The Church of God International Asks:
Should the Feast Days Be Kept?
In the latest edition of The International News, Solomon Bleary writes: “The feast days and weekly Sabbath stand or fall together. In Leviticus 23:1, God uses the possessive pronoun “MY appointed festivals, the festivals of the LORD” to show ownership. Leviticus 23 addresses God’s seven annual holy days and the Sabbath.”
In response, I would note that God “owns” the entire Torah, and that ALL of the commandments contained therein are “His!” Indeed, they are repeatedly characterized as “my commandments,” “my statutes,” and “my laws” throughout those first five books of the Hebrew Bible (See Genesis 26:5, Exodus 16:28, 20:6, Leviticus 22:31, 26:3, 15, Numbers 15:40, Deuteronomy 5:10, 29, 11:13). I would also agree with Solomon that ALL of these obligations (feast days, weekly Sabbath, sacrifices, offerings, etc.) “stand or fall together.”
Like Herbert Armstrong before him, Solomon failed to mention that everything outlined in Torah represented the terms of God’s covenant with ISRAEL! For instance, the twenty-third chapter of the book of Leviticus opens with this statement: “The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, These are the appointed feasts of the Lord that you shall proclaim as holy convocations; they are my appointed feasts.’” (Leviticus 23:1-2, ESV) Likewise, after enumerating all of the Lord’s holy times, we read: “Thus Moses declared to the people of Israel the appointed feasts of the Lord.” (Leviticus 23:44, ESV)
Moreover, God made clear to the people of Israel that ALL of the commandments and instructions included therein were parts of an inseparable whole. In the fourth chapter of Deuteronomy, we read: “And now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the rules that I am teaching you, and do them, that you may live, and go in and take possession of the land that the Lord, the God of your fathers, is giving you. You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:1-2, ESV) And, a little later in the same chapter: “This is the law that Moses set before the people of Israel. These are the testimonies, the statutes, and the rules, which Moses spoke to the people of Israel when they came out of Egypt.” (Deuteronomy 4:44-45, ESV) In this sense, the entire legislation of Torah “stands or falls together.”
Likewise, the Greek New Testament makes clear that Jesus Christ and his apostles viewed Torah (AKA “The Law”) as a comprehensive, inseparable whole. According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Matthew 5:17, ESV) Here, Christ divided the Hebrew Scriptures into Law and Prophets and said that he came here to FULFILL THEM (ALL of them). Later, in this same account, we read that Christ was asked about the greatest commandments of the Law. He replied: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40, ESV) In similar fashion, Paul wrote to the Christians at Rome: “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” (Romans 13:10, ESV) James wrote: “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.” (James 2:10 ESV)
In other words, Jesus Christ fulfilled ALL of the Law and ALL of the Prophets. It all pointed to HIM! That is why Paul wrote to the saints at Colossae: “So don’t let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. For these rules are only shadows of the reality yet to come. And Christ himself is that reality.” (Colossians 2:16-17, NLT)
How do they all point to Christ? Jesus was our Passover Lamb who was sacrificed for us. He is also the Unleavened Bread of Life, without the leavening of sin. He is our Wave Sheaf Offering! He is the firstfruits of God’s plan to redeem humankind from sin and death, and who made it possible for us to receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit! Jesus is both the epitome of God’s reign over the earth and its inhabitants and the impetus for the proclamation of that Good News. He is the one who carries away our sins and reconciles us to God – achieving our at-one-ment. Finally, Jesus is the one who took on our nature and tabernacled in the flesh for a little while, and the one who invited “Anyone who is thirsty may come to me! Anyone who believes in me may come and drink!” (John 7:37-38, NLT)
In fact, the New Testament informs us that the ENTIRE Hebrew Bible MUST be interpreted and understood through the Christ event! In the Gospel of Luke, we read: “’When I was with you before, I told you that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms must be fulfilled.’ Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.” (Luke 24:44-45, NLT) Hence, we are forced to ask ourselves: What happens to the symbol when the reality comes to pass?
In his article, Solomon went on to point out that “Some argue that the feast days (Leviticus 23) are a part of the sacrificial system of the Levites.” My reaction: Have you actually read this chapter of Leviticus? Do you realize that sacrifices and offerings are woven into the text describing ALL of these appointed times which the Israelites were instructed to observe. Yes, as Solomon points out, there were also sacrifices associated with the weekly Sabbath. That’s because it was ALL part of a system – components of a whole!
So, how are these things manifested in the New Covenant? Jesus is the true Sabbath rest who said: “Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you. Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle at heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” (Matthew 11:28-29, NLT) Likewise, in terms of circumcision (another sign of God’s covenant with Israel), Paul wrote to the Christians at Rome: “For you are not a true Jew just because you were born of Jewish parents or because you have gone through the ceremony of circumcision. No, a true Jew is one whose heart is right with God. And true circumcision is not merely obeying the letter of the law; rather, it is a change of heart produced by the Spirit. And a person with a changed heart seeks praise from God, not from people.” (Romans 2:28-29, NLT)
What Solomon and his associates fail to see is that Jesus of Nazareth FULFILLED ALL of the requirements of Torah for us. He didn’t do away with them. He made them obsolete by being what they pointed to! Moreover, like the saints of Galatia, many of the people of CGI continue to believe that salvation is something which they must earn! Solomon wrote: “If we are not commandment-keeping people, how will we be saved and be a part of the first resurrection?” The answer to his question, of course, is that we will be saved because Christ obeyed those commandments without flaw and then offered himself as a sacrifice for us – to pay the penalty for all of the occasions we failed to obey!
As Paul wrote to the saints at Galatia almost two thousand years ago: “But those who depend on the law to make them right with God are under his curse, for the Scriptures say, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the commands that are written in God’s Book of the Law.’ So, it is clear that no one can be made right with God by trying to keep the law. For the Scriptures say, ‘It is through faith that a righteous person has life.’ This way of faith is very different from the way of law, which says, ‘It is through obeying the law that a person has life.’” (Galatians 3:10-12, NLT) Even so, there is a sense in which Solomon’s assertion that Christ is going to return to a commandment keeping people is true.
Quite intentionally, Christ drew Two Great Commandments from the Torah and identified them as fulfilling the Law (Love for God and each other). Indeed, Christ commanded his disciples to love each other, and that them doing so would identify them as his disciples (John 15:9-13).
Paul wrote: “We know that our old sinful selves were crucified with Christ so that sin might lose its power in our lives. We are no longer slaves to sin. For when we died with Christ, we were set free from the power of sin. And since we died with Christ, we know we will also live with him. We are sure of this because Christ was raised from the dead, and he will never die again. Death no longer has any power over him. When he died, he died once to break the power of sin. But now that he lives, he lives for the glory of God. So, you also should consider yourselves to be dead to the power of sin and alive to God through Christ Jesus. Do not let sin control the way you live; do not give in to sinful desires. Do not let any part of your body become an instrument of evil to serve sin. Instead, give yourselves completely to God, for you were dead, but now you have new life. So, use your whole body as an instrument to do what is right for the glory of God. Sin is no longer your master, for you no longer live under the requirements of the law. Instead, you live under the freedom of God’s grace.” (Romans 6:6-14, NLT) Hence, Christ will be returning to people who have been transformed and are living their lives in obedience to Christ’s commandments about love.
Christ’s people do NOT need a list of dos and don’ts like the one given to the people of Israel. The people of the New Covenant do NOT need to present sacrifices and offerings, keep the festivals at Jerusalem, be physically circumcised, attend synagogue on Sabbath, avoid eating unclean animals, consult the Urim and Thummim, observe mildew regulations, or write bills of divorce when they become dissatisfied with their spouses! If Christ’s followers are truly loving each other, a specific commandment against murder, adultery, stealing, or coveting becomes redundant and unnecessary. Hence, the answer to the question that Solomon posed (Should the Feast Days Be Kept?) is NO! One last thing, it is currently impossible to observe the festivals in the manner prescribed by Torah anyway!
Lonnie Hendrix/Miller Jones
Thanks for recalling the wonderful scriptures showing how isalvation is through Christ alone. Not via our attempts to keep/do laws.
ReplyDeleteThe big sleight of hand these churches perform is to equate Israel in the old covenant laws with the church today.
Yet they become condemned by their own teachings because they don’t keep the laws anyway. They just think they do.
...Let us keep the feast....1Cor 5:8. It will be celebrated the 14th-20th, unlike Armstrong's feasts, in the future - Eze 45:21.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally Lev 23 does not add more feasts to the 3 feasts listed in Ex 23:14-16. Lev 23 lists fixed times-Hebrew moed.....the 3 feasts, and sabbaths. Ex 23 lists Hebrew chag, chagag. There are only 3 feasts.
I suppose Zechariah 14:16-21 is to be ignored.
ReplyDeleteThe concept that people enjoy keeping Tabernacles seems to elude Lonnie.
The law of Moses is the law of Christ
ReplyDeleteExo 3:14 And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am [ego eimi]... (Brenton, LXX).
Jn 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am [ego eimi].
"Increasingly scholars are recognizing that one of the fundamental agendas of the Gospels is to present Jesus as Yahweh, who ushers in the kingdom of God" (Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC, p.145).
“The message of the New Testament is that Yahweh, the One who spoke directly at Sinai and indirectly through Moses, is none other than Jesus Christ, Yahweh incarnate in human form, and that Moses was his prophet" (Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC, p.38).
Jn 15:10 If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love.
"Here "keep/obey my commands" does not mean simply, "Do as I tell you from now on." The expression "my commands" alludes to specific commands revealed long ago as God's will. When the disciples hear these words from Jesus' lips, they are hearing the voice of the One who revealed his "decrees and laws" long ago at Horeb. This Jesus who speaks in the upper room is the same One who spoke directly to the people at Sinai and through his prophet Moses" (Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC, p.123).
