Posted on 09/20/2006 10:14:32 AM PDT by Buggman
That is an excellent quote from John Calvin. If anything the Tabernacle tells us how exacting God was in His instructions on worshiping Him. Moses was specifically told not to deviate from God's instructions both in the design and in the worshipping ceremonies.
As far as the sin of Nadab and Abihu, I've always thought they offered "strange fire" because they might have been drunk. Shortly after they died, God issues a command not to drink "wine or strong drinks" to the priests (Lev 10). It does not negate what you state but rather support that we are held accountable for our actions when we worship no matter what state we are in. This was a similar situation the Corinthians found themselves in with the Lord's Supper, having parties with lots of eating and drinking. In that case the Lord exacted retribution on the Corinthians according to Paul, for their lack of reverence at the Supper.
Yes, and God's revelation is progressive. Under the old covenant He used types and shadow to point forward to the Substance, Jesus Christ. He no longer regards those older types and symbols since the thing to which they all pointed has arrived and been revealed to the world in the flesh.
If the New Covenant basically erases the OT, then was God just messing with the Hebrews, teaching them poppycock and laughing at them from on high?
I'm not sure trht you mean by "erases". No one said the NT "erases" the OT. But obviously there have been significant modifications, esp. in the area of the cultic laws that were peculiar to Israel as a national entity under the tutelage of priesthood according to the order of Aaron.
But that priesthood and those rules no longer exist today. The sacrifices have been abolished once and for all because the substance to which he sacrifices pointed, Jesus Christ, has appeared.
All the feast days were in inextricably tied to the sacrificial system. Every feast -- in order to be faithfully observed -- had to have an animal killed and the blood sprinkled about.
No one has been able to point to a single passage in the Bible which teaches the church composed of Jews and gentiles how to observe Rosh Hashanah or any other annual feast day without an animal sacrifice.
Rather, what we have today are mere traditions invented by folks to explain how they think these things ought to be observed. But it just a human invention.
The volume of information that parallels the OT with Jesus with the Second Advent is huge.
Perhaps, but perhaps also it it merely the presuppositions that one brings to the table that makes it seem huge. I'm not convinced to the point that I would try to keep cultic Jewish feast days as a pointer to the Second Coming.
Where does the sin of presumption --the sin of Nadab and Abihu -- come into play?
If faith does not lead to obedience, what good is it?
Yes, but obedience to what? Decayed commands that were a part of the older system specifically tied to Israel in the land?
Which ones do you choose to obey, and which do you choose to ignore? Do you shave around the sides of your head? Do you wear clothing of mixed materials? Do you take your medical problems to a priest? Do you pay all your employees every day, or do you expect to be paid by your employer every day? If you find a dead mouse a your basement do you considered yourself ritually unclean for a day if you touch it? Or if you touch a person with a "discharge"?
Which of the 613 so-called mitzvot to you follow and which do you ignore?
I don't know about you, but this verse scares the crap out of me.
Are you saying that anyone who does not follow your traditions and observe a blood-less, temple-less, priest-less Rosh Hashanah today because they can't find the authority to do so in the Word of God is sinning against almighty God? That's a rather bold position, and one certainly in need of much biblical support.
Thanks for your understanding, and God bless.
Correction, I'm comparing one set of human traditions with another set of human traditions.
Those who advocate a set of judazing holy days in this post-temple era are not fixing the problem, they are merely inventing a new set of problems.
Like the apostate rabbis who did not follow after their Messiah, they need to invent their own set of traditions to resolve their theological conflict.
1) That the Resurrection of the Dead will occur on Rosh Hashanah.All of those are the consistant teaching of Jewish tradition--and since the New Testament was written not by Grecian Mithraists, but by God-fearing Jews, its not at all surprising that we find all of the above encapsulated there as well.
2) That the Messiah will appear to Israel on Rosh Hashanah.
3) That on Rosh Hashanah, the Lord judges the world, inscribing or blotting out all mankind in His Book of Life.
4) That therefore Rosh Hashanah is a time to repent in preparation for Yom Kippur.
5) That Rosh Hashanah is also Yom HaKiseh, the Hidden Day.
You can object all you want to, but it is what it is.
With respect,
Apparently, only Jesus' return will end all of this confusion, once Babylon is fallen, fallen.
