From Victor Kubik. UCG has spent two decades trying to figure out what "laws" they could relax or completely ignore is now condemning those who do the same thing.
All Old Testament prophecies and teachings ultimately reflect and point to the coming of Jesus as the Savior of humanity and future King of Kings in the coming Kingdom of God. The apostle John reveals: “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).
Of course, we understand that we as humans cannot keep the law perfectly, nor can we somehow “earn” salvation by keeping it as a service of works. As Paul emphasizes to us: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Importantly, that does not change what Jesus said about those who try to “relax” the standard of the commandments, including the keeping of the weekly seventh-day Sabbath and the annual Holy Days. The commandments and teachings—embodied by the Word of God—guide our behavior. They tell us how to worship God. They provide incredible insight into both past and future trends. They give us sustaining comfort when we’re in painful trials and tribulations. They show us how to succeed, even in this earthly existence. They guide us on the spiritual pathway to transformation and how to put on the new man (Ephesians 4:24).
They embody a tremendous divine gift of precious, freely given truth!
The rules have always been for the others instead of for the leadership. They had a chance to recreate a new church, fresh from the ground up. Instead, they brought the same corruption and hypocrisy that they had in the WCG.
ReplyDeleteWhy what is wrong to be rattled over NO2HWA? Why pick out that particular paragraph?
ReplyDeleteBy following the same path, they have doomed UCG to failure as Worldwide. Worldwide had the potential to be a positive ministry, but due to greed, idolatry and a lust for power by the leadership it turned out to be a colossal failure. It turned away from Christ and instead taught a false gospel focused on church government and the mirage of the "Government of God" rather than that of Christ. They sewed the wind and reaped the whirlwind.
ReplyDeleteHe is in defiance of Pauline teaching:
ReplyDeleteThe new covenant gives holy days, New moons, sabbaths.. the heave-ho!
(Galatians 4:10-11 Colossians 2:16-17 Hebrews 10:1)
(note how these passages repeat words like 'shadows' & 'elements')
Time to stop following high-school-dropout-HWA and 'read the book'!
No the new covenant doesn't. You simply are not called. If you are living your own life outside of UCG then why are you so clearly upset about the soon observance of God's Holy days ?
DeleteJesus said 'Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath' that doesn't make sense if he was talking about himself as a shadow of the Sabbath.
It's only because of competition from other splinters that Victor is staying with the HWA narrative. But the real real question is what's really going on in any of these churches. These use the pretext of marketing, but in fact outright lie about the true state of their groups. Ministers being partial to, and even protecting the church crazies was common when I attended in the 1980s.
ReplyDeleteIt's only because of competition from other splinters that Victor is staying with the HWA narrative.
DeleteWow 6:43. Do you realise the extent of that accusation? It's quite a bundle of accusations in one remark. It raises all kinds of questions.
I'm sure that's exactly what you intended especially as it's during the 10 days of awe.
5.02 AM
DeleteThe ACOGs are all run along abusive cult lines. The ministers in these groups need to look at the logs in their eyes rather than shooting the messengers.
Do you think God is impressed with holy day keeping when tyranny and every manner of minister abuse is the order of the day in these groups?
Wasn't Victor the enforcer of the Tkach changes?
Delete"Importantly, that does not change what Jesus said about those who try to “relax” the standard of the commandments, including the keeping of the weekly seventh-day Sabbath and the annual Holy Days."
ReplyDeleteThis statement reflects the central tenet of Armstrongism. It is why Armstrongist Millerism is divergent from other forms of Millerism. It is based on the faulty exegesis that Jesus made the Old Testament Law more stringent in the Sermon on the Mount across the board. And that this new, more stringent implementation is written on the hearts of Christians. The outcome is that one must be more of a Pharisee than the Pharisees to be in good standing with God. What UCG seems to have added to this dismal, anti-salvific picture is some concept of grace. This concession to Christian Doctrine makes the approach seem workable. Otherwise, Armstrongists would have nothing but a anti-soteriology of condemnation.
The idea of condemning relaxation of the law appears to make war on Christianity as Jesus defined it. When Christ made his much quoted "one jot or one title" statement, all the rituals and sacrifices were in effect. So the term "shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" cannot be used as a point of departure into greater stringency. This putative stringency is inconsistent with the fact that the sacrifices and circumcision were immediately dropped from the New Covenant litigation immediately after Christ's death.
(There is nothing wrong with keeping the superseded Sabbath as a voluntary ethical or instructional standard. It is very wrong, nay, heretical to make it a requirement for salvation.)
This could go on. The arguments are well-worn. And the arguments are systematically ignored by people whose focus is on the preservation of the Sabbath. It is not about sequestering your wife during her menstruation period or the rest of The Law. It's about Armstrongism's raison d'etre. No required Sabbath and the Armstrongists may as well become Christians.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
7.08 AM
DeleteIs Sabbath observance required for salvation. Absolutely. The Sabbath is not an end in itself but rather a means to an end. That end being refocusing on God, and the straight and narrow. Otherwise long term, people become demons. It's that simple.
So keep the Sabbath or into the lake of fire you go. Sizzle, sizzle.
As long as Armstrongism is in their hearts,they can never recreate a new church from the ground up. Until they read actual church history in the New Testament, and in the Post-Apostolic writings of the Early Church Fathers, they'll never know what the early church was really like.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you enlighten the Sabbath world to your insight Phinny.
DeleteStart reading the Early Church Fathers, and become enlightened.
DeleteThe description Father's is rarther revealing. Catholic at heart.
DeleteOh? Do you think the American "Founding Fathers" are likewise Catholic?
DeleteSomething must be going on behind the scenes in UCG for all the fake names on here to be all uptight and uppity.
ReplyDeleteI perceive the commandments requiring what to do during intervals of time are the most disliked.
ReplyDeleteMost disliked by whom?
Delete
ReplyDeleteBe careful.
The disUnited Church of Godlessness keeps the old perverts and stalkers but kicks out their young victims.
9:14.