Jn 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
“The contrast here is not between law and grace, but two ways of expressing grace: mediated and embodied. John is referring to the two climatic gracious revelation movements in history. For the Israelites, possession of the Torah was a supreme grace (Rom 9:4), a grace exceed and superseded only by Christ, for he is Immanuel, "God with us" (Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC, pp.122-23).
1 Cor 9:21b .... (though I am not free from God’s law
1 Cor 9:21c but am under Christ’s law) ... (NIV).
Paul “can call it “the law of Christ” (cf. 1 Cor 9:20-21). By that he does not mean a different code or document; it is the Mosaic law, but summed up in the command to love and interpreted in the light of Christ” (Charles B. Cousar, Galatians, Int., p.82).
1 Cor 9:21b & c is a synonymous parallelism; so that God's law equals Christ's law.
Ro 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
"Paul "begins with the positive side: "I rejoice in the law of God according to the inner person. "The law of God" is again the Mosaic law, the Torah, to which Paul as a Jew was devoted" (Douglas J. Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed, NICNT, p.484).
Pr 25:21 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:
Ro 12:20a Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink:
“This does not mean that in Christ a new set of laws has taken the place of the old, although in terms of specifics it would certainly refer to those kinds of ethical demands given, for example in Rom 12 and Gal 5-6, so many of these reflect the teaching of Jesus..." (Gordon D, Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Rev. ed., NICNT, pp.474-75).
“Deuteronomy ... presents the law as a gift of grace to the redeemed to guide them in the way of righteousness and leads to life (cf. Deut 4:6-8; 6:20-25)” (Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC, p.27).
“... we should read the book as an ancient Near Eastern document that addresses issues current well over a thousand years before Christ in idioms derived from that cultural world...
“We should recognize the book as a written deposit of eternal truth. Some of these verities are cast in explicit declarative form (4:35, 39), while others are couched in distinctive Israelite cultural dress, for which we need to identify the underlying theological principle (22:8). Unless the New Testament explicitly declares a Deuteronomic ordinance to be passe, we should assume minimally that the principle underlying each command remains valid” (Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC, p.37).
By that he does not mean a different code or document; it is the Mosaic law,
DeleteThus it must be - as a consequence of this statement - if one does not “ keep” the seventh day sabbath then you cannot be saved.
Jesus’ favorite book
ReplyDelete“... judging by the number of quotations from Deuteronomy, this was Jesus’ favorite book. This impression is reinforced by his distillation of the entire law into the simple command to love Yahweh with one’s whole being and to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). This form of the command is thoroughly deuteronomic. While appeals to love one’s neighbor and the stranger occur earlier in the Pentateuch (Lev 19:18, 34), the command to love God occurs only in Deuteronomy (Deut 6:5; 11:1, 13; 13:3[4]; 30:6).
“Paul repeatedly cites texts from Deuteronomy to buttress his position (Rom 10:19; 11:8; 12:19; 1 Cor 5:13; 9:9; Eph 6:2-3; etc.). However, it is clear that Paul interpreted not only the entire history of God’s revelation, but also Deuteronomy in particular in the light of Christ and the cross (Rom 10:6-8; 1 Cor 8:6; Gal 3:13). In so doing, Paul functioned as a second Moses, not only in providing a profoundly theological interpretation of God’s saving actions in Christ, but also reminded his readers that salvation comes by grace alone. In Romans and Galatians Paul’s argument is addressed to those who would pervert the “law” (a narrow legalistic interpretation of Hebrew Torah) into a means of salvation, rather than treating it as a response to salvation as Moses perceived it. In his own disposition towards the “law” Paul was in perfect step with Moses: obedience to the law was not a means of gaining salvation but a willing and grateful response to salvation already received. There is nothing revolutionary in Paul’s definition of a true Jew as one who receives the praise of God because he is circumcised in the heart (Rom 2:28-29; cf. Deut 10:16-21; 30:6), nor in his praise of the law as holy, righteous, and good (Rom 7:12; cf. Deut 6:20-25), nor in is distillation of the whole law into the law of love (Rom 13:8-10; cf. Deut 10:12-21)” (Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC, p.26).
“... Deuteronomy, which presents the law as a gift of grace to the redeemed to guide them in the way of righteousness and lead to life (cf. Deut 4:6-8; 6:20-25)” (Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC, p.27).
“Moses perceives the covenant being renewed with Yahweh as an extension of the covenant of the covenant made with Israel at Sinai (29:1[28:69]), and ultimately this is an extension of the covenant made with their ancestors (29:10-13[9-12]” (Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC, p.36).
“The narrative preamble to the book (1:1-5) should be determinative for how we hear the message of the book. The preamble identifies Moses’ words as hattora hazzo’t (“this Torah”. The Hebrew term tora means “instruction,” being derived from the verb hora (“to teach”), and the seper hattora (e.g., Deut 29:21[20]; Josh 1:8; etc) means “the book of instruction” rather than “the book of the law.” Although tora was applied to specific instructions earlier (e.g. Ex 12:49; 24:12; Lev 7:1; Num 19:14; etc.), here the word identifies Moses sermons in Deuteronomy. Both the book and the word itself are represented much more accurately by the Greek didaskalia and didache as used in the New Testament than by the word nomos” (Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC, pp.36-37).
“Moses’ role in Deuteronomy is not that of a lawgiver but a pastor (Num 27:17; Isa 63:11). Knowing that his death is imminent, like Jacob in Genesis 49, Joshua in Joshua 24, and Jesus in John 13-36, Moses gathers his congregation and delivers his final homily, pleading with the Israelites to remain faithful to Yahweh. The texts he has left us are not to be read primarily as law, but as discourses on the implications of the Israelite covenant for a people about to enter the land promised under the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Gen 15:7-21[ 26:3; Ex 6:2-8)” (Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC, p.37).
Levites in the Messianic Age
ReplyDeleteJer 33:14 Behold, the days come
Jer 33:17 For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
Jer 33:18 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.
God promised through Jeremiah that in the Messianic Age the Levitical priests will “do sacrifice [zebah] continually”.
This comment will look at the new responsibilities in the Messianic Age for the Levites in relation to the zebah.
Lev 1:5 And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar
1Sa 2:13 And the custom of the priests with the people was, that, when any man offered sacrifice [zebah], the priest's servant came, while the flesh was boiling, with a flesh-hook of three teeth in his hand; (ASV).
From the above, it is seen that in earlier times the offerer slew, flayed (Lev 1:7) and boiled his own sacrifice.
2Ch 35:11 And they [the Levites] killed the passover, and the priests sprinkled the blood from their hands, and the Levites flayed them.
2 Chr 35:13b and they boiled the other holy offerings in pots, kettles, and bowls and quickly brought them to all the people.
A precedent was set at the Passover in the time of Josiah that will be enlarged in the Messianic Age.
In Leviticus the offerer killed the animal and the priests received the blood; but in Chronicles, at the Passover, the Levites killed the animals and the priests received the blood.
Eze 44:11a they [the Levites] shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice [zebah] for the people, (AV).
Eze 46:24b where the ministers of the house shall boil the sacrifice [zebah] of the people. (AV).
"... the laity ... no longer cook their own offerings. Analogous to the slaughtering of the sacrificial animals, which is transferred from the laity to the Levites (44:11), the cooking of the zebah ... is also assigned to the Levites" (Jacob Milgrom & Daniel I. Block, Ezekiel's Hope, p.226).
Eze 40:41 Four tables were on this side, and four tables on that side, by the side of the gate; eight tables, whereupon they slew their sacrifices.
Eze 46:22 In the four corners of the court there were courts joined of forty cubits long and thirty broad: these four corners were of one measure.
Eze 46:23 And there was a row of building round about in them, round about them four, and it was made with boiling places under the rows round about.
In the Messianic Age the Levites will slaughter the sacrifice at the north and south (presumed) gates to the inner court.
“The blood and fatty portions go through the inner gatehouses into the hands of the Zadokite priests, who alone have charge of the central altar. God soon delights in the food offering and its pleasing aroma (see 1 Sam 2:15-16; Lev 3:3-17), 9:18-21; Num 18:17)” (Stephen L. Cook, Ezekiel 38-48, AB, pp.259-60).
The priests’ share of the zebah (Lev 7:32-34) goes to the priestly kitchens [Eze 46:19-20) to be boiled and the people’s share goes to the kitchens in the four corners of the outer court also to be boiled; and then eaten in the chambers (Eze 40:17) in the outer court.
Isa 56:7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices [zibehem] shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. (AV).
"So the temple was a place for sacrificing, cooking and eating, as well as for prayer and so-called ‘spiritual' activities. The Christian church has been the poorer when it has drawn a firm dividing line between spiritual life and social activities. In Ezekiel's temple, at any rate, there was envisaged a healthy fusion of the two elements, and this was typical of much in Old Testament worship" (John B. Taylor, Ezekiel, TOTC, p.270).
This is fascinating and thought provoking many thanks for sharing. Should teaching of Jesus be happening at cafes connected to food banks one wonders.
Delete6.01 am. No, teaching of Jesus should not be happening at cafes. Notice how Christ taught at synagogues or the crowds came to Him. He did not force Himself on others by preaching at street corners or similar. When the city in Matthew 8:34 begged Christ to leave, He complied. He respected that people were stewards of their own lives, and interacted with others via mutual consent. Understandably, this is foreign to many former members of Herbert's Church of Borg.
DeleteI'm 6:01. Jesus Christ taught at Pharisee dinner tables, in private homes that crowds gathered in, in open hillsides on the Mount of Olives and in Galilee, at the Temple courts, as he walked and as he stopped to eat at Matthew tax collector home and on water with Peter and in boats on the sea of Galilee.....and as the gospels write so much more we don't know at this time.
