attacking Dispensationalism? Who is it who has dragged every single religious thread I’ve been on in the last month into a referendum on my Messianic views?
Which one of us on this thread has been trying to convince the other that he must worship the way he does? It’s not me.
There is a psychological term for what you’re doing here, topcat. It’s called projection.
Oh, sure, he doesn't go around beating you for up for not wearing certain clothes or eating certain food or following certain ersatz holy days. He doesn't have that power.
More projection. I wouldn’t if I could. That’s not my place.
He believes that Christ's commandment to His body today is to follow the old covenant practices according that tradition of the rabbis and his fellow messianics. He has made that abundantly clear.
Actually, no. I have said that Yeshua affirmed the Torah—and He did (Mt.—oh, heck, if you haven’t read it by now, you’re never going to). I have pointed out that He had no problem with traditions, so long as they did not distort the Torah and so long as they didn’t become impositions. I have already given numerous examples of where we Messianics distinctly do not follow the Orthodox rabbis because of conflicts with NT teaching. What I have said about the rabbis is that they weren’t dumb, and it’s interesting to get their perspective. I have said that in some cases, I bow to tradition in applying the Torah’s commands where the tradition is consistent with the teachings of both the Tanakh and the NT. In others, we adapt the tradition to reflect our belief in Messiah Yeshua.
Can a person who persists in such misrepresentation of another’s view really afford to pick up all the stones that you do?
He obviously cannot impose those views on anyone else, but he nevertheless says "thus saith the Lord" when it comes to these issues.
I say, “Thus sayeth the Lord” only where the Scriptures say it. Let’s take the example of Yom Kippur for a moment. The specific command for the people besides the Levites is thus:
Also the tenth day of this seventh month shall be the Day of Atonement. It shall be a holy convocation for you; you shall afflict your souls . . . And you shall do no work on that same day, for it is the Day of Atonement, to make atonement for you before the LORD your God. For any person who is not afflicted in soul on that same day shall be cut off from his people. And any person who does any work on that same day, that person I will destroy from among his people. You shall do no manner of work; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. It shall be to you a sabbath of solemn rest, and you shall afflict your souls; on the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening to evening, you shall celebrate your sabbath.Thus the commands are:
--Lev. 23:27-32
1) The date, the 10th of the seventh month by the Hebrew calendar.Now, by custom, Orthodox Jews fast on this day; they also go without entertainment, bathing, grooming, or even wearing shoes.
2) To join with others in worship (“a holy convocation”)
3) To rest and treat it as a Sabbath. This is actually reiterated three times, so it’s pretty important.
4) To “afflict your souls.” In context and in the original Hebrew, this phrase literally means to deny, to humble ourselves.
I fasted. I say this not to boast, but to set up the next couple of paragraphs. I also humbled myself before the Lord, reflected on my sins, and meditated on Heb. 7-10. I worshipped last night with others who were doing the same. We said some of the traditional prayers of repentance together. We also heard the Kol Nidre, a traditional prayer which asks God to forgive and release all oaths made that year. This prayer originated during the Middle Ages, when Christians forced Jews to convert at the point of a sword or with the heated tongs of a torturer, and was heard for its historical significance, not because it applied to any of us.
Now, the fasting actually goes beyond the original command. I did it purely out of tradition, and because the NT does support the practice of fasting within its proper context. I do not represent fasting on Yom Kippur as a divine command, though I think it appropriate as part and parcel of (not in replacement of) humbling one’s self before God, taking mastery over one’s flesh and making it one’s servant (1 Cor. 9:27). On the other hand, I refrained from other forms of physical abasement, like going without bathing or grooming, because of the Lord’s teaching in Mt. 6:16-18. Clearly, I do not regard fasting and other abasement as a substitute of genuine repentance, and an over-emphasis on self-abasement on Yom Kippur over genuine repentance is clearly addressed by Scripture (cf. Isa. 58).