ReplyDeleteI've said it before and I will write it here Passover, Unleavened Bread and Day of Atonement uproot and expose those who are extremely gifted at pretense the rest of the time.
ReplyDeleteAnon wrote on 9/14 @3:59am, The new covenant gives holy days, New moons, sabbaths.. the heave-ho! (Galatians 4:10-11 Colossians 2:16-17 Hebrews 10:1) (note how these passages repeat words like 'shadows' & 'elements')
Zech 14:16 And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, YHVH of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
Eze 37:24 “David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My JUDGMENTS (Heb mishpat, H4941) and observe My STATUTES (Heb chuqqah, H2708), and DO THEM."
Note1: 'mishpat', click on H4941 to see where the word is used 421 times
Note2: 'chuqqah', click on H2708 to see all the 105 times the word is used (notice how the word is used in Lev 23 'PERPETUAL statute')
Is Zech 9:10 quoted in the Gospels together with Zech 9:9?
Zech 9:9-10 (KJV) Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. AND I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.
The two verses are taken as one whole prophecy. Click on the above link of Zech 9:9-10 to see the Interlinear where it shows that v10 starts with the Hebrew letter marked as a 'Conj-w' (conjunction).
Click here for the parallel version of v10. Less than half of the translations retain the 'AND' (e.g. KJV and Brenton Septuagint). Notice the right portion of the page under the sub-heading 'Cross-References', no NT verse. Now, click here for the v9 parallels. Matthew, Luke and John are listed as referencing v9.
How many Jewish men have entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey? The sign of the Messiah given in Zech 9:9-10 is the elimination of 'chariots and horses' (War will cease for good in Jerusalem). When the Messiah comes, the whole world will know him because he will bring about lasting peace, speak peace to the nations, and his dominion will be from sea to the ends of the earth. The whole world will know the Messiah. This did not happen 2000 yeas ago.
Wholeheartedly agree with anon 3:16 comments.
DeleteAnon 7:08
ReplyDeleteIs Shabbat obsevance required for salvation. Absolutely.
Hmmmm………a little presumptuous I would say.
We are saved by grace and that through faith….
To the jailer it was said ‘believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved’.
The book of Acts, especially chapter 15.
Nothing here pointing to Shabbat observance as required for salvation.
Abraham believed God and it was acquitted to him as righteousness.
And that before Sinai.
The argument for salvation with Shabbath keeping smack of the circumcision requirement by the Pharisees.
That said I do keep Shabbat but know this does not save, what Jesus did for me at Calvary did.
Anon 7:08
ReplyDeleteReally?
Read Acts 15 for starters.
I keep the Shabbath but it is Jesus who saved me not the other way around.
Anonymous 2:48
ReplyDeleteThe Sabbath is a foreshadow of Jesus. It was a form and not the very substance. Jesus was the substance. Armstrongism has taken a superseded form, clearly defined as such in Pauline theology, and made it the substance of salvation. I don't like to be provocative but that is clearly heresy.
There is nothing wrong with voluntarily keeping the seventh day. But it is not a requirement. It wasn't on the list when the Jerusalem Council rendered its judgement.
You wrote "So keep the Sabbath or into the lake of fire you go. Sizzle, sizzle."
That's disgusting. Did you think that was funny?
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
2:48 wrote: "Is Sabbath observance required for salvation. Absolutely."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely NOT! Proof of that is Abraham and the patriarchs that lived before Moses delivered the 10. They all were saved by faith. No commandments, none of the adulterated junk that COG's demand people do in order be saved by today. Even the thief on the cross was saved without professing and keeping the 10.
Anonymous 3:16, you wrote: ". . . and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles."
ReplyDeleteThe FOT will apparently be reinstituted. There is no mention of any of the other Holy Days being reinstituted in the future. The FoT had a theme of outreach to the Gentiles and that runs through the surrounding scriptures in Zechariah. Zechariahs speaks of the withholding of rain. It was typical for the Jews to pray for rain during the FoT.
This is a far cry from Armstrongism and its preoccupation with the Old Testament litigation. And also the negative view that Armstrongists take towards "Gentiles."
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Anonymous 2:48 Addendum
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that you have never kept the Sabbath as prescribed by the OT litigation. You probably cook your breakfast in the morning. You probably eat in restaurants on the sabbath. Travel too far. Buy gasoline maybe. Talk about secular subjects before and after services.
Remember your beliefs. You have to do better than the Pharisees, if you believe that the New Covenant litigation is a more stringent form of the OT litigation and written on your heart.
Because Jesus said:
“For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven.”
Your whole church is in trouble.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
7.30 PM
DeleteNEO, I've your response before. It's the "then why aren't you perfect as instructed by Christ?"
It's harassment, so I won't go down that rabbit hole.
Btw, you side stepped my point of why one needs to keep the Sabbath.
NeoTherm, I notice you say "OT litigation" where I would normally expect you to say "OT law". I'm unfamiliar with this unusual use of the word "litigation", which is not synonymous with "law". Could you explain your meaning?
ReplyDeleteArmstrongites need to consider ALL the scriptures on a subject:
ReplyDelete(Galatians 4:10-12 + Colossians 2:16-17 + Hebrews 10:1)
..and quit quoting high-school-dropout-Herbie's twisted prooftexts
ReplyDeleteIsa 56:1-2 Thus says YHVH: “Keep justice, and do righteousness, for My salvation is about to come, and My righteousness to be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who lays hold on it; who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.”
Isa 56:4-7 For thus says YHVH: “To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, even to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the foreigner who join themselves to YHVH, to serve Him, and to love the name of YHVH, to be His servants— everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and holds fast My covenant— Even them I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations."
Isa 66:22-24 “For as the new heavens and the new earth which I will make shall remain before Me,” says YHVH, “So shall your descendants and your name remain. And it shall come to pass that from one New Moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, ALL FLESH shall come to worship before Me,” says YHVH. "And they shall go forth and look upon the corpses of the men who have transgressed against Me. For their worm does not die, and their fire is not quenched. They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”
Neo Therm @7:30
ReplyDeleteWell put.