Thanks for the ping!
I remember last year, a young man came to our Rosh Hashanah service and afterwards remarked, "You could really feel the Spirit move in there."
"Well," I said, "that's what happens when you meet God on His schedule, instead of trying to make Him meet you on yours."
L'shanah Tova
Secondly, it's blatantly untrue that the Apostles did not "authorize" the keeping of the Feasts, and indeed, the whole Torah.
The Christian church recognizes that the Lord's Supper has replaced Passover in God's new covenant economy. I don't think this basic fact in dispute.
What is in dispute is the juadizing of the Lord's Supper to that it precisely mimicks something that is more akin to the traditions of the apostate rabbis rather than what we see, for example, in 1 Cor. 11 which is devoid of any uniquely Jewish trappings.
"... Therefore let us keep the feast, ..."
Note, it does not say, "Let us therefore keep all the feast days of the Jews as the Jews", which is apparently what you think it says. You believe gentiles should become religiously Jewish. That is not the NT take on things.
The fact remains that there is no authority in the New Testament for observing all the old covenant feast days according to an arbitrary tradition invented in an era that is post-apostolic and post-temple.
And it not a matter of "practical Marcionism" to suggest judaizing Christians have no authority for doing what they claim to be doing. It's merely pointing out the obvious; the klaw has changed, the cultic shadows have given way to the universal substance under the ruler of all nations, King Jesus.
Indeed, such would be impossible within introducing tradition no different from the traditions of the post-temple apostate rabbis of Judaism.
Since I've already dealt with this issue at length, I'm not going to rehash it here.
That's a rather hollow claim since we all agree that "Torah" has been significantly altered in the new covenant. Any plain reading of the book of Hebrews can make that clear. So the question is how much has God altered the law to fit conditions under the term of the new covenant? Has God written the law on our hearts that we ought to observe the judaistic Passover or feast of trumpets? Has God witten the law on our hearts that we ought not to shave around the sides of our heads, or not to wear clothing of mixed materials?
What "tradition" shall we follow on these things?
It might do well to consider Edersheim's comments of the matter of trumpets:
In the law of God only these two things are enjoined in the observance of the ‘New Moon’—the ‘blowing of trumpets’ (Num 10:10) and special festive sacrifices (Num 28:11-15). Of old the ‘blowing of trumpets’ had been the signal for Israel’s host on their march through the wilderness, as it afterwards summoned them to warfare, and proclaimed or marked days of public rejoicing, and feasts, as well as the ‘beginning of their months’ (Num 10:1-10). The object of it is expressly stated to have been ‘for a memorial,’ that they might ‘be remembered before Jehovah,’ it being specially added: ‘I am Jehovah your God.’ It was, so to speak, the host of God assembled, waiting for their Leader; the people of God united to proclaim their King. At the blast of the priests’ trumpets they ranged themselves, as it were, under His banner and before His throne, and this symbolical confession and proclamation of Him as ‘Jehovah their God,’ brought them before Him to be ‘remembered’ and ‘saved.’ And so every season of ‘blowing the trumpets,’ whether at New Moons, at the Feast of Trumpets or New Year’s Day, at other festivals, in the Sabbatical and Year of Jubilee, or in the time of war, was a public acknowledgment of Jehovah as King. Accordingly we find the same symbols adopted in the figurative language of the New Testament. As of old the sound of the trumpet summoned the congregation before the Lord at the door of the Tabernacle, so ‘His elect’ shall be summoned by the sound of the trumpet in the day of Christ’s coming (Matt 24:31), and not only the living, but those also who had ‘slept’ (1 Cor 15:52)—’the dead in Christ’ (1 Thess 4:16). Similarly, the heavenly hosts are marshalled to the war of successive judgments (Rev 8:2; 10:7), till, as ‘the seventh angel sounded,’ Christ is proclaimed King Universal: ‘The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ, and He shall reign for ever and ever’ (Rev 11:15). (Temple—Its Ministry and Services, Chapter 15 The New Moons: The Feast of the Seventh New Moon, or of Trumpets, or New Year’s Day)Note that (ethnically Jewish but religiously Christian) Edershiem does not go to the excess of suggesting that the Second Coming will be on the old covenant day called "Rosh Hashanah". No one can know that, and there is certainly not enough information in the Scripture to draw such a conclusion, otherwise I'm sure Edershiem would have made that connection.