One Orthodox custom is that by fasting and repenting on Yom Kippur, one is written into the Book of Life for another year. As Messianics, we celebrated that our names are written in that Book for all eternity by the Messiah’s abasement.
A person who merely rests and prays on Yom Kippur, who joins others in doing so, and who humbles themselves before God by reviewing and repenting their sins, has fulfilled the whole of the Torah’s command whether they fast and say traditional Jewish prayers or not. Any traditional observance beyond the four points actually given in Scripture is just that—tradition, a way of doing things, and no more a matter of judging for me than whether one puts a star or an angel on their Christmas tree would be for you.
Further, if a Christian honestly believes that they are not supposed to observe Yom Kippur, I give grace where the Lord has been gracious to me. I may disagree with them on Scriptural grounds, but I don’t judge their walk on the basis of outward observance of this particular day.
That’s your schtick.
They are not the weak brethren in their eyes.
Nope. Nor, I believe, in God’s.
We are to keep Christ's commandments as evidence of our love for Him (John 14:15). To add all these old, expired, cultic laws as legitimate commandents for today is to cheapen that which truly remains.
I can’t separate the two. Messiah Yeshua is the same God who gave the Torah at Sinai. He affirmed the whole Torah and lived out the whole Torah. He told us to do the same. By the example of their lives, the Apostles did so.
If you can, fine. Go your way. But stop picking fights with me over this.
From post 497:
When did passover observance go from mandatory to voluntary?
It didn’t, to my mind. Indeed, to me, seeking to be like Yeshua in every way, shape, and form is not voluntary, but a matter of properly loving Him. I am fully convinced in my mind in this.
If you are fully convinced in your mind that you are not supposed to observe the things that the Messiah did, fine. Go your way. I think you’re wrong, but I also think that God judges us based on the light we are given; that is, based on the things we know to be wrong (cf. Rom. 2:1ff). The only way that you will be judged for not keeping Passover is if you see in Scripture that it is right, are convicted by the Word and the Spirit, but ignore that conviction and thereby live out a lie.
From post 501:
The "elementary things" here are the old covenant regulations in the law of Moses.
Look again. This is disproven by two points:
1) In v. 8, Sha’ul says, “But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods.” He’s not speaking to Jews, but to Gentiles. He then clarifies what he means by “elementary things” when he writes in v. 9, “But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?” The Gentiles were never in bondage to the Torah or the Jewish flaw of the legalistic observance thereof, but to demon-gods. Thus the “days and months and seasons and years” are not God’s Feastdays, but the false “holy days” of the demon-gods. Were I interested, I could actually turn this around and turn it into an argument against Christmas. I am not.Just do a word-search on “law” or “Torah” throughout the Bible, and you will see that the Bible itself says that if it is understood properly, it is not a burden, but a delight. I have found this to be true in my own life, as have a million other Messianics. The Torah is no burden because we are not depending on observing it just right to save us—our salvation in the Messiah frees us from the terrible burden of having to be perfect.Instead, I will just point out that Sha’ul identifies the “weak and beggarly elements” in v. 9 with the “those who are by nature not gods” in v. 8, and thus we should understand the “the elements of the world” not as the commandments of the Torah, but as the “elemental spirits” who pretend to be gods, the demons who pervert God’s perfect Torah into a burden of legalism and whisper to men that they must keep it in just such-and-such a way to be saved.
2) The Torah is not “the elements of the world.” It is Spiritual (Rom. 7:14). It was given by God Himself on Sinai. It is not a source of bondage “used lawfully” (1 Ti. 1:8), but is a delight for the one who keeps it (Ps. 1:2).
“The Torah of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple” (Ps. 19:7).“Blessed is the man whom You instruct, O LORD, And teach out of Your Torah” (Ps. 94:12).
“For I delight in the Torah of God according to the inward man.” (Rom. 7:22)
I will say it again, since you seem not to have grasped the concept: I do not seek to keep the Torah to be saved; I seek to keep it because I am saved, and I want to be more like my Savior.