DeleteRe Zechariah 14 and keeping a feast
ReplyDeleteThese times described in this chapter 14 follow most dramatic events after Jesus’s return and the powers of darkness that influenced events are overthrown
It seems to prophecy a time where there will be sacrifices too - performed in a temple in Jerusalem.
“Yes, every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holiness to the LORD of hosts.fn Everyone who sacrifices shall come and take them and cook in them. In that day there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.”
We see this in nearby verses. There is reference to pots in the LORD’s house for be : cooking utensils used by worshipers to cook the sacrificial meat intended for them from the peace offerings. The bowls before the altar were used to gather and sprinkle sacrificial blood on the altar. This shows that animal sacrifice will continue in the millennium, but not as atonement for sin – which was perfectly satisfied by the atoning work of Jesus. Sacrifice in the millennium will have a purpose we are yet to understand.
It states People will be required to attend at risk of punishment. Recall the effects of the satanic system prevailing previously.
This may not be all people on earth as how would that Be possible?
These words in Zechariah don’t refer to believers today. Of course if one desires to keep this day in current times such is their freedom.
4:49 writes:
Delete“This shows that animal sacrifice will continue in the millennium, but not as atonement for sin – which was perfectly satisfied by the atoning work of Jesus. Sacrifice in the millennium will have a purpose we are yet to understand.”
This is not my understanding.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Sacrifice under the Old and New Covenant for Israel is for the purifying of the flesh, not for the purging of the conscience. In regard to the latter only Jesus’ sacrifice can do that and no animal sacrifice is ever claimed to be able to do so.
Eze 43:5 So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house.
Eze 43:7 And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever,
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person
Sacrifices in the Messianic Age will be for fellowship and maintaining Jesus’ dwelling presence in the holy of holies; this will require sacrifice for cleaning from severe ritual impurity [Eze 44:25-27], forgiveness of sins covered by the ‘sin’ and ‘reparation’ offerings.
"The majority of dispensationalists have argued that the sacrifices are memorials to the sacrifice of Christ, with no atoning character. However, the idea that these are memorial sacrifices is no where apparent in Ezekiel, and it is specifically claimed by Ezekiel that these offerings will make atonement (45:15, 17, 20)" (Ian M. Duguid, Ezekiel, Terry Muck, General Editor, The NIV Application Commentary (NIVAC), (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999), p.521).
Eze 43:20 You are to take some of its blood and put it on the four horns of the altar and on the four corners of the upper ledge and all around the rim, and so purify the altar and make atonement for it.
Eze 45:19 The priest is to take some of the blood of the sin offering and put it on the doorposts of the temple, on the four corners of the upper ledge of the altar and on the gateposts of the inner court.
Eze 45:20 You are to do the same on the seventh day of the month for anyone who sins unintentionally or through ignorance; so you are to make atonement for the temple. (NIV).
"In vv 15 and 17 [of chapter 45] the expiatory significance of the sacrifice is emphatically expressed. In 43:20 and 45:19f it can be seen that the expiatory power is especially attributed to the blood" (Walter Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2 - A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25-48, p.479).
Purification offerings will be required to cleanse and purge the altar at the beginning of the Messianic Age and the yearly decontamination of the Temple in the first month.
The above are the principles for the future but the logistical applications needs filling in.
The festivals were kept sporadically throughout the kingdom period and resumed after some of the Babylonian exiles returned and rebuilt the Temple. After the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE, it became IMPOSSIBLE to do so in the manner prescribed by Torah. Now, whether or not these festivals will be restored in the future is another question entirely (which I have commented extensively on in other posts). At any rate, neither the sporadic observance of them prior to 70 CE nor the proposed restoration of them in the future has any bearing on the present. Once again, simply put, it is currently impossible to observe these festivals in the manner prescribed by Torah! Moreover, whether or not folks enjoy the attempts of the ACOGs to observe them in the present is NOT relevant to this thesis (we could point out that lots of folks enjoy Halloween and Christmas).
ReplyDeleteOur multi-part friend fails to comprehend that Scripture demonstrates that there have been a number of iterations/versions of God's Law down through the ages. Adam and Eve were commanded to do specific things relevant to the circumstances in which they found themselves. Likewise, Noah and his family were given specific instructions to enable them to carry out God's will. Abraham was commanded by God to do specific things relevant to the establishment of his family in the land God had promised to give him. The iteration/version known as Torah addressed the needs and circumstances of the people of Israel in the Promised Land in ancient times. Christ also gave his disciples specific commandments regarding the faith and practices they would be expected to perform. The timeless and universal elements which underpinned ALL of the various iterations/versions of God's Law were the principles which Christ identified in the Two Great Commandments (love for God and each other).
Hence, to conflate the Law of Moses with the Law of Christ is to contradict the very language used in Scripture! According to the Gospel of John, Jesus said: "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love." (John 15:10, ESV) He went on to say: "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." (Verse 12) Likewise, at the close of the Gospel of Matthew, we read that Christ commanded his followers to make disciples of all nations, to baptize those who accepted his message, and to teach "them to observe all that I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:18-20, ESV) This is precisely what Paul was talking about when he instructed the Christians of Galatia to "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." (Galatians 6:2, ESV) Sorry, but staying at a Holiday Inn at Wisconsin Dells does NOT fulfill the Law of Moses or the Law of Christ!
Dear Lonnie Hendrix/Miller Jones: You clearly covered that subject and what you said is absolutely correct.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 12:44 wrote, “The law of Moses is the law of Christ.”
ReplyDelete(Sorry Miller Jones for my intrusions on these topics.)
If this were true, why would Christ say repeatedly in Matthew 5, “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times… But I say to you…” Does that sound like the Law of Christ and the Law of Moses are the same?
Armstrongists recognized that the Law of Moses presented a conundrum. There are parts of the Law of Moses that specifically require the death penalty. And how was the WCG to follow this practice? So, they trumped up a bogus doctrine about “The Ministry of Death” specifically because they understood the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ were not the same.
What we may further conclude is that if the statutes and judgements are not kept (Meredith claimed that they were just an elaboration of the Ten Commandmnts and are required), then Armstrongist are not keeping the Law of Moses and, hence, are not keeping the Law of Christ, if they equate the two. Armstrongists fail on both accounts.
Scout
Agree , we see in Matthew 5 just what is the place of the Old Covenant in Jesus’s teaching, and how Jesus asserted authority over it.
DeleteHis elevation of the law convicts all as sinners.
Those who insist they keep the law as Armstrong churches say they do are simply deceiving themselves.
Anonymous 1:04 wrote, “Jesus’ favorite book”
ReplyDeleteDeuteronomy expresses a theology that emphasizes a transactional relationship between God and Israel. Source Criticism tell us that it is a separate opus within the Torah. Many scholars believe that it is the only book in the Torah that was written by Moses, even though near the end of the book there is clear evidence of later editing – likely at the time of the Exile. I align with this viewpoint.
It would be natural for Jesus to call on the book of Deuteronomy but Deuteronomy does not subsume all the Law and the Prophets which Jesus fulfilled. It is rather a subset of the Law of the Prophets and as such cannot be regarded as the totality of OT theology and certainly is not NT theology. It represents what Jesus supplanted with his NT teaching although some of the laws are found in both dispensations.
But why would Jesus call on it at all? Because both the OT and NT legislation stem from the eternal moral law of God and, hence, bear similarities. Neither are that eternal moral law but both originate with it. (The Sabbath was established at the Genesis Creation. It, therefore, cannot be an eternal moral law of God. Prior to the Genesis Creation, the concept of an astrophysical day did not even exist.) The NT carries forward some of the OT laws. And socme OT Laws are not carried forward. Armstrongists note these similarities and then conflate the OT and NT.
Scout
Zechariah 14:16-21 regarding the Feast of Booths
ReplyDeleteThis always comes up. It is important to understand what it says and what it doesn’t say. It is important not to embellish the passage with Armstrongist practice.
What it says:
1. The Feast of Booths will be a requirement for rebellious nations during at time that Jesus will be making actual physical war on those nations (Zech 14:3).
2. It is the case, barring contrary exegesis, that this will not be during the Millennium or the time of the New Heavens and New Earth but during a special period of time known as the Day of the Lord (Zech 14:1)
3. In any event, it will not be the Feast of Booths as it is known in the Torah because there will be no Temple worship involved. God the Father and Jesus will be the Temple in the future (Rev 21:22). And it will certainly not the be Feast of Booths concocted by the Church Administration Department of the WCG with hotel and motel lodging in some place where God has not placed his name. (Note that in the OT the Feast was kept in Jerusalem where scripture says that God placed his name. In Zechariah, the future Feast of Booths is also kept in Jerusalem. Where does that leave Big Sandy, Tucson, Wisconsin Dells and so forth.)
What it does not say:
1. The passage in Zechariah 14 does not say that Christians will be keeping the Feast of Booths. Other exegesis must be relied on for any such argument.
2. The passage in Zechariah 14 does not say that humankind in general will be keeping the Feast of Booths on into eternity. Other exegesis must be relied on for any such argument.
3. Zechariah 14 does not declare that any of the special conditions found during the Day of the Lord will extend beyond that time period. It is a special time with special conditions.
Scout
You are your own worst enemy and a overwhelming worry to behold. But I guess you've been a concern to others over the years. You are a ship that's sailed too far away from Port and I sense no-one is alive, who you'd take any notice of. Titus 3:9 would be water off a ducks back to you.
DeleteI wrote the Zechariah comment of two sentences. You barged into Lonnie Miller's post, like a man with a knife trying to start a gunfight with post after post, arguing against elaborate nonsense that I never even thought let alone wrote.
Who would disagree with clear as crystal scripture? I let holy scripture stand for itself as it needs no human to defend it.
Zechariah 14
Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles.
If any of the people's of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, they will have no rain.
If the Egyptian people do not go up and take part, they will have no rain.