Jesus Christ is an inconvenient figure to the Pharisees,
so are the writings of Paul the Apostle.
Phinnpoy September 14, 2021 at 7:19 AM
ReplyDelete“Until they read actual church history in the New Testament, and in the Post-Apostolic writings of the Early Church Fathers, they'll never know what the early church was really like.”
2 Peter v 1 “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.
The ”Early Church Fathers” were heretics. 2 Thes. 2 v 7 - For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. John 14 v 15 “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” Math 5 v17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill ( magnify) them.
Typical Armstrongite ignorance. The Early Church Fathers are our primary source for church history. The history they recorded shows a church that in no way looks like a Armstrong fantasy. It resembles the Catholic Church in beliefs and structure. And the word Catholic was used to describe it as early as 110 AD.
DeleteAs for your Armstrong fantasy church, Judaizing groups existed, but they were marginal, and taught bizarre and heretical ideas that were gnostic, rather than Christian.
But Armstrongism loves Polycarp, one of the three Apostolic Fathers!
DeleteThey actually love their false image of Polycarp. If any of these ACOG folks ever read what Polycarp actually believed and taught, they would be utterly shocked!
DeleteWho did Polycarp associate with? Papias. Who did Polycarp correspond with and even travel to visit? Ignatius of Rome.
DeleteAnonymous, September 14, 2021 at 3:16 PM, wrote:
ReplyDelete"...How many Jewish men have entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey? The sign of the Messiah given in Zech 9:9-10 is the elimination of 'chariots and horses' (War will cease for good in Jerusalem). When the Messiah comes, the whole world will know him because he will bring about lasting peace, speak peace to the nations, and his dominion will be from sea to the ends of the earth. The whole world will know the Messiah. This did not happen 2000 yeas ago..."
******
You are correct. That did not happen 2000 years ago, nor has it happened over the last 2,000 years, no will it happen over the next thousand years, because there will be no Mickey mouse Millennium with Jesus Christ reigning on this Earth with everlasting peace (no more room) until sometime later.
When Satan comes out of the pit over a thousand years from now there will be war again and a lack of everlasting peace. That time of No More war, and everlasting peace is pictured not by the Feast of Tabernacles but by the 8th day after the second Resurrection has taken place. There is no need for a third Resurrection.
The former blind hirelings of wcg, now splinter leaders, were thinking with "here a little and there a little," fell backwards by making up their own theory and tried to jam scriptures that apply to the Eighth Day, Great Last Day, and jam them all into the meaning of God's Feast of Tabernacles, but that won't work in reality.
Doug Winnail and Weston and Kubik and Franks illustrate their errors clearly by their own writings, but...
Time will tell, or shall we ask the following question?
How much more time will these x-cog leaders need before they prove to themselves that they took a step backwards in understanding Bible prophecy and annual Holydays...even the weekly Sabbath, for that matter?
Time will tell...
John
Anon, September 14, 2021 at 7:19 PM
ReplyDelete2:48 wrote: "Is Sabbath observance required for salvation. Absolutely."
Absolutely NOT! Proof of that is Abraham and the patriarchs that lived before Moses delivered the 10. They all were saved by faith. No commandments, none of the adulterated junk that COG's demand people do in order be saved by today. Even the thief on the cross was saved without professing and keeping the 10.
******
For any that do not understand "absolutely not," they may just have patience and wait until after the second Resurrection in the Eighth Day, the Great Last Day, and they will receive some of the following information at that time:
Isaiah 43:12
"I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God."
Isaiah 45:22
"Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else."
Will all of us be among those witnesses?
Time will tell...
John
Anonymous (1:02 AM)
ReplyDeleteTo the Artful Dodger:
Odd that you would accuse me of side-stepping when I addressed these issues head on. And then you side stepped what I stated.
You wrote: "The Sabbath is not an end in itself but rather a means to an end. That end being refocusing on God, and the straight and narrow. Otherwise long term, people become demons. It's that simple."
Is the statement above supposed to be a proof that the Sabbath should be kept because it is a requirement for salvation? The Sabbath can be used as an ethical issue or instructional device to achieve what you suggest above. It need not be used as a condition to salvation as in Armstrongism to achieve this education. This is the ideology of The Circumcision Party.
You also stated: "NEO, I've your response before. It's the "then why aren't you perfect as instructed by Christ?" It's harassment, so I won't go down that rabbit hole."
No this is not a rabbit hole. this is a highly relevant question. All doubt should be laid to rest if you are going to believe you have salvation in Armstrongism. And, yes, you side-stepped the issue by simply calling it harassment and refusing to respond. In the interests of a legitimate debate, you need to make a credible response to my observation.
The fact is you have never kept the Sabbath and if you believe in Armstrongism you believe in a religious philosphy that logically precludes you from salvation. This because you do not intermittently backslide but persistently, systematically and proactively sin by Armstrongist standards. So you will know what standard I am referring to, I will repeat it:
"Remember your beliefs. You have to do better than the Pharisees, if you believe that the New Covenant litigation is a more stringent form of the OT litigation and written on your heart."
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Anonymous 9:37 you wrote "NeoTherm, I notice you say "OT litigation" where I would normally expect you to say "OT law". I'm unfamiliar with this unusual use of the word "litigation", which is not synonymous with "law". Could you explain your meaning?"
ReplyDeleteWhen one uses the term The Law, it can be very confusing because of politicization. It is used in so many different ways. Even Paul uses the term The Law in ways that require careful research to understand. I just want readers to know that I am speaking of The Law of Moses in its entirety. Not, for instance, the Law of Moses minus the rituals and sacrifices. Or the Law of Moses minus the ministration of death penalties. Armstrongists and Paul and some Christian theologians and probably James all use the term The Law in different senses. This is complicated by the fact that Christ gave the litigation of the New Covenant in the Sermon on the Mount and that too is The Law. There is in the Bible, The Law of Moses and, also, The Law of Christ.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
ReplyDeleteThis is the Laodicea Era.
The UCG splinter group is basically for people who want to sin in their personal lives and believe whatever they want to believe while thinking and pretending that they are still part of the true church.