It is interesting that you find such an idea so objectionable. Do you not try to abstain from lying not for fear that you will lose your salvation, but simply to be like Jesus and to do what is right in His eyes? Do you not avoid occultism? Sexual immorality? Do you not try to govern your anger and give up your pride? When you find sin in your life, do you not repent of it?
All those things are commanded by Torah, and you seem to have no concept in following them in telling the difference between working to be saved and following God out of love. Why then do you think I should find it difficult to do the same when observing God’s appointed times, for example?
To post 503:
The problem before us does not fall into these categories in my mind. Here we have the matter of Jews and gentiles who seek to keep the traditions of the rabbis out of religious scruples.
You know, this is really getting repetitive. I’ve explained this as many ways as I can think to, and yet you still persist in trying to judge my heart in an false manner.
Tell you what, you work on that command about not bearing false witness, and when you get that down, we’ll talk about the rest.
And that’s it. Everything else is just repeating the same false assumptions over and over again. If and when you post something that’s actually new, I’ll reply. If you just reiterate that which has already been disproven, I’m moving on again.
I also apologize for not getting back on your post. I'll try to answer it tomorrow; if not, I'll be back on Sunday.
Thanks for your patience.
Great post, Harley. Every word backed by Scripture.
"When did passover observance go from mandatory to voluntary?"
It didn’t, to my mind. Indeed, to me, seeking to be like Yeshua in every way, shape, and form is not voluntary, but a matter of properly loving Him. I am fully convinced in my mind in this.
If you are fully convinced in your mind that you are not supposed to observe the things that the Messiah did, fine. Go your way. I think you’re wrong, but I also think that God judges us based on the light we are given; that is, based on the things we know to be wrong (cf. Rom. 2:1ff). The only way that you will be judged for not keeping Passover is if you see in Scripture that it is right, are convicted by the Word and the Spirit, but ignore that conviction and thereby live out a lie.
What I was really looking for was an answer to all my questions, i.e.,:
When did passover observance go from mandatory to voluntary? When did all those "thou shall"s get changed to "thou may"s? Are they only voluntary because he's a gentile? Or are they voluntary for everyone? If it's voluntary because he's a gentile where does the Scripture make that racial distinction wrt the old covenant law of Moses? In any event where is the rule change to permit gentiles to voluntarily observe passover without first being circumcised (i.e., becoming a Jew after the flesh)? Is a person's standing in Christ complete and perfect without the observance of any of these old covenant regulations, or are you guilty of falling short of Christ's word to keep His commandments as a demonstration of our love towards Him?If the laws are still mandatory, then all the other questions are pertinent.There are many questions that have yet to be answered. It helps to dig deeper. I'm sure you can see why Paul was so concerned about law keeping esp. among the gentiles.
I didn't expect you to be able to give a coherent answer, but neither did I except you to blow it off. Oh, well.
BTW, JM, you wrote, "He has the freedom to observe them, just as much as he has the freedom not to observe them". I hope you now recognizes that our friend really does not believe he is free to observe or not observe. They are mandatory in his mind and according to his theology. That was the purpose of all those questions that he ignored.
In reality what he appears to believe is that these laws are not objectively true for everyone. He said to me, "The only way that you will be judged for not keeping Passover is if you see in Scripture that it is right, are convicted by the Word and the Spirit, but ignore that conviction and thereby live out a lie."
You see, the passover laws to him are not objectly true. It's as if a person in the old covenant would have said, "Hey, I was not fully convined in my mind that I shouldn't work on the sabbath or eat unclean things, therefore you cannot cut me off from the people." The priests and elders would have laughed as they were tossing him out on his ear.
It's the folly of his inconsistent theology. Part old decayed covenant, and part new covenant. Thankfully we are not saved by law keeping, or even by having a right theology. Not doubt there are all sorts of folks in weird cults that may be truly saed by trusting in Christ shed blood alone. The danger here is the continued mixtiure of law and grace. It may seem subtle, and they certainly mince their words when forced into a corner, but the bondage of the law always finds its way through unless we suppress it with all our strenght by the power of the Spirit.