The LORD will bring on them the plague he inflicts on the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles.
Anonymous 12:11
DeleteYou cannot by repeating error over and over again make it truth.
Scout
Say it to my face in church. Hypocrite.
DeleteNo error in pure scripture. No error in Zechariah. The day of the Lord is darkness and not light.
DeleteOne lesson I've learned on this site is that when a poster uses the word exegesis it is extraordinarily likely that the poster is performing eisegesis without realizing it.
ReplyDeleteUh, Paul wrote to the church at Corinth to keep the feast. Corinth was about 800 miles by plane flight from Jerusalem. Paul did not expect the Corinthians to travel to Jerusalem to keep the feast. Indeed, he was there at Corinth one time for a year and six months - Acts 18:1, 11.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 8:51
ReplyDeleteYou need to bring an argument rather than a sound bite.
Scout
You need to bring an argument rather than a sound bite.
DeleteHow very Armstrongist of you to say that! Telling other people what they need to do or say is very much in the mold of those shaped by Herbie, even those who think they've outgrown or rejected him but who still operate in his valence.
Let's also notice the irony that the italicized comment above is pretty much a sound bite rather than an argument. But double-standards are de rigueur in the ACOG world, I suppose. No surprise here.
I absolutely love this comment. It is so very true. The ones who say they reject Herbert Armstrong's ways are in reality more Pharisee bullies than Herbert! Thank you 12:30.
DeleteScout, your comments are always welcome.
ReplyDeleteAs for the book of Deuteronomy and other Old Testament passages in the New Testament, we must not forget that these were the ONLY Scriptures available to Jesus and the early Church. Second, Jesus and his disciples taught that those Scriptures pointed to HIM! In other words, they used the Hebrew Bible as their text for teaching about Christ.
As for the term "exegesis," I think that term better describes what happens on this blog than what happens within any of the Armstrong Churches of God. After all, they dismiss textual criticism, ignore context, and cherry-pick prooftexts to support their teachings - the epitome of "eisegesis." Any interpretation of Scripture which fails to consult ALL of the passages which are relevant to the topic is bound to fail the test of real scrutiny.
Lonnie writes:
ReplyDelete“Our multi-part friend fails to comprehend that Scripture demonstrates that there have been a number of iterations/versions of God's Law down through the ages. Adam and Eve were commanded to do specific things relevant to the circumstances in which they found themselves. Likewise, Noah and his family were given specific instructions to enable them to carry out God's will.”
I disagree. Here are a few quotes I have posted before about the dispensation from the time of Moses:
“The law is referred to here [in Malachi] (and this is the very point which has been overlooked), NOT ACCORDING TO ITS ACCIDENTAL AND TEMPORARY FORM, but according to its essential character, as expressive of the holiness of God, just as in Matt. 5:17... The laws, which were afterwards given in the plains of Moab, are also included in the expression "in Horeb." For they were merely a continuation and further development; the foundation was fully laid at Sinai" (E.W. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, Vol.4, pp.190-91).
"Moses has always been considered the first and greatest lawgiver of the Israelites... Of course his laws were edited and expanded, issued and re-issued down the centuries that followed, for different situations and changing circumstances; but Israel's law would never cease to be known as the law of Moses. Rightly so: for the principles laid down in his time, before the settlement in Canaan, remained the principles of Israel's law for all centuries to come" (F.F. Bruce, Israel and the Nations - The History of Israel from the Exodus to the Fall of the Second Temple, pp.3-4).
"Given that the Lord himself is the ultimate source of the Law, according to the Pentateuch, he can maintain justice through variable circumstances by giving somewhat different laws to a people for different situations. Thus OT law is dynamic and adaptable rather than static and rigid" (Roy E. Gane, Old Testament Law for Christians, pp.34-35).
“The law is unalterable, but that does not justify its application beyond the purpose for which it was intended. To speak of a change in application of the law is not to regard it as now discarded” (R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT, p.186).
* Lonnie writes:
“After the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE, it became IMPOSSIBLE to do so in the manner prescribed by Torah.”
Ezr 7:6 This Ezra went up from Babylon; and he was a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the LORD God of Israel had given:
It was also impossible to do so after the destruction in 586 BC. Daniel and Ezekiel never kept the feasts three times in the year in Jerusalem ever again after their deportation. Ezra “a ready scribe in the law of Moses” never kept the feasts in Jerusalem until he migrated from Babylon.
Nu 9:13 But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from among his people:
If a man was on a journey and couldn’t keep the passover then it follows because he was on a journey he didn’t keep the feast of Unleavened Bread in Jerusalem also.
1Sa 1:3 And this man went up out of his city yearly to worship and to sacrifice unto the LORD of hosts in Shiloh. [But was this at one of the feasts?]
(1Sa 1:22 But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned,)
Lk 2:41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
You seem to have a very legalistic view of the law - “static and rigid”. I hope Jesus doesn’t apply the same standard to you as you apply to Armstrongists.
Lonnie also writes:
“Hence, the answer to the question that Solomon posed (Should the Feast Days Be Kept?) is NO!”
IMO, when you come before Jesus’ judgment seat you will regret that you wrote the above. But time will tell.
Hi everyone will give my reply soon. Solomon
ReplyDeleteScout writes:
ReplyDelete“Anonymous 12:44 wrote, “The law of Moses is the law of Christ.”
“If this were true, why would Christ say repeatedly in Matthew 5, “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times… But I say to you…” Does that sound like the Law of Christ and the Law of Moses are the same?”
In my post I had this quote:
“The message of the New Testament is that Yahweh, the One who spoke directly at Sinai and indirectly through Moses, is none other than Jesus Christ, Yahweh incarnate in human form, and that Moses was his prophet" (Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC, p.38).
Scout, do you believe that it was Jesus who spoke at Sinai and gave His laws to Israel through Moses?
If so, the law of Moses = law of Christ.
(While God is God of the OT and NT, Jesus is the God-being that interacted with people in the OT and NT).
Yes it does sound like the Law of Christ and the Law of Moses.
Mt 5:22 But I [ego] say unto you...
“What is this antithesis? It is clear who the authoritative ego is. But with whom is Jesus contrasting himself? It is essential to consider this question now before, in the next three chapters, we look in greater detail at the six antitheses themselves. Many commentators have maintained that in these paragraphs Jesus is setting himself against Moses; that he is here deliberately inaugurating a new morality, and is contradicting and repudiating the old; and that his introductory formula could be paraphrased ‘you know what the Old Testament taught ... But I teach something quite different.’ Popular as this interpretation is, I do not hesitate to say that it is mistaken. It is more than mistaken; it is untenable. What Jesus is contradicting is not the law itself, but certain perversions of the law of which the scribes and Pharisees were guilty. Far from contradicting the law, Jesus endorses it, insists on its authority and supplies its true interpretation. Four arguments will be sufficient to prove that this is so.
“First, there is the substance of the antitheses themselves. At first sight in each instance what Jesus quotes appears to come from the Mosaic law. All six examples either consists of or include some echo of it, e.g., You shall not kill (21), You shall not commit adultery (27). Whoever divorces his wife, let him give a certificate of divorce (31). Not until we come to the sixth and last antithesis do we see clearly that something is amiss. For this reads: You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy (43). Now the first half of this sentence is a clear command of the law (Lv. 19:18), although even this is a truncated commandment, omitting the vital words which set the standard of our neighbour-love, namely ‘as yourself’. THE SECOND HALF OF THE SENTENCE, HOWEVER, IS NOT IN THE LAW AT ALL. It comes neither in Leviticus 19:18, nor anywhere else. So here was a contemporary addition to the law, which was intended to interpret it, but in fact distorted it. When we look more closely at the other five antitheses ( as we shall in the following chapters), it becomes plain that a similar distortion is implied. It is those distortions of the law which Jesus rejected, not the law itself. After all, the first two antitheses do not read ‘It was said “You shall not commit murder and adultery”, but I say you may.’ Rather, ‘but I say you shall not even have angry or lustful thoughts’.
“Secondly, there is the introductory formula, beginning you have heard that it was said to the men of old (21, 33), or you have heard that it was said (27, 38, 43), or more briefly still, it was also said (31). The words common to these formula are it was said, which represent the single Greek verb errethe. Now this was not the word which Jesus used when quoting Scripture.
Part 2
ReplyDelete“When he introduced a biblical quotation, both verb and tense were different, namely gegraptai (perfect, ‘it stands written’), not errethe (aorist, ‘it was said’). So in the six antitheses what Jesus was contradicting was not Scripture but tradition, not God’s word which they had ‘read’ but the oral instruction which was given ‘to the men of old’ and which they too had ‘heard’ since the scribes continued to give it in the synagogues.
“Professor David Daube confirms this from his comprehensive knowledge of rabbinics. The verb ‘hear’ is associated, he says, with ‘the superficial, literal meaning of Scripture’. So in the two parts of the introductory formula, ‘the first gives a scriptural rule narrowly interpreted, the second a wider demand made by Jesus’. Again, ‘These declarations “You have heard - But I say unto you” are intended to prove Jesus the Law’s upholder, not destroyer ... it is the revelation of a fuller meaning for a new age. The second member unfolds rather than sweeps away the first’ (The New Testament and rabbinic Judaism, p.55-60). One might sum it up by saying that in relation to scribal distortions of the law, the term ‘antithesis’ rightly describes the teaching of Jesus, whereas in relation to the law itself ‘exegesis’ would be a more accurate word. His quarrel was not over the law, for both the Jewish leaders and he accepted its divine authority, but over its true interpretation.