ReplyDeleteNeo wrote on 9/14 @7:21pm, The FOT will apparently be reinstituted. There is no mention of any of the other Holy Days being reinstituted in the future.
'Reinstituted' is not correct. The Lev 23 Sabbaths did not cease to be required for the children of Israel. Yes, there is no Temple today but it doesn't mean the weekly and annual Sabbaths have stopped.
Check my post above - 9/14 @10:05pm - where I quoted Isa 56:1-7 and Isa 66:22-24. The sub-headings for Isa 56:1-8 are 'Salvation for the Gentiles' (NKJV), 'Salvation for all Nations' (KJV), 'Rewards for Obedience to God' (NASB), 'The Covenant Extended to the Righteous' (ISV), "God's People Will Include All Nations" (GNT), ...
Isa 56 mentions non-Jews keeping the Sabbath. V5 states that they will have a place in YHVH's house better than sons and daughters. Why better?
Orthodox Jews believe that non-Jews are not required to keep the Sabbaths and other requirements of the Torah. For them, the Gentiles are under the Noahide Laws, a universal law.
Isa 66:24 describes the scene where people see bodies of sinners burning in an unquenchable fire. They just came out of the Third Temple after bowing down before YHVH on a Sabbath (Isa 66:23; Although v23 mentions New Moon, there's no commandment in the Torah to rest on that day or to keep it holy). Notice, it says 'ALL FLESH'. One can argue that it will only be the children of Israel based on previous verses. But, taking into account the promises made to Gentiles in Isa 56:1-8, that YHVH will bring the righteous Gentiles to His holy mountain and house of prayer which will be called a 'house of prayer for all nations' (Isa 56:7). Also mentioned is their burnt offerings (Heb olah, H5930) and their sacrifices (Heb zebach, H2077) will be accepted on YHVH's altar. When the physical Third Temple is built, animal sacrifices will be reinstituted. These are not prayers as in Hos 14:2 (literally, 'We will pay for bulls with our lips').
The righteous Gentiles who enter the Third Temple will be circumcised in heart and flesh (Eze 44:9).
Yom Kippur in the Third Temple
Eze 45:20 And so you shall do on the seventh day of the month for everyone who has sinned unintentionally or in ignorance. Thus you shall make atonement for the temple.
Lev 16:16 “So he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, for all their sins; and so he shall do for the tabernacle of meeting which remains among them in the midst of their uncleanness."
FOT in the Third Temple
Eze 45:25 “In the seventh month, on the fifteenth day of the month, at the feast, he shall do likewise for seven days, according to the sin offering, the burnt offering, the grain offering, and the oil.”
Passover and DUB in the Third Temple
Eze 45:21 “In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall observe the Passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten."
Anon 7:08 wrote: The ”Early Church Fathers” were heretics.
ReplyDeleteYes, that's what I was about to write earlier.
A problem with Phinnpoy and Anon 3:59 (heave no) has to do with the dominant influence of the Early Church Fathers and historians like Eusebius (who did, fortunately, account for some things verbatim). Along with the earlier Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, these writers were neo-Platonists. While the authors of the TaNaKh and Apostolic scriptures wrote with an Hebraic mindset, the neo-Platonists interpreted scripture from a Greek perspective. For example, in Hebrew thought, a shadow is good because it is the outline of reality; in Greek thought (as in Plato's cave analogy) the shadow is bad, as it is not reality. Some Torah laws were interpreted as allegories, and laws were categorized as "Moral", "Civil", etc.
And, some of the Church Fathers were strongly anti-Semitic; "Christianity" was "de-Judaized" and presented as a "new religion" rather than the culmination of Biblical "Judaism".
The message of Herbie and company was that Christians are obligated to keep ALL of God's commandments and do a better job at it than the Jews and Pharisees had. So, how can you say that it's inappropriate for someone to point out that they aren't? If God said to keep the feasts at Jerusalem, why is it OK not to do so? If God said to construct tabernacles out of leaves and branches, why is OK not to do so? NEO's point obviously struck a nerve, but he has obviously exposed an inconsistency in your theology. Moreover, I suspect you wouldn't go down that rabbit hole because there isn't any good response to his challenge!
ReplyDeleteLikewise, Phinnpoy's point about familiarizing oneself with the actually history of the early Christian Church is an entirely appropriate suggestion. The FACT is that the Armstrongist narrative about the history of the Church and the whole question of Sabbath to Sunday contradicts the evidence available to us from both secular history and Scripture. Hence, rather than dismissing anyone who doesn't lend credence to that false narrative as a heretic, you may want to actually read what they had to say and what others have written about them. At any rate, even if you conclude that all of them were heretics, you will be forced to confront a very different narrative about that early history than the one promulgated by the Church of God Seventh Day and Herbie.
Finally, the Greek word translated into English as "fulfill" does NOT suggest "magnify" (that's a different word in Greek). Look it up in Strong's Concordance. It means "to make full, to fill up, to fill to the full, to render full, to complete, to consummate, to carry into effect, bring to realization." As in, Jesus Christ fulfilled all of the requirement of the Law and Prophets for us! Moreover, Christ did actually magnify the Law by emphasizing its spiritual intent (LOVE) and demanding that his followers embrace that principle in their approach to God and each other.
Have you seen the air-brushed pictures of Herbvert in the ENVOY?
ReplyDeleteHe calls himself 'Chancellor' *LOL* of Ambassador College??
How can a High-School-Dropout be the Chancellor of a College???
11.55 AM
DeleteThat was common for his generation. Many gifted self-taught men became the heads of large companies.
Rubbish 4:34
Delete"But Armstrongism loves Polycarp, one of the three Apostolic Fathers!"
ReplyDeleteExactly! Watch how Bob Thiel slobbers all over Polycarp and a couple other church fathers.
UCG and the other COGs select which laws they kind of want to obey and reject the others.
ReplyDeleteThe COGs are especially in the dark about or indifferent about the law of Christ.
It's bizarre they insist on OT law-keeping and con themselves into believing they keep it, while they don't even keep the Sabbath according to the law.