"Also in the day of your gladness, in your appointed feasts, and at the beginning of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; and they shall be a memorial for you before your God: I am the Lord your God." (Num. 10:10)
The trumpet sounding was not limited to one day of the year in ancient Israel. But it was indded related to the offering of sacrifices to the Lord. To single out one day, Rosh Hashanah, and try to identify that with the Second Coming is still arbitrary.
BTW, I'm not going to mention Christmas/Easter since that not my schtick and I do not need to defend the practices of others. If someone else wants to argue the biblical basis for observing "Christian holy days" they can do so. Romish Christmas and judaizing Rosh Hashanah are the same in my book.
But "Babylon" has fallen.
"And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. "
"And another angel followed, saying, "Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication."
"Babylon" was ancient Jerusalem that committed spiritual idolatry with the nations and was judged by God in AD70.
"Now the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. And great Babylon was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath."
Josephus tells us:
WHEN therefore Titus had marched over that desert which lies between Egypt and Syria, in the manner forementioned, he came to Cesarea, having resolved to set his forces in order at that place, before he began the war. Nay, indeed, while he was assisting his father at Alexandria, in settling that government which had been newly conferred upon them by God, it so happened that the sedition at Jerusalem was revived, and parted into three factions, and that one faction fought against the other; which partition in such evil cases may be said to be a good thing, and the effect of Divine justice. Now as to the attack the zealots made upon the people, and which I esteem the beginning of the city's destruction, it hath been already explained after an accurate manner; as also whence it arose, and to how great a mischief it was increased. But for the present sedition, one should not mistake if he called it a sedition begotten by another sedition, and to be like a wild beast grown mad, which, for want of food from abroad, fell now upon eating its own flesh.And now there were three treacherous factions in the city, the one parted from the other. Eleazar and his party, that kept the sacred first-fruits, came against John in their cups. Those that were with John plundered the populace, and went out with zeal against Simon. This Simon had his supply of provisions from the city, in opposition to the seditious. When, therefore, John was assaulted on both sides, he made his men turn about, throwing his darts upon those citizens that came up against him, from the cloisters he had in his possession, while he opposed those that attacked him from the temple by his engines of war.
There is the less need for apology for any digression here, that, besides the intrinsic interest of the question, it casts light on two most important subjects, For, first, it illustrates the attempt of the narrowest Judaic party in the Church to force on Gentile believers the yoke of the whole Law; the bearing of St. Paul in this respect; his relation to St. Peter; the conduct of the latter; and the proceedings of the Apostolic Synod in Jerusalem (Acts xv.). St. Paul, in his opposition to that party, stood even on Orthodox Jewish ground. But when he asserted, not only a new ‘law of liberty,’ but the typical and preparatory character of the whole Law, and its fulfillment in Christ, he went far beyond the Jewish standpoint. Further, the favorite modern theory as to fundamental opposition in principle between Pauline and Petrine theology in this respect, has, like many kindred theories, no support in the Jewish views on that subject, unless we suppose that Peter had belonged to the narrowest Jewish school, which his whole history seems to forbid. We can also understand, how the Divinely granted vision of the abrogation of the distinction between clean and unclean animals (Acts x. 9-16) may, though coming as a surprise, have had a natural basis in Jewish expectancy (a), and it explains how the Apostolic Synod, when settling the question,(b) ultimately fell back on the so-called Noachic commandments, though with very wider-reaching principles underlying their decision (Acts xv. 13-21). Lastly, it seems to cast even some light on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel; for, the question about ‘that prophet’ evidently referring to the possible alteration of the Law in Messianic times, which is reported only in the Fourth Gospel, shows such close acquaintance with the details of Jewish ideas on this subject, as seems to us utterly incompatible with its supposed origination as ‘The Ephesian Gospel’ towards the end of the second century, the outcome of Ephesian Church-teaching - an ‘esoteric and eclectic’ book, designed to modify ‘the impressions produced by the tradition previously recorded by the Synoptists.’ (Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, APPENDIX XIV. The Law in Messianic Times)These comments are found in a section dealing with the rabbinic view that during the messianic age the ceremonial law and the feasts were to cease. Edersheim notes, "But the Talmud goes even further, and lays down the two principles, that in the ‘age to come’ [the age of Messiah] the whole ceremonial Law and all the feasts were to cease."Notes:
(a) The learned reader will find a very curious illustration of this in that strange Haggadah about the envy of the serpent being excited on seeing Adam fed with meat from heaven - where another equally curious Haggadah is related to show that ‘nothing is unclean which cometh down from heaven.’