“Thirdly, there is the immediate context. We have already seen that in the verses preceding and introducing the antitheses (17-20) Jesus affirmed in a quite unequivocal way what his own attitude to the law was and what his ‘disciples’ ought to be. This was ‘fulfilment’ in his case and ‘obedience’ in theirs. Not a dot or iota would pass away; all must be fulfilled. Not one of the least commandments might be disregarded; all must be obeyed. Are we now seriously to suppose that Jesus contradicted himself, that he proceeded at once in his teachings to do what he had just categorically said he had not come to do and they must not do? For this is the dilemma: if in the antitheses Jesus was contradicting Moses, he was thereby contradicting himself...
“From these four factors it is evident that the antitheses do not set in opposition to each other Christ and Moses, the New Testament and the Old Testament, the gospel and the law, but rather Christ’s true interpretation of the law and the scribal misinterpretation, and therefore Christian righteousness and pharisaic righteousness, as verse 19 anticipates.
"This preliminary look at the antheses has shown us that Jesus did not contradict the law of Moses. On the contrary, this is in effect what the Pharisees were doing. What Jesus did was rather to explain the true meaning of the moral law with all its uncomfortable implications. He extended the commands which they were restricting and restricted the permissions which they were extending. To him Moses' law was God's law, whose validity was permanent and whose authority must be accepted. IN THE SERMON OF THE MOUNT, AS CALVIN CORRECTLY EXPRESSED IT, WE SEE JESUS NOT ‘AS A NEW LEGISLATOR, BUT AS THE FAITHFUL EXPOUNDER OF A LAW WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN GIVEN' (Commentary on the harmony of the evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, I, p.282), p.290). The Pharisees had ‘obscured' the law; Jesus ‘restored it to its integrity' (Institutes, I, viii.7)...
“Jesus disagreed with the Pharisees’ interpretation of the law; he never disagreed with their acceptance of its authority. Rather the reverse. In the strongest possible terms he asserted its authority as God’s Word written, and called his disciples to accept its true and deeply exacting interpretation” (John R.W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, BST, pp.69-81).
Excellent post. The comments posted here in response are also highly educational. We are saved by grace and that by faith. It is an incredible gift from above. I do believe there is merit in keeping the Festivals, as they point us to Christ and His atoning work. One can never imagine these types of discussions taking place in Armstrongism, without drawing ministerial ire for deviating from the prescribed mandated doctrine.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 3:12 wrote, “Scout, do you believe that it was Jesus who spoke at Sinai and gave His laws to Israel through Moses? If so, the law of Moses = law of Christ.”
ReplyDeleteUsing your logic, we must then say that the New Testament is then the Old Testament because both were spoke by Yahweh. We must say that the Melchisedec Priesthood is the Levitical Priesthood because both Priesthoods were originated by Yahweh. Hence, there is no NT and OT. Both are amalgamted into a single testament. Armstrontgists would love this and in many ways try to adocate this but this is not NT Christian theology.
I believe that Yahweh is the Three-personed God of the New Testament. This was the God who used the uni-plural Elohim.
Scout
In and amongst Armstrongism, their eisegesis ices Jesus. Can't get plainer with the truth than that!
ReplyDeleteBB
Asked earlier:
ReplyDeleteScout, do you believe that it was Jesus who spoke at Sinai and gave His laws to Israel through Moses?
So was that a Yes or No?
Scout writes:
“This was the God who used the uni-plural Elohim.”
Elohim is not a uni-plural word - HWA appears to have got this idea from Cyrus Scofield Bible 1917.
1 Ki 11:33 Ashtoreth the goddess [elohim] of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god [elohim] of the Moabites, and Milcom the god [elohim] of the children of Ammon.
Ashtereth, Chemosh and Milcom are all elohim.
"In the absence of superlative form, Hebrew used the plural as one way of denoting excellence (cf. Elohim ‘God', a plural form followed [normally] by a verb in the singular)” (Joyce G. Baldwin, Zechariah, TOTC, p.133).
Ex 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god [Elohim] to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
“This is, however, not a statement of some divine metamorphosis. Rather the point is that Moses will be God functionally both to Pharaoh and the Israelites...
“ Moses is not simply LIKE God to Pharaoh. He truly IS God TO PHARAOH in that God is acting through Moses... ” (Peter Enns, Exodus, NIVAC, p.181 & 183; his italics converted to uppercase).
Ge 14:18 And Melchizedek KING of Salem ... PRIEST of the most high God.
Ps 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Ps 110:7 He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.
Around 1,000 years before Christ the Davidic kings were appointed to be kings after the order of Melchizedek - this appears to follow from David capturing the stronghold of Zion and the soon building of the temple. As God’s vice-regents, temple builders and patron of the temple and temple worship the Davidic king-priests were over the Levitical priesthood.
After the death of Joseph, Jesus was now both King of the Jews and a priest after the order of Melchizedek.
Scout it appears that you do not distinguish between the New Covenant instituted by Christ with the faithful remnant of the righteous within Israel that established Israel the Church and the future new covenant that will be reinstituted with the faithful remnant of the righteous within Israel that will establish Israel the Kingdom.
“When the items of continuity found in the New covenant are tabulated in this passage [Jer 31:31-34; cp. Heb 8:8-12], they are: (1) the same covenant making God, "My covenant"; (2) the same law, My torah (note, not a different one than Sinai); (3) the same divine fellowship promised in the ancient tripartite formula, "I will be your God; the same "seed" and "people," "You shall be my people"; and (5) the same forgiveness, "I will forgive their iniquities."
“Even the features of inwardness, fellowship, individualism, and forgiveness had been either hinted at or fully known in the covenant made with the fathers. Deuteronomy 6:6-7; 10:12, and 30:6 had urged that Israel place the words of the Sinaitic law upon her heart. Indeed, Psalms 37:31 and 40:8 did claim that this was so for some already: "The law is within my heart." The Lord's forgiveness was also celebrated in that oft-repeated formula" "The Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin" (Exod. 34:36; Num 14:18; Deut. 5:9-10; Ps. 86:15; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2 and later Neh. 9:17, 31)...
“Thus the word "new" in this context would mean the "renewed" or "restored" covenant (cf. Akkadian edesu "to restore" ruined temples, altars or cities; Hebrew hds connected with the new moon and Ugaritic hdt, "to renew the moon"). We conclude then that this covenant was the old Abrahamic-Davidic promise renewed and enlarged...” (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Towards an Old Testament Theology, pp.231-235).
Scout/Anon, Saturday, March 1, 2025 at 9:14:34 AM PST, wrote:
Delete`
[[Anonymous 6:52 asked, "Scout, do you believe that it was Jesus who spoke at Sinai and gave His laws to Israel through Moses?"
To put a point on it. When someone says God did something, do we know if it was one member of the Trinity or the whole Trinity or what. I don't know and you don't know. In the days if Israelite monolatry, the term God when traced to its Hebrew origins and in context, may have referred to angelic beings.
So my answer is neither "Yes" or "No". It is sometimes one or the other but mostly "we don't know." Bitheistic Armstrongism would balk at this because God is erroneously seen as two separate beings. Therefore, any given action by God would be either the Father or the Son.
Scout]]
******
No, it was not Jesus who spoke at Sinai. Jesus, flesh blood and bone, popped out of his mother, Mary, many centuries after God spoke on Sinai:
Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."
So, who spoke at Sinai and gave His laws to Israel through Moses?
It was Jesus' God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Ex 3:6 Moreover he said, I [am] the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.
Who did "face to face" time with Moses? How could anyone slip Jesus into the Old Testament regarding Moses and law and Sinai?
"The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let [him] go." Acts 3:13
Was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob at Sinai and gave His laws to Israel through Moses?
If you don't believe the scriptures cited above, well, then for you and Anon 6:52...
Time will tell...
John
Christ’s people do NOT need a list of dos and don’ts ....
ReplyDeleteAnd that's why they certainly do NOT need to be told Sunday is better than Saturday or that Easter is better than biblical days like pass over.
A covenant exists in perpetuity until one of the parties dies.
ReplyDeleteWhat I have never quite understood is that HWA taught that Jesus was the God of the Old Testament, but apparently HWA did not know what to do with the fact that (per him) one of the parties to the Sinai Covenant died! God died!
HWA was vehement about nothing being "done away". His latter day followers won't even let anyone get away with using terms like "fulfilled" or "expanded. They immediately reach deeply into their vocabulary and come up with words like "antinomianism". Mainstream Sunday-keeping Ministers warn against embracing "cheap grace", so they are not guilty of preaching a practical application of grace that would involve lawlessness.
To the Armstrongite, anyone who does not keep the Old Covenant Sabbath as instructed by the Torah is lawless. Of course, they don't either! If you use a vehicle with an internal combustion engine to travel to sabbath services, you have kindled thousands, or hundreds of thousands of fires!
BB
"..internal combustion..." ---- almost as bad as eisegesing Amazon kindle from Ex 35:3.
DeleteThe covenant with Israel was entirely based on their performance of its terms. They failed, and that covenant was abrogated (God divorced them). Even before that covenant was made, God had determined that Jesus Christ would have to come to this earth as a human, live a sinless life, and offer himself as a sacrifice for the sins of humankind (Jews and Gentiles). Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the covenant God made with Abraham, one based on promises and faith. To suggest that Christ renewed or restored what had been broken flies in the face of the overwhelming weight of Scripture on this topic!
ReplyDeleteIndeed, Jeremiah prophesied: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a NEW covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, NOT like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:31-34, ESV) Christ fulfilled this passage. He placed the Law in the hearts of God's people by giving them access to God's love through the Holy Spirit dwelling within them and giving them the Two Great universal commandments to love God and each other.
In the epistle to the Hebrews, we read that Christ "is the mediator of a NEW covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant." (Hebrews 9:15, ESV) A covenant that was NOT inaugurated with the blood of bulls and goats, but with the precious blood of Jesus Christ! Indeed, after quoting that same passage from Jeremiah referenced above, we read in this same epistle: "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one OBSOLETE." (Hebrews 8:13, ESV) This is the language of Scripture!