It's also puzzling as to why they call themselves Christians while rejecting Jesus as the fulfillment of the Sabbath and the fulfillment of the Day of Atonement.
The COGs have not entered the Sabbath Rest and continue to work for their rest on the Sabbath and work for atonement on the Holy Day and throughout the year.
Note from Jesus, Matthew 11-28-29:
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
Tomorrow is the Day of Atonement and the COGs remain in sin, darkness, and starvation, as they reject Jesus as the perfect, once-and-forever atonement.
ReplyDeleteSomeone above asked "then why aren't you perfect as instructed by Christ?"
Those who are in Jesus have been made perfectly righteous by the righteousness of Jesus.
The COGs reject the Christian concept of Justification, despite the numerous verses that explain it.
That rejection is unfortunate because Justification and Redemption is the perfect message for the Day of Atonement.
Romans 4:25
He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
Acts 13:39
Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.
Romans 3:24
and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Romans 5:16
Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
Romans 3:26
he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Romans 3:28
For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
There are several more verses on the topic of how you can become perfectly righteous, to stand before God, if you care enough to search for them.
Another Christian concept, relevant to the Day of Atonement, is the Double Imputation.
ReplyDeleteThe Double imputation means:
1. Our sins are imputed to Jesus, who bore them on the cross.
2. The righteousness of Jesus is imputed to believers.
Romans 5:1
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Romans 5:9
Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!
You can enjoy peace with God on the Day of Atonement if you embrace the gift of Jesus.
I have a relative who left UCG for LCG because he thought LCG was more zealous for law keeping.
ReplyDeleteThis relative overheard me talking about Justification with another relative.
He interrupted us and asked where we got that crazy idea from - in unison, we said, "the Bible"
This relative remains uninterested in Justification.
Tomorrow, he will fast and try to gain atonement by his own efforts - and think of us as hopelessly lost sinners for not fasting.
However, Christians know that we are simultaneously perfectly righteous and hideous sinners.
Situationally, we sin; while just one sin is horrendous enough to earn death.
Positionally, in Jesus, we are completely righteousness.
Regardless of how much my relative fasts and studies the COG literature, he will not understand atonement and enjoy peace with God without accepting the Holy Scriptures depicting Justification.
Anon 7:08 wrote: "The ”Early Church Fathers” were heretics. "
ReplyDeleteTruly the dumbest comment on here today.
Anonymous 10:33 wrote "'Reinstituted' is not correct."
ReplyDeleteIt depends on your perspective, if you are a Jew "reinstituted" may not be correct. If you are a Christian, "reinstituted" is the precise word needed. Because the holy days existed in the OT period and were disconstinued in the NT period. So reinstition is appropriate. The Judaic perspective is not on my agenda.
As for Ezekiel 45 and, for that matter, Ezekiel 40 through the end of the book, there is much disagreement over what this lengthy passage means. In the NT the idea of the temple is used in many different ways. Paul in Ephesians refers to the church as the Holy Temple of God. Is this what Ezekiel was expressing allegorically? Where does the prince and the temple of the latter part of Ezekiel fit in the NT? Whatever Ezekiel's material temple that must be built by human hands symbolizes, it is not something of eternal value. We have a clear statment in Revelation regarding the ultimate Temple in the eschaton:
"And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."
Revelation never refers to Ezekiel's temple which you call the "Third Temple." I think the idea of the "Third Temple" means something else in today's Judaism. So where is Ezekiel's temple in the Millenium? There are many parallels between Revelation and Ezekiel but the temple of Ezekiel is not present. And bundled with the absent temple are the holy days you refer to.
I believe there is much more to learn about this prophecy of the temple in Ezekiel. We see through a glass darkly. I don't know what Ezekiel is talking about and I don't believe you know what he is talking about. I certainly would not fall back on an arcane prophecy in order to stand in opposition to the clear language of the NT that the Sabbath and Holy Days are but shadows that point to Jesus. They were forms and not the substance. Jesus is the substance. And these shadows have passed away now that the substance is here.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaim
ReplyDeleteNeo on 9/15 @7:44pm wrote, Because the holy days existed in the OT period and were disconstinued in the NT period. So reinstition is appropriate.
No. Moses warned the Israelites not to add to nor subtract from the Torah (Deu 4:2, 12:32). The Holy Days are statutes forever throughout their generations (Lev 23:14, 21, 31, 41). The Jews/Israelites still exist today. The NT's foundation is supposedly Tanakh. Tanakh takes preeminence over NT.
Mt 23:1-3 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do."
Mt 19:16-17 Now behold, one came and said to him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” So he said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
After Jesus died, Paul entered the scene claiming to be hearing Jesus' voice ... Was the message the same or similar with the recorded words of Jesus when he was alive?
Neo wrote, Where does the prince and the temple of the latter part of Ezekiel fit in the NT?
You are doing it in reverse. The NT, if it's really the word of God, should conform to Tanakh, not the other way around. Tanakh can stand by itself. The NT cannot. Even NT writers make claims that such and such event/person in NT fulfilled prophecies in Tanakh. The problem with most Christian readers of Ezekiel or any book in Tanakh is they read it through the filters of the NT.
Neo wrote, I don't believe you know what he is talking about.
Do you? I don't know everything and the minute details but I know Ezekiel is talking about a physical Temple which he describes in detail - dimensions, layout, etc. The Temple is not an allegory. Neither is the house of prayer mentioned in Isa 56 where non-Jews are going to offer burnt offerings and sacrifices. Both Ezekiel and Isaiah are speaking of the same Temple.
In Isa 56:3, the son of the foreigner joined (Heb lavah, H3867; 'levite', see Gen 29:34) himself to YHVH. And the eunuch is given a place within YHVH's walls. Notice that in Eze 44:9 there are foreigners among the Israelites. I believe these are the non-Jews in Isa 56.
Phinnpoy burted "If any of these ACOG folks ever read what Polycarp actually believed and taught, they would be utterly shocked!"
ReplyDeleteShock me, please! What did Polycarp actually believe and teach?