"For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ."
Moses or Christ, that is the choice.
You know, this is really getting repetitive. I’ve explained this as many ways as I can think to, and yet you still persist in trying to judge my heart in an false manner.
I don't judge your heart, I judge your actions.
You keep passover, no? Do you follow a "passover seder"? Where did it come from?
"All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it." (Exodus 12:47,48)
The law says that as a gentile you are not permitted to participate in the passover. Either the law has changed according to the word of God, or your participation in your erstaz passover is according to a human tradition. Where did the tradition come from?
The same is true for the other ersatz holy days you celebrate. You keep rosh hashanah, yom kippur, etc, no?
"And he shall take from the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats as a sin offering, and one ram as a burnt offering. 'Aaron shall offer the bull as a sin offering, which is for himself, and make atonement for himself and for his house.' ... 'This shall be a statute forever for you: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether a native of your own country or a stranger who dwells among you. For on that day the priest shall make atonement for you, to cleanse you, that you may be clean from all your sins before the Lord. It is a sabbath of solemn rest for you, and you shall afflict your souls. It is a statute forever. And the priest, who is anointed and consecrated to minister as priest in his father's place, shall make atonement, and put on the linen clothes, the holy garments; then he shall make atonement for the Holy Sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tabernacle of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. This shall be an everlasting statute for you, to make atonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins, once a year.' And he did as the Lord commanded Moses." (Lev. 16:5,6,29-34)
"Then you shall sacrifice one kid of the goats as a sin offering, and two male lambs of the first year as a sacrifice of a peace offering. The priest shall wave them with the bread of the firstfruits as a wave offering before the Lord, with the two lambs. They shall be holy to the Lord for the priest. And you shall proclaim on the same day that it is a holy convocation to you. You shall do no customary work on it. It shall be a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout your generations." (Lev. 23:19-21)
Where specifically did God authorize the modified observance of these holy days according to the tradition which you now follow? If you can demonstrate how any of my statements or conclusions are wrong, then I will certainly own up to the correction and say no more about it.
Either you and your fellow messianics have specific authorization from the word of God, or you do not. The fact remains that these cultic laws were not modified by the coming of the new covenant, they have "decayed" and "faded away" (Heb. 8:13).
Notice, I said nothing about your heart. Na dI have never said anythign about your heart condition. It's your activities that are in question here. We judge what we see according to the word of God.
Shalom.
Thanks for your very complete response Harley, But when I read verse 9 it tells me that what they are turning back to is what they were doing before.....not what some "Judaizer", in your words, was trying to teach them.
Gal 4:9, "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?"
I think you are wrongly reading this as they wished to go BACK to their old pagan habits. They wished to be circumcised. There were certain people who wanted “the Gentiles to live like Jews” (v 2:14). Instead of following Gentile pagan customs, certain Jews wanted the Gentiles to follow the Jewish customs. Paul states that they will be enslaved all over again.
Circumcision, eating or following “dates” are of no avail. They are all legalistic trappings to make one think they are doing a righteous act. Following traditional Jewish holidays was a documented problem in the early church and one that Paul venomously fought against. Please consider this:
I will also add the argument sounds enticing. What could be so wrong with having a Passover or forgoing certain foods? We’re doing it for the Lord. Man gets himself into trouble every time when he gets into this way of thinking. It falls under the “Lord, Lord did we not prophesy in you name…” category.
Thanks again Harley. Sorry for taking so long to get back.
My Bible translates it, "how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles." Same thing, in essence! My question is......how could they turn back to something they had never known?
No where in this passage does he mention Sabbaths and I cannot find anywhere in scripture where God commanded us to observe any month. He does instruct us in Colossians to not pay any mind to those critical of our festivals, New Moons or Sabbaths. Col. 2:16
I know. I've been swamped myself. Must be something about October. :O)
Same thing, in essence! My question is......how could they turn back to something they had never known?