Anonymous 6:52 wrote, “Elohim is not a uni-plural word - HWA appears to have got this idea from Cyrus Scofield Bible 1917.”
ReplyDeleteI did some research on the concept of uni-plural and found the explanations less than satisfying. It exists in English grammar but is not generally used because we have rules for forming plurals. Many explanations of it are provided by Bible readers who do not know Hebrew. One Rabbi said it is simply the royal “we”. Almost all the explanations I saw were concerned with the term Elohim. In short, the explanations I ran into are pretty flimsy.
What we do know is that Elohim is the plural of Eloah and is related to a similar Canaanite term found in the Ugaritic texts that is used to refer to a pantheon of Gods, the children of El. It is preferred by the Elohist contributors to the Torah. It also seems to be connected to the time when Israel was a monolatry. Overall, this is so poorly defined, like one would expect with an ancient usage, that I regret that I used the term uni-plural.
You also stated this in your comment:
“Scout it appears that you do not distinguish between the New Covenant instituted by Christ with the faithful remnant of the righteous within Israel that established Israel the Church and the future new covenant that will be reinstituted with the faithful remnant of the righteous within Israel that will establish Israel the Kingdom.”
I don’t know if I make that distinction or not because I have utterly no idea what you are writing about in this sentence. I might respond to this statement if you were to explain it better but don’t feel that you need to.
Scout
This may be the second time I posted this. My HP laptop has very bad keyboard. Its exasperating.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 6:52 wrote, “Elohim is not a uni-plural word - HWA appears to have got this idea from Cyrus Scofield Bible 1917.”
I did some research on the concept of uni-plural and found it less than satisfying. It exists in English grammar but is not generally used because we have rules for forming plurals. Many explanations of it are provided by Bible readers who do not know Hebrew. One Rabbi said it is simply the royal “we”. Almost all the explanations I saw were concerned with the term Elohim. In short, the explanations I ran into are pretty flimsy.
What we do know is that Elohim is the plural of Eloah and is related to a similar Canaanite term found in the Ugaritic texts that is used to refer to a pantheon of Gods, the children of El. It is preferred by the Elohist contributors to the Torah. It also seems to be connected to the time when Israel was a monolatry. Overall, this is so poorly defined, like one would expect with an ancient usage, that I regret that I used the term uni-plural.
You also stated this in your comment:
“Scout it appears that you do not distinguish between the New Covenant instituted by Christ with the faithful remnant of the righteous within Israel that established Israel the Church and the future new covenant that will be reinstituted with the faithful remnant of the righteous within Israel that will establish Israel the Kingdom.”
I don’t know if I make that distinction or not because I have utterly no idea what you are writing about in this sentence. I might respond to this statement if you were to explain it better but don’t feel that you need to.
Scout
A lot of reading materials above in response to this topic, so I don't know if this has been mentioned. The Levitical priesthood was designated as administrators or mediators of the Sinai (or "Old") Covenant. Jesus was not born as a Levite. He was born as a Jew. And, He was a priest after the order of Melchizedek. New Covenant, new Mediator. Total separation. Can we all grasp the profound significance of that? This was something totally different from anything in the post-Mosaic history of Israel.
ReplyDeleteAlso, up until the captivity, Israel as a nation had not truly even kept the first commandment. They strayed after false or pagan gods. Some relatively good Kings had destroyed some of the idols and high places, but never all of them. Following the captivity, they had learned their lesson, and no longer went after the pagan gods mentioned in the Old Testament, such as Chemosh, Baal, Asherah, Molech, Astarte, or Dagon. We read of their resistance to Helenism in the Deuterocanonicals (Apocrypha). The time of the second temple was somewhat of a golden era in their history, although the Jews were under Roman oversight. During this time, many individuals came into prominence calling themselves Messiahs. The Jews routinely rejected these, still remaining cautious regarding other gods and influencers. We wonder, from the safety and comfort of our arm chairs 2,000 years later how they could have rejected Jesus. I believe that the Pharisaic attitudes towards observance of Old Covenant law included an obsessive-compulsive approach towards the first commandment, as well. Their very strength became a weakness, and actually blinded them.
BB
Mary was from the tribe of Levite. Gospel of Luke shows Mary as a blood relative of Elizabeth, and Elizabeth is a direct descendent of the High Priest Aaron, which makes Mary from the tribe of Levite.
DeleteOne of Jesus's titles is from the order of Melchezedeck a Priest of the Most high God.
Anonymous 6:52 asked, "Scout, do you believe that it was Jesus who spoke at Sinai and gave His laws to Israel through Moses?"
ReplyDeleteTo put a point on it. When someone says God did something, do we know if it was one member of the Trinity or the whole Trinity or what. I don't know and you don't know. In the days if Israelite monolatry, the term God when traced to its Hebrew origins and in context, may have referred to angelic beings.
So my answer is neither "Yes" or "No". It is sometimes one or the other but mostly "we don't know." Bitheistic Armstrongism would balk at this because God is erroneously seen as two separate beings. Therefore, any given action by God would be either the Father or the Son.
Scout
The 3 great festivals, celebrating as???.....
ReplyDeleteRemembering the death and celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and observing humility, not puffed up. The mantra in Herbie's day was "put out sin, put out sin" but the emphasis should be to become humble, something Herb couldn't do b/c he was the APOSTLE.
Celebrating the resurrection of the firstfruits.
Celebrating almost everything else such as.....the creation, the resurrection of everyone else, life, etc, etc etc.
Lonnie has been around the truth his whole life and he has never accepted it. No one can convince him of anything so there is no need to try. God will decide when the time is right for Lonnie. Then, and only then, will he be able to receive the gospel. I truly hope he embraces it.
ReplyDeleteWho the hell are you to make a judgment like that, 12:26? You spelling your name backwards or something, Dog?
DeleteBB
It's a trait of contemporary Christianity to project big government into the bible. God warned ancient Israel about big government when they asked Him for a king, and America's constitution is basically a restraint on government. There are many scriptures to this effect. Whether Lonnie and others repent is in their hands, not God's. God does not and cannot make choices for other people. He can't since it's murder. Which is why Christ reproached cities for not repenting rather than waving some magic wand. God stirred up Solomon's enemies against him when he fell away. It's as far as He could go.
DeleteGod's "solution" to the stubbornly unrepentant is the lake of fire. Secular writings on dealing with narcissists effectively give the same advice with their "no contact" rule.
BB @13:12:01 PM PST
ReplyDeleteI too also saw the comment @ 12:26. Was stumped. What’s this? The Armstrong movement has done a great job on him her them whatever lol.
Some solid well thought out comments posted here, in response to the post. Lonnie’s are food for thought and to be welcomed. But the comments at 12:26 leave me………………….
Wouldn't it be hilarious if someone from one of Garner Ted's churches had made that comment, 8:02??? Those aren't even real ACOGs. They're the people who rebelled against HWA.
ReplyDeleteNope your wrong, you assume too much and reveal too much.
DeleteSaturday at 12:26 PM perfectly illustrates the heresy of Armstongism..
ReplyDeleteIn Armstrongism, Jesus is not the truth, the way, or the life; accepting Jesus as his Savior gets Lonnie and the rest of the so-called Christians nowhere.
The truth, the only way to salvation, in Armstrongism, is observing the law - the law so oddly re-defined by Armstrong.
Byker Bob 8:42 wrote, “We wonder, from the safety and comfort of our arm chairs 2,000 years later how they could have rejected Jesus.”
ReplyDeleteThis is a very good point. Early Christianity began as a form of Second Temple Judaism whose followers were Jews. Over a few decades it became a religion of principally Gentile followers. I believe that there was a skepticism about the Messiah in First Century Judaism that was pervasive. And I believe this skepticism was fueled by such men as Apollonius of Tyana, circa AD 15 -100 (q.v, Wikipedia). Bart Ehrman wrote the following about him:
“Even before he was born, it was known that he would be someone special. A supernatural being informed his mother that the child she was to conceive would not be a mere mortal but would be divine. He was born miraculously, and he became an unusually precocious young man. As an adult he left home and went on an itinerant preaching ministry, urging his listeners to live, not for the material things of this world, but for what is spiritual. He gathered a number of disciples around him, who became convinced that his teachings were divinely inspired, in no small part because he himself was divine. He proved it to them by doing many miracles, healing the sick, casting out demons, and raising the dead. But at the end of his life, he roused opposition, and his enemies delivered him over to the Roman authorities for judgment. Still, after he left this world, he returned to meet his followers in order to convince them that he was not really dead but lived on in the heavenly realm. Later some of his followers wrote books about him.”
There is some interesting description of Apollonius in Catherine Nixey’s recent book titled “Heresy.” She recounts a resurrection he was supposed to have performed. Apollnius was known to early Christian brothers and sisters as an antichrist. He was opposed by Eusebius. If you were a Jew in the time of Jesus, such antichrists would be a challenge to your beliefs. Yet, there were Jews who became followers of Jesus and became the foundation of the Jerusalem church. Christ asserted that some Jews were Elect and others simply were not. He even stated that the Elect could not be deceived. This would account for the fact that the Christian movement continued to grow and various movements started by antichrists went nowhere. As you point out, the times were so confusing, only miraculous intervention can explain the rise of Christianity.
Scout
Interesting you should mention Apollonius, Scout. Years ago I read an article on another dissident site which proclaimed that Jesus Christ was not a real person, that He was a fabrication based on Apollonius of Tyanna. The author apparently thought he had "debunked" Jesus Christ and felt duty bound to share, not realizing that his research methodology was virtually the same as HWA's
DeleteResearch is an interesting topic. It is an orderly process which is based on following an evidentiary trail, collecting + and - facts which will lead to a conclusion.