He taught doctrines that would be just like the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches hold.
DeleteAnonymous 12:30
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, "Moses warned the Israelites not to add to nor subtract from the Torah"
Have you, er, heard anything at all about the New Covenant?
You wrote, "The NT, if it's really the word of God, should conform to Tanakh"
That is something that you made up to support you retroactive, OT-immersed viewpoint. Essentially, it is a denial that Jesus brought any kind of message at all.
You wrote, "Neo wrote, I don't believe you know what he is talking about"
I still don't believe you are anybody else understands the scriptures you blithely bandy about. A description of physical processes does not rule out allegory, for instance. There again, that is a rule you created to support your retroactive views.
I find your use of all capitals pompous and HWA-like. It's OK to be an OT weenie, we all have our weaknesses, but it seems like this has precluded the NT for you.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
ReplyDeleteNeo wrote on 9/16 @8:07am, Have you, er, heard anything at all about the New Covenant?
Click here to read what I recently wrote.
Neo wrote, I find your use of all capitals pompous and HWA-like.
Isa 45:5a (NKJV) I am the LORD, and there is no other; There is no God besides Me.
Isa 58:9 (NKJV) Then you shall call, and the LORD will answer; You shall cry, and He will say, ‘Here I am.’ “If you take away the yoke from your midst,
The pointing of the finger, and speaking wickedness,
Is the NKJV being 'pompous and HWA-like' for printing LORD in all capital letters? Why did it do that? To differentiate YHVH ('LORD') from Adonai ('Lord'). They needed to emphasize that it's different because they translated the 2 words the same even though the meaning of YHVH is not LORD (Nehemia Gordon's explanation of YHVH).
When I read a book or a web page, and I see a word in all caps, I do not assume that the author/writer is shouting at me, or being pompous or HWA-like. The author doesn't know me personally for me to assume that. I take it as an emphasis.
Now, it is different when one does this in a personal email or text message. But, still context is important. One can get emails or letters from companies or organization with all caps words or even sentence (e.g. covid alerts, etc). The sender is not being pompous or HWA-like. It's being done for emphasis, to draw the reader's attention.
I had to emphasize words like 'AND', 'ALL FLESH', 'JUDGMENT', 'STATUTES', 'DO THEM', 'PERPETUAL', and ??? on this thread. I don't know anyone here personally for me to be pompous or HWA-like or to shout at.
NEO quoted Anon 12:30 "The NT, if it's really the word of God, should conform to Tanakh"
ReplyDeleteIf any book in the NT disagreed with the OT, it wouldn't have been canonized. Some books were accepted (Shepherd of Hermas, for one) and then rejected. Luther doubted a number of books, such as James (he didn't like "faith without works is dead").
Galatians is a source of antinomian proof texts, yet in Galatians 3:15, Paul writes that you can't just change things without agreement. When was the New Covenant presented to Israel (or "Christians") and they agreed to it?
Anonymous 2:45 wrote "If any book in the NT disagreed with the OT, it wouldn't have been canonized."
ReplyDeleteThis statement, without explanation, doesn't mean much.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Doesn't scripture teach to AVOID disputes II Timothy and all that....
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAnon wrote on 9/16 @2:45pm, If any book in the NT disagreed with the OT, it wouldn't have been canonized.
Example #1
Rom 10:6-8 But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down from above) or, “ ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach):
Deu 30:10-14 if you obey the voice of YHVH your Elohim, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Law/Torah, and if you turn to YHVH your Elohim with all your heart and with all your soul. For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.
Note: The Torah states that one is able to keep the commandments (Deu 30:14b, 'that you may do it'). Compare this with Paul's writings.
Example #2
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
Isa 59:20 “The Redeemer will come to Zion, And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,” Says YHVH.
Note: The NT is saying the deliverer will remove ungodliness from Israel. Tanakh is saying the redeemer will come to Zion and to those who repent. These two diametrically opposed statements represent a critical theological difference between Tanakh and NT.
Example #3
Heb 8:9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD.
Jer 31:32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says YHVH.
Note: Jer 31:35-37 speaks of the impossible conditions that YHVH would disregard Israel. See also Lev 26:44-45.
Example #4
Heb 10:5 Therefore, when he came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me.
Ps 40:6 Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; My ears You have opened. Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require.
1 Sam 15:22 So Samuel said: “Has YHVH as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of YHVH? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams."
Prov 15:8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to YHVH, but the prayer of the upright is His delight.
Note: An open ear is receptive to YHVH's words. Obeying the voice of YHVH is better than sacrifice. A sacrifice without sincere repentance is nothing.
Anonymous 12:58
ReplyDeleteDon't be disengenuous. I think you understand that the all caps used in NKJV is utterly different from your usage. NKJV is using this to clarify terminology. Your usage of billboard fonting is an effort to be condescending and preachy. The upside of your format is that it is easily identified and I can skip over it without reading any of it. So maybe you should retain the format as an aid to all of us.
As for Ezekiel's account beginning in chapter 40, again, you do not know what it means. Jewish and Christian scholars don't know what it means. I do not know what it means and I have no reason to believe you know what it means.
No doubt some message is bound up in Ezekiel's Temple and its supporting scriptures. But the fact remains, his temple is nowhere else mentioned in the Bible, including in the Book of Revelation where it might logically appear. The Temple imagery in the New Testament belongs to Christ. The church is referred to as the holy temple and the church is the Body of Christ. Revelation explicitly states that Christ is the temple along with God the Father.
You wrote, "Tanakh can stand by itself. The NT cannot."
This is a blatant Armstrongist view. It is an attempt to preserve the false idea put forward by Herman Hoeh that the Old Testament litigation is God's eternal moral law. Neither the OT litigation or the NT litigation stand by themselves. They are both instantiations of God's eternal moral law, reflecting God Himself, for different groups of human beings under different human circumstances. As such they have a cognate relationship.
I'm done with this. I hope your desires to be HWA will bring you the appropriate reward.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
NeoTherm, September 15, 2021 at 7:44 PM, said
ReplyDelete[[...Anonymous 10:33 wrote "'Reinstituted' is not correct."