(b) Yalkut i. 15, p. 4, d , towards the middle. A considerable part of vol. iii. of ‘Supernatural Religion’ is devoted to argumentation on this subject. But here also the information of the writer on the subject is neither accurate nor critical, and hence his reasoning and conclusions are vitiated.
So, I take it you are cool with queer clergy?
What is that supposed to mean?
That is an odd statement to make considering the fact that Paul, as a highly trained scholar of "The Law", claimed he had always followed the Law.
If as you say.....Paul is instructing the newly converted Christians to not observe the Laws and Ordinances of The God of Israel.....then Paul is hereby proved to be a liar.
My real name is Chris. I'd change the handle, but I don't want to lose the history.
The new moon feasts and sabbath are kept in the millenium.
Rom 3:31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.
Once it hit me that the sheep Paul were pastoring had never heard of the Law until Paul taught them of it, all of his letters took on a more coherent meaning. It doesn't make sense for Paul to have taught people what the Law was, and then spend years telling them not to follow it.
That's one thing you got right. No need to worry about anything Jewish being left in.
From the Council of Nicea (325):(excerpted)
It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom [the calculation] of the Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded.In rejecting their custom,(1) we may transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter, which we have observed from the time of the Saviour's Passion to the present day[according to the day of the week]. We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and more convenient course (the order of the days of the week); and consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them?
They do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most certainly blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such wicked people[the Jews].
That's why the church needed to change the calendar, needed to do away with the Sabbath and started Sun-day worship, in 'honor of the venerable Sun'. Why they needed to distance themselves from Passover and celebrate Easter, a name derived from the pagan godess of fertility, widely known at the time.
The church has done nearly all it could to distance themselves from the root that they 'claim' to be grafted unto. Yet, it resembles nothing of the root anymore.
The part I want to specifically point out is this: for the Saviour has shown us another way;
An actual admission that the church has deviated from 'the way' and gone after 'another way'!! And to top it off, they give credit to Yehoshua for this 'new way'. The church admits that this 'other way' is more CONVENIENT!
True enough. Gentile Godfearers who wanted to become full-fledged believers in God through the ministry of Yehoshua had ALREADY received Moses' instructions concerning how people are to live, as taught in the Noachide and Sinatic covenants since when Moses [Pentateuch-first 5 books of the Bible] is taught, such teaching encompasses both the Laws of Noah and the Mosaic Covenant.
A lot of these Gentile Godfearers already attended synagogue and or attended the Festivals and Holy Days, like Cornelius. All that was needed for a full conversion from Godfearer to Jew was, being cicumcised. And James had already pointed out that cicumcism wasn't necessary to be grafted into the family. So, the big thing that the Godfearers were lacking in was understanding of the dietary guidelines, and fornication like not having relations with ones sisters, aunts, uncles, neices etc.
They already had certain basics, just not the fundamental guidelines in dietary regulations since they didn't eat with Jews nor would they know how to properly prepare their food. (kosher)
You can SEE through the way the Jews lived, some of what was expected. But, without dining with them, or watching them prepare their foods, you wouldn't KNOW how to go about preparing kosher meals. They wouldn't have realized that their was a difference. They needed to be told and then instructed on how to do that.
It wasn't about making Jews more comfortable around Gentiles, it was about making Gentiles acceptable of God. It was about being a part of the family and being able to sit together at the 'wedding feast'.
It is wrong to tempt someone to break God's Law. If the Gentile didn't follow the dietery guidelines, and a Jew were over for dinner, it would be tempting for the Jew to break his dietary guideline. Better for all to be following the same dietary rules that the Jews use, since Gentiles are grafted to the Jews and not the other way around.
These are the various types of people we are dealing with in the first century.
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.