HWA, and Herman Hoeh did not use that process. They used debate-style methodology in which facts and evidence are collected to support a pre-determined conclusion. In the field of theology, a person who does this is known as an apologist. In any case, that's the concept which has become ingrained in the minds of those who have had an Armstrong adventure. The damage that does is that it leads church members to believe that we (or everyone else) performs that same type of research, but instead reversing it and collecting only the facts which counter Armstrongism. They rule out the possibility that we in fact have instead followed the evidentiary trail, considering all the facts. When their concept of research has been reduced to lowest common denominator, they get to walk away with every discussion being a draw!
I've often wondered how we get past that.
BB
Sorry to disappoint you Anonymous at Saturday, March 1, 2025 at 12:26:48 PM PST,
ReplyDeleteI was baptized into the Worldwide Church of God when I was 17 years old and attended their version of the festivals for 8 years. During those years, I embraced Armstrongism hook, line, and sinker. Like so many others, I now regret the lack of objectivity and romantic notions which allowed me to fall for the heresy. I thank God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit for my deliverance from the delusion now known as Armstrongism!
That was me at Sunday, March 2, 2025 at 10:20:55 AM PST
ReplyDeleteByker Bob,
ReplyDeleteYour last comment (March 2, 2025 at 1:25:27 PM) is a very important one -especially within the realms of theology and politics! One of the first things that you learn in a college-level research course is that all sources are NOT created equal. Indeed, as in the field of science, we should only employ those sources which have been peer-reviewed by experts in that field and have stood up to past scrutiny by professionals. We must also remember that primary sources are always superior to secondary sources. For example, while we should all be able to acknowledge that Glenn Beck and NBC are both biased, we should also be able to discern that there is more education and professionalism behind NBC's reporting. In other words, the two are NOT equally reliable sources of information. This disregard for the differences in the quality of the available sources has resulted in a whole lot of faulty conclusions and arguments!
Thought of a couple of more points along the same lines. I think that it is a very objective statement to rate "The Blaze" as substantively inferior to a Conservative source like George Will or William Buckley. In the realm of religion, when speaking of Catholic doctrine, I would rate the Catholic Catechism as superior to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Likewise, I would rate the Catholic Encyclopedia as more historically reliable than anything penned by anyone associated with the Armstrong Churches of God.
DeleteJohn 10:09
ReplyDeleteI don’t think you have this sorted out. Exodus 3:6 refers to Elohim. Yet the God who approached Abram in Genesis 12:1 was Yahweh. In Acts 3:13, Peter refers to God as “O Theos” which is a Greek way of referring to God. Not someone who is godly, like an angel, but to the actual God. God Actual as they might say in the military. Doubting Thomas referred to Jesus as “O Theos” – God Actual. Jesus also identified himself as Yahweh (John 8:56). Try to draw a map.
What this means is that to call upon the locution “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” as if this alone identified which of the Persons of the Godhead is being referred to is nonsensical. This moniker seems to be worn by more than one person in the Godhead.
I stand by my original statement. Yahweh is the Triune God of the NT. Which person is speaking in the OT in any given situation is not always clear. (This hermeneutic goes for the erroneous Bi-theism of Armstrongism as well.) The speaker is indeterminate on any given occasion unless clues are provided.
Time has already told us …
Scout
All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
DeleteMatthew 11:27
Jesus and Pauline Christology
ReplyDeleteOne of the difficulties in understanding the Bible is that it is ancient Near-Eastern literature — written in the thought-forms of the day.
For me, the “principle of agency” is probably the most important thought-form to grasp. Put simply, the “principle of agency” is “what a man [the principal] does through his agents he may be said to do himself;” and a corollary to this is that if you see the agent you see the principal (“he that hath seen me hath seen the Father”).
In a previous posts on this thought-form I have used the encounter between Jesus and the Centurion. In Luke’s account Jesus does not meet the Centurion but meets the Centurion’s agents. In the telling of this encounter Luke puts the words of the Centurion in the mouth of the agents as if the Centurion was literally present. We see a reverse of this in the account of the two men who rescued Lot (“And Lot will say to them, Nay, now, Lord! [(SLT); cp. 18:3; and that the prophets typically spoke for God in the first person].
Matthew’s account of the meeting is written from the ‘principal’ perspective. According to the “principle of agency” Matthew has Jesus and the Centurion literally meeting and speaking one to another, even though in reality they did not.
When Jesus came to ‘reveal’ the Father, He also revealed himself. Not taking away from God, but Jesus revealing Himself was probably the greatest revelation of the Bible. It was a game changer for Paul:
"God the Father is always the "first cause" of everything and thus always appears in the primary position as the "prime mover"; nonetheless, the focus of Paul's life is on Christ himself..." (Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology, pp. 1, 8-9).
"Once he had encountered the exalted Lord, THE SACRED TEXT WAS TRANSFORMED INTO A PLACE WHERE THE LONG-AWAITED CHRIST COULD NOW BE FOUND EVERYWHERE..." (Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology, p.23).
Two illustration in this regard and the highlighting of the principle of agency:
Ps 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
1Co 15:25 For HE MUST REIGN, TILL HE HATH PUT ALL ENEMIES UNDER HIS FEET.
“... what in the psalm is the activity of God is now read by Paul as the activity of the PRESENTLY REIGNING Christ... Moreover, the "citation" of Ps 110:1 in v.25 is yet another place where, FOR PAUL, CHRIST HAS ASSUMED THE ROLE THAT GOD PLAYS IN THE PSALM ITSELF. By changing from first person, where Yahweh is speaking, to the third person, to conform to Paul's use of the psalm, he thus attributed to Christ the role of "putting the enemies under his (own) feet" " (Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology, pp.109 & 111).
Ps 110:1 is written from the “principal” perspective and 1 Cor 15:25 from the Agency sense. What God does through His Agent He may be said to Himself.
Zec 14:5 and the Lord [kurios] my God [theos] shall come, and all the saints with him. (Brenton, LXX).
1Th 3:13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord [kurios] Jesus Christ with all his saints.
“In Paul's theology, the future coming of the Lord is always seen as the return of the present reigning Lord, Jesus Christ. What Paul has done seems clear enough: the future coming of Yahweh is now to be understood as the future coming of "our Lord Jesus," who alone is kurios in Paul's new understanding, resulting from his own encounter with the risen Lord (see 1 Cor 9:1)" (Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology, p.43).
Zechariah is written from the “principal” perspective and Thessalonians from the Agency sense. What God does through His Agent He may be said to Himself. Zechariah 14:5 is also described as “indirect messianic prophecy”.
Rev 13:4a And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast,
From 13:4 it is seen that in the future Satan will be worshiped.
Part 2
ReplyDeletePeople will not literally worship the dragon, that is have Satan consciously in mind, but will worship his agent the beast. When one worships the beast they in effect worship Satan. Worship of the agent is worship of the principal - “Deification of secular power is in fact worship of Satan” (Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, Rev., NICNT, p.249).
Zec 14:16 ... 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.
In the future Jesus will have a dwelling presence in the Millennial Temple as God’s Agent. When one goes up to worship the Agent, one worships the ‘Principal’. By worshipping Jesus at Jerusalem one is worshipping God.
Rev 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Some points on this verse:
God, as Principal gave His revelation to Jesus, his Agent.
Just as God has His own Angel, who is a God-being, Jesus also has His angel, who is an angelic-being.
The verse has been deliberated worded in Greek so that it can be understood in two ways:
Firstly, the chain of deliverance is God - Jesus - angel - John - Servants; for Christ’s angel for the chain see Rev 22:16.
But because of the way it is written, the “angel” can also refer to Jesus - “he” can refer to God, so that Jesus is God’s Angel/Messenger.
So secondly, the chain of command is God - Jesus/Angel - John - Servants.
While both can be illustrated from the Old Testament, the following will on the latter interpretation.
Firstly the Old Covenant can be divided into three administrations - two tabernacle and one temple dispensations. The New Covenant can also be divided into three administrations - one tabernacle and two temple dispensations. The implication is that the first tabernacle dispensation - Moses and the wilderness — types the tabernacle dispensation of the New Covenant — Jesus and the Church Age — The Tabernacle seems to be the type of Christ and His Church now; the Temple, of Christ and His Church in resurrection glory” (Ada Habershon, A Study of Types, p.54).
It is argued that the chain of command in the ‘tabernacle’ dispensation of the Old Testament is:
God - Word - Moses - People. (cp. God — Jesus — John — Servants).
God is the ‘Principal’ and the Word is the “Agent”. In a previous post I quoted this:
"The message of the New Testament is that Yahweh, the One who spoke directly at Sinai and indirectly through Moses, is none other than Jesus Christ, Yahweh incarnate in human form, and that Moses was his prophet" (Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC, p.38).
There is also Jesus/Moses typology..
So on and at Sinai there is Jesus and Moses — God and prophet — Moses receives Jesus’ law and communicates it to the people.
Looking at the typology of the tabernacle dispensation between Israel and the Israel of God.
Twelve princes of the tribes/twelve apostles; 70 elders/70 sent disciples; twelve tribes/twelve tribes which are scattered abroad.
In the NC dispensation the chain of deliverance is God - Jesus - People. With the Word becoming incarnate it collapses the two — God and Prophet — into one — God as Prophet. So in the typology of the tabernacle dispensations, in and at Sinai in the giving of the law pictures Jesus as God/Prophet on the mount giving his Sermon to the people.
Ex 25:8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.
Jn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
In the OC dispensation God tabernacled with his people. And the same God-being also tabernacle with his people in the NC dispensation, as the typology would suggest.
Ex 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.
Part 3
ReplyDeleteEx 24:9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:
Ex 24:11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.
Mk 14:22 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”
Mk 14:24 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them.
So it follows that in the inauguration of the covenants and covenant meals it is Jesus, the God-being involved in the OC should be the God-being involved in the NC.
Dt 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD [YHWH] our God ['Elohim] is one LORD [YHWH] :
Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel, The Lord [Kyrios] our God (Theos) is one Lord (Kyrios). (Brenton, LXX)
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God [Theos], the Father... and one Lord [Kyrios] Jesus Christ...
"[Paul] has kept the "one" intact, but has divided the Shema into two parts, with theos (God) now referring to the Father, and kurios (Lord) referring to Jesus Christ... [Paul] is reasserting for the Corinthians that ... there is indeed only one God... but at the same time, he insists that the identity of the one God also includes the one Lord..." (Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology, pp.90-91).
"Once one recognizes Paul's intertextual appropriation of the language of the Septuagint, whereby kyrios = Yahweh is now kyrios = Christ, one becomes aware of the MANY exclusively Yahweh-phrases from the Septuagint that are also applied to Christ. This happens throughout the Pauline corpus..." (Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology, p.45).
"In three reasonably clear instances in the NT and five that have probability Jesus is called God... "Jesus is Lord" was evidently a popular confessional formula in NT times, and this formula Christians gave Jesus the title Kyrios which was the Septuagint translation for YHWH" (Raymond Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology, p.189).
While Jesus is God there seems to be reluctance, for want of a better word, to refer to Jesus as God (theos). Perhaps out of reverence for, as noted by Jesus, “the only true God” (Jn 17:3). While it is implicit in kurios it also seems, implicit in context, though without stating it:
Isa 6:1 And it came to pass in the year in which king Ozias died, that I saw the Lord [ho kurios] sitting on a high and exalted throne, and the house was full of his glory [doxes]. (Brenton, LXX).
Isa 6:3 And one cried to the other, and they said, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory [doxes]. (Brenton, LXX).
[Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory [doxes], and the express image of his person],
Jn 12:41 These things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory [doxan], and spake of him.
Jn 12:41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him (NIV).
“... the Gospel writer leaves it to the reader to infer that the "glory" of the God that Isaiah saw was in fact the glory of Jesus, now revealed in his signs and words (see 1:14; 2:11). It is not a difficult inference, given Jesus' own claims earlier that Abraham "rejoiced that he would see my day, and he saw and was glad" (8:56), and that "before Abraham came to be, I am" (8:58). As in that passage, the point is not simply that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus by seeing into the future, but that Isaiah saw the glory of the preexistent Jesus, the Word who was "in the beginning" (1:1-2), already in his own time" (J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, NICNT, pp.710-11).
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
God, as Principal, was the God of the Fathers (Acts 3:13) but it was Jesus, as Agent, who was the God being that engaged with people in the OC. God, as Principal is God in the NT, but it was Jesus, as Agent, who was the God-being that engaged with people in the NC.
The law of Moses was the law of Christ delivered by Moses.
Anonymous 3/2 in 3 parts:
ReplyDeleteYour principal vs agent discussion has scriptural/spiritual merit when discussing angels and humankind, but you run into serious theological problems when you apply it to the Godhead. When we say that God was present at Sinai, it is understood that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were present together as the ONE TRUE GOD. In this sense, the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ originated from the SAME source, God. Nevertheless, it does NOT follow that they are the same. All of the galaxies originated from the Big Bang, but the Milky Way is NOT the same galaxy as the Andromeda or Whirlpool Galaxy. My brother and I derived from the same parents, but we are very different from each other.
The fourteenth chapter of John is critical to understanding this phenomenon. We read there: "6 Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.' 8 Philip said to him, 'Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.' 9 Jesus said to him, 'Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.'" Jesus had already told them that he and the Father were ONE (John 10:30).
Likewise, Christ alluded to another part of the Godhead in that same chapter of the Gospel of John. He said: "15 If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.' 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, 'Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?' 23 Jesus answered him, 'If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me." Did you get that? Jesus promised that all three parts (Father, Son, Helper/Holy Spirit) would make their home with true Christians - God with and in us!
Torah and the Law of Christ, like the covenants they represent, ALL originated in the mind of God. They are both based on the universal and eternal Two Commandments which Christ identified during his earthly ministry - Love for God and each other. Nevertheless, the Law of Moses does NOT equal the Law of Christ - The Old Covenant is NOT the same as the NEW Covenant. I don't know how to make this any clearer. I pray that God will grant you the grace to see this, and that you will yield to "His" presence in you.
Matthew 11:28 "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
ReplyDeleteAnonymous (Multi-part) 9:27 wrote, ”The law of Moses was the law of Christ delivered by Moses”
ReplyDeleteThis is a statement that is intended to support the Hoeh/Meredith theory that Christians should be keeping the Law of Moses and that it is the Law of Moses that is written on the heart through the Holy Spirit. As such it is a condemnation of Pauline theology and Christianity. It is even a condemnation of Armstrongism because Armtrongists only keep select parts of the Law of Moses. And some of what they do keep, such as the Holy Days, is heavily re-interpreted and departs from the OT.
It is easier to demonstrate what the Law of Christ is not rather than what it is. There is an irony in asserting that the Law of Christ is the Law of Moses when the fact that the terminology “Law of Christ” comes from the Book of Galatians and it is that book which makes one of the strongest arguments against the Mosaic Law as the pathway to salvation. Paul wrote this in a specific context. He was contending with The Circumcision Party which maintained that the Law of Moses was necessary for salvation (Acts 15:5).
“Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised (a surrogate for the Law of Moses), Christ shall profit you nothing. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified (justification is on the critical path to salvation) by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.”
What we know from this we have an apophatic definition of the Law of Christ: we know it is not the Law of Moses. If the Law of Christ and the Law of Moses were the same, Paul would not be making a distinction between the two (Acts 5:15 counterposed against Acts 6:2). And he would not be advocating the Law of Christ and deploring the Law of Moses (same verses). We may understand, then, that the Law of Christ is constituted by the totality of the behavioral standards given in the New Testament.
Look, if you are fascinated by Judaism and want to keep the Sabbath, knock yourself out. You don’t have to contort NT scripture to give yourself a pretext. What you cannot do is declare that the Sabbath is required for salvation and teach other people that. When you do this, you become a heretic.
Scout
Yes, and actually if you want to "keep" the sabbath, you should read and be informed by "Shabbat", the first tractate in Seder Moed (Order of Festivals) in the Talmud.
ReplyDeleteBB
The sabbaths are a sign as to who God's people are.
ReplyDeleteHi Lonnie,
ReplyDeleteHeb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
Put simply the OC was the torah without the spirit and the NC is the torah with the spirit — :)
1 Jn 2:1 But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate [parakleton] before the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. (BSB).
Jn 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate [parakleton] to be with you forever— (BSB).
Rom 8:9 if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Rom 8:10 And if Christ be in you
Gal 4:4 God sent forth [exapostello] his Son
Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth [exapostello] the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
“ “He sent” translates the verb as is used in v.4 of God sending his Son;... The specific activity of the Spirit, once it is sent unto believers’ hearts, is that of the filial cry addressing God as “Abba! Father!” — an echo of Jesus’ own praying (cf. Mk. 14:36)... While the Spirit himself is here represented as crying within the believer’s heart, the believer’s own cry seems clearly implied. For it is the indwelling Spirit (cf. Rom 8:9) who teaches and enables the believer to pray using the term by which Jesus addressed God. In thus addressing God, believers show that they have “the Spirit of his Son,” who is “the Spirit of sonship” (Rom 8:15, NIV)...” (Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistles to the Galatians, NICNT, pp.184-185).
Jn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on [enephysesen] [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye [the] Holy Spirit:
Gen 2:7 and breathed enephysesen] upon his face the breath of life, and the man became a living soul. (LXX).
(Jn 20:22 and Acts 2 have two precedents in the OT, if anyone can point them out, I will be impressed).
For me, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus Personified — crying, Abba, Father.
While I am not going to convince you that the Holy Spirit is not a member of the Trinity, why do you think he is missing where one would expect to find him? Some examples follow:
“And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and COEQUAL” - from the Athanasian Creed.
If the Holy Sprit is a ‘person’ and is COEQUAL with God and Jesus why doesn’t he get CO-BILLING?
Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel, The Lord [Kyrios] our God (Theos) is one Lord (Kyrios). (Brenton, LXX)
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God [Theos], the Father... and one Lord [Kyrios] Jesus Christ
1 Cor 8:6 is considered the NT ‘shema’; but there is no room for the HS in it.
Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Why isn’t “and the Word was with God and the HS”?
Jn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Why isn’t eternal life to known the only true God, Jesus Christ and the HS?
1Jn 1:3b and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
Why isn’t our fellowship with the Father, Jesus Christ and the HS?
Part 2
ReplyDelete“Well-wishes with two divine sources:
Rom 1:7b Grace to you and peace
from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
1 Cor 1:3 Grace to you and peace
from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
2 Cor 1:2 Grace to you and peace
from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
Gal 1:3 Grace to you and peace
from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
Eph 1:2 Grace to you and peace
from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
Phil 1:2 Grace to you and peace
from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
2 Thess 1:2 Grace to you and peace
from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
1 Tim 1:2b Grace to you and peace
from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
2 Tim 1:2b Grace to you and peace
from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
Titus 1:4b Grace to you and peace
from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
Pliem 3 Grace to you and peace
from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
2 Pet 1:2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you
in the knowledge of God and Jesus our Lord
2 John 3 Grace, mercy and peace will be with us
from God the Father and from Jesus Christ the
Father’s Son, in truth and love
The above is taken from David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5, WBC, p.27.
“Nowhere do we find the Holy Spirit associated with the Father and the Son in any salutation. Not even in the Pauline Epistles” (E. W. Bullinger, Commentary on Revelation, p.141).
So why isn’t, in Paul’s salutations, grace to you and peace from God our Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the HS?
Rev 11:15 The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ;
Why isn’t in the kingdoms of our Lord, Christ and the HS?
Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
Why isn’t the Lord God