It depends on your perspective......As for Ezekiel 45 and, for that matter, Ezekiel 40 through the end of the book, there is much disagreement over what this lengthy passage means...... Where does the prince and the temple of the latter part of Ezekiel fit in the NT?......I believe there is much more to learn about this prophecy of the temple in Ezekiel. We see through a glass darkly. I don't know what Ezekiel is talking about and I don't believe you know what he is talking about......]]
******
Ezekiel 45:21 "In the first [month], in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.
:22 And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock [for] a sin offering.
:23 And seven days of the feast he shall prepare a burnt offering to the LORD, seven bullocks and seven rams without blemish daily the seven days; and a kid of the goats daily [for] a sin offering.
:24 And he shall prepare a meat offering of an ephah for a bullock, and an ephah for a ram, and an hin of oil for an ephah.
:25 In the seventh [month], in the fifteenth day of the month, shall he do the like in the feast of the seven days, according to the sin offering, according to the burnt offering, and according to the meat offering, and according to the oil."
Those verses tell us about feasts, God's Feasts, that have not been done away with way in the future, and over a 1,000 years from now!
Who is the prince (verse 22)? It's David, ancient king of Israel...after he awakes in the 2nd resurrection in the Eighth Day; there is no need for any 3rd resurrection.
To be continued…to tell more…
John
Continuing…
ReplyDeleteDavid will awake in the same resurrection that Isaiah will come up in: the 2nd:
Isaiah 26:19 Thy dead [men] shall live, [together with] my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew [is as] the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.
Neither David nor Isaiah will be in any 1st resurrection, although this is contrary to what HWA (and so many former hirelings/little helpers of HWA continue to still teach in error today; and they don't mind so long as they receive their $paychecks$, position, audience. Lying is still an "in thing" in today's present evil world) taught us in the former WCG.
Both David and Isaiah will be alive in the future represented by God's 7th annual Holyday, the Eighth Day, the Great Last Day.
Nor will David, Isaiah or Jesus Christ take part in any MMM (Mickey Mouse Millennium with another Jesus very soon to reign on earth for 1,000 years).
Yes, David will be that prince. Speaking of that same time period of the Eighth Day, not any Feast of Tabernacles or any MMM, Ezekiel identified that prince:
Ezekiel 37:24 "And David my servant [shall be] king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, [even] they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever: and my servant David [shall be] their prince for ever."
These verses, so often misapplied by the former WCG hirelings, apply to a much later time then the MMM theory those hirelings continue to teach from their "here a little, there a little" method of splicing scriptures together to make up some of their fantasies...and they want $mammon$ in return for their theories? When will they recognize they have fallen backwards...well, gone stagnant? Unable to move beyond 16 Jan 1986? stuck in some "holding pattern" like an aircraft hoping the fog (vail over their eyes) will lift enough to finally land someplace they can recognize? Jamming scriptures pertaining to the Eighth Day into their idea of a millennium will not work. HWA was unaware, just as unaware as his little helpers still are today.
So, will that prince be alive to participate in those preparations mentioned in these Ezekiel 45 verses in the MMM, or much later during the period of the Eighth Day?
Time will tell...
John
John (8:05), you wrote "Those verses tell us about feasts, God's Feasts, that have not been done away with way in the future, and over a 1,000 years from now!"
ReplyDeleteThis is a form of special pleading. What if we knew what Ezekiel was actually writing about, the mystery temple notwithstanding, and the Holy Days will be re-established in some future period. It is a leap of presumption for you to believe because they are required in the future, they are also required now. You cannot make up your own rules, you must exegete this from the New Testament. Here is something that was eternal that was transformed under the New Covenant:
"He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."
The holy days were also transformed in a like manner. If you are going to assert otherwise, you are going to have to find your support in the New Covenant. You cannot cite a string of OT scriptures and come up with the right conclusion. This is one of the great failings of people who turn the OT into an immersive hobby - like the billboard fonting guy who doesn't have a clue.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
NeoTherm, September 17, 2021 at 9:50 AM wrote: "John (8:05), you wrote "Those verses tell us about feasts, God's Feasts, that have not been done away with way in the future, and over a 1,000 years from now!"
ReplyDeleteThis is a form of special pleading. What if we knew what Ezekiel was actually writing about, the mystery temple notwithstanding, and the Holy Days will be re-established in some future period. It is a leap of presumption for you to believe because they are required in the future, they are also required now..."
******
NeoTherm, of course, those days are still in effect today. I never said they weren't, although most are unaware of them today.
John
For those who are interested in the proper relationship of New Covenant Christians to the Holy Days, you may want to check this out:
ReplyDeletehttps://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-lords-appointed-festivals.html
No thanks.
Delete
ReplyDeleteJohn,
I'll just be sharing my understanding and what I learned from the Jews - Orthodox and Karaites; not Messianic or Covert Missionaries like Michael Elk.
Christian beliefs vs Ezekiel 40+
Some Christians believe that ...
1. the Temple in Eze 40 is not a physical Temple (Eze 40, 41, 42, 43).
2. the animal sacrifices have been done away (Eze 40:38-43; 43:18-27; 45:18-25; 46:4-6,11-13,24).
3. the Aaronic priesthood has been replaced (Eze 42:1-14, 44:10-31).
4. the circumcision has been done away (Eze 44:4-9).
5. the Holy Days have been done away (Eze 45:18-25).
6. the Sabbath has been done away (Eze 46:1-11).
7. the trees will bear 12 fruits (Eze 47:1-12). (This is just an interesting info.)
Jewish concept of the Messiah
In Tanakh, a flesh and blood descendant of David will rule Israel during the age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of YHVH. His reign will be a historically verifiable reality, self-evident to any person, it won’t require belief or faith.
Prophecies in Tanakh pertaining to the coming of the Messiah (Isa 11:1-9; Jer 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Eze 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hos 3:4-5), have a 'first coming' perspective.
He will offer sin sacrifice for himself (Eze 45:22). He will have sons (physical descendants) whom he will give inheritance (Eze 46:16-17).