That is my whole point. Paul was looking upon the customs of the Jews and the Gentiles and saying there was no difference in them. For Paul, when he was saying "turn back" it was simply turning away from living by faith.
This goes back to the Romans 1-3 where Paul talks about the Jews having the Law and Gentiles having nature. The Jews could see God in the Law but couldn't live by the Law. The Gentiles OTOH while they might recognize God in nature through His creation never could give glory to God. Everyone has to come to God through faith in our Lord Jesus. There is none that does what is right. He is our righteousness.
For the Galatians they were "turning back" from faith by trying to satisfy God's requirements through other methods. It didn't matter if they were following the works of Zeus or works of the Law; or the holy days of either one. They were "turning back" from living by faith.
I am convinced that God has done the same thing with creation. Take anything, whether in nature or in Scripture, and look for spiritual meaning, you will find Christ.
I agree 100%. I may be accused of mysticism here, but I think it is a Biblical truism that the physical and spiritual worlds reflect each other. I believe that all of the Levitical services that God ordained were to allow human beings to experience and partake in things spiritual. I believe the same of baptism (water immersion) and the Lord's Supper. I also believe that there is not a passage of the Scripture in any book that is not unraveled if one will just put the Messiah in the middle of it.
Even, strangely enough, kosher.
God has put meaning into everything, and our business is to search it out.
Amen. "The glory of God is to hide a thing; but the honor of kings is to search out a matter" (Pr. 25:2).
Thus a spiritual Abomination of Desolation, would have to be connected with Christ because he is the Spiritual Temple, and the desecration would have been on or immediately after the Cross.
Not necessarily, though I don't think you're completely off here. First, we have to be very careful about time restraints on God's Word--"I am coming soon," is no less true because 2000 years of mortal time have passed, for a thousand years to us is as a day to God.
Too, we have to be careful not to overemphasize the spiritual to the point where we discount the physical. In order to save us from a spiritual condition--sin and death--the Messiah made Himself both a spiritual and physical sacrifice. The physical sacrifice reflected the spiritual sacrifice and vice-versa.
Therefore, when dealing with the Abomination of Desolation, while admitting that there is a spiritual reality (a false god trying to set himself up in the believer, who is a temple of God), let us not discount the physical reality: Yeshua says that this future Abomination will take place in the geographical location of Judea, for example. He further states that those who lived there would have to flee at that very moment, and that we should pray that it doesn't take place in the winter or on the Sabbath and that nursing women would be at a particular disadvantage (Mt. 24:15ff). All of these point to a physical act, not merely--or rather, only--a spiritual desecration.
The connection to Messiah Yeshua is made clear in both the Olivet Discourse and in 2 Th. 2--in both cases, the fulfillment of the prophecy of the Abomination of Desolation is a sign of the Second Coming--within 3.5 years, in fact (Dan. 9:27 and 12:11-12; Rev. 11-12).
All things point to the Messiah, but not always directly. Some things are signs to show us God's schedule, like the coming of the Antichrist.
Does that make sense? And do you disagree? The answer to the first question doesn't have anything to do with the answer to the second, of course. :-)
I am not going to disagree with anything in this post, but I have some questions and I will try to use the above paragraph to frame them. It is not my intention to overemphasize the spiritual over the physical. I see a spiritual theme running beneath the surface throughout scripture and nature. Nicodemus was confused when he was confronted with this. I think we need to find guidelines to discern between natural and spiritual.
You talk about a spiritual condition--sin and death--. Which is it? There is a natural sin and a spiritual sin, a natural death and a spiritual death. There is a physical sacrifice and a spiritual sacrifice. Do you think the cross is physical or spiritual?
Anyway, I am always looking for the spiritual significance, in any passage of scripture. There is something in the Abomination of Desolation that I cannot see. In the meantime, I will look at the physical because that is what I can see.
Seven
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.