Will The Messiah live forever?
Eze 37:24-25 “David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. … and My servant David shall be their prince FOREVER.
I have used all caps in FOREVER to draw your attention. The Hebrew word is olam, H5769, meaning world or long duration. The duration is dependent on the context or subject. In Ex 21:6b '... and he shall serve him forever', the servant is to serve his master forever (olam). Does this forever/olam mean eternity? Obviously not as the servant's life is finite. The forever simply means throughout his lifetime.
The Messiah being flesh and blood will die at some point in time. What happens next?
Jer 33:17, “For thus says YHVH: ‘David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel;'"
Exegete this from the NT: 1 Cor 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast........ says Paul to the church at Corinth which was 800 miles from Jerusalem! You think they traveled 1600 miles, to and from, Jerusalem to keep a feast, particularly a one day feast of Pentecost? No. The church did not travel to Jerusalem to keep a feast. Which feasts still existed after Christ's death, after the demolition of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. Otherwise find the scripture that specifies abolishing the feasts.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous (10:16)
ReplyDeleteYou are living in a darkened world of long debunked arguments. You desperately need to read "Sabbath, Circumcision and Tithing" by Michael Morrison. Come out into the light. Give yourself a break.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Under the New Covenant, the House of Israel and the Gentiles will be keeping the Sabbath:
ReplyDeleteIsa 66:23 And it shall come to pass ... from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
Israel and the Gentiles will have to be circumcised in heart and flesh to enter the Temple and participate in worship.
Isa 56:7a Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer:
Eze 44:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.
Zec 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
Tithing will be required, note “teruma” below
Eze 20:40 For in mine holy mountain, in the mountain of the height of Israel, saith the Lord GOD, there shall all the house of Israel, all of them in the land, serve me: there will I accept them, and there will I require your offerings [teruma], and the firstfruits of your oblations, with all your holy things.
Nu 18:24a But the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering [teruma] unto the LORD...
The Good News is that Israel and Gentiles will be joined to the Lord and be His [one] people:
Jer 50:4a In those days, and in that time, saith the LORD, the children of Israel shall come, they and the children of Judah together...
Jer 50:5b saying, Come, and let us join [lavah] ourselves to the LORD in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten.
Isa 56:6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join [lavah] themselves to the LORD ... every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
Zec 2:11a And many nations shall be joined [lavah] to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee...
"... the nations will join themselves to YHWH - not merely to Israel... They will belong to YHWH just as Israel does ... they will enjoy exactly the same covenantal relationship with YHWH that Israel does. The expression "they will be for me a people" is precisely the language of the covenant, with its roots going back to Sinai, hitherto applied only to Israel" (Christopher J.H. Wright, The Mission of God, p.498).
Lev 23:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts [mo‘edim] of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.
God’s people - Israel and the Gentiles - will be keeping the mo‘edim of the Lord - Isaiah mentions the “Sabbath” and Zechariah mentions the “Feast of Tabernacles”.
Isa 49:6b ... I will also give thee [Israel in the dynamic sense] for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
Isa 14:1 For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined [lavah] with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.
"Jeremiah 50:5 anticipates that Judah and Israel will return to Jerusalem and will "bind (lwh, "join") themselves to the Lord by everlasting covenant". Isaiah 14:1 looks forward to the time when people from other nations will also bind themselves (lwh) to God. Non-Jews [better non-Israelites] who join make a commitment to serve, worship, and love the name of the Lord, to honor the Sabbath, and to "hold fast to my covenant" (Isa 56:6)... in verse 11 [chapter 2] Zechariah also speaks of "nations," not just individuals. The Lord extends a covenant relationship to these nations. They will become my people is one half of the covenant formula previously offered to Israel, "I will be their God, and they will be my people" (e.g., Exod 6:7)..." (Pamela J. Scalise, Zechariah, "Minor Prophets II," NIBC, pp.215-16).
Anon, October 27, 2021 at 8:19 PM, responded to Neo wrote on 10/27 @6:53am, with the following response:
ReplyDelete"...Does 'new' covenant imply that there will be an 'old' or 'obsolete' covenant? Again, new is a figure of speech or biblical poetic style to express reinvigoration and revitalization of the existing covenant. Same parties to the existing covenant - YHVH and the children of Israel. If a married couple would like to renew their marriage covenant, would they do that with different partners? Would they divorce and marry somebody else? Would there be a drastic change in their house rules? Is that the meaning of renewing a marriage covenant? Wouldn't the renewal of wedding vows involves reinvigorating the promise of being faithful to one another?...
Jer 31:33 states YHVH will put His Law/Torah in their inward parts and write it in their hearts. YHVH will establish a new covenant with Israel that unlike the 'old' will be faithfully observed by Israel, because it will become innately part of their being (see also Eze 11:19-20; Contrast this with Prov 3:1, 3b where the Israelites, not YHVH, are to 'write them on the tablet of your heart').
YHVH will then grant them freedom from subjection to their foes (Lev 26:44-45). YHVH is to confer upon Israel a new covenant of protection, one which will never be broken by them once they are restored to their homeland..."
******
That was an interesting reply to NEO. FWIIW, I will add another comment that may also be helpful.
In Exodus 24:3, 7, it was the Israelite people who made a covenant with God. They made it and they virtually immediately broke it (Exodus 32), because they, stiffnecked as they were, were utterly incapable, without God's Spirit guiding them, of keeping it. People generally refer to this covenant as old.
What did God (YHVH) do about that breakable covenant? He made another one, a new one, an unbreakable covenant (Exodus 34:10, 27; Deut 31:16) with the people, a covenant that did not depend upon the Israelites and what they did or did not do; however, there would be blessings and cursings associated with it. Where did God make this unbreakable covenant? Unbreakable, because God is faithful and He will not break it! I am emphasizing that the people did not make this second (therefore new) covenant with God; God made it with them!
"Faithful [is] he that calleth you, who also will do [it]." I Thess 5:24
Will God really be this faithful to those ancient Israelites?
Time will tell...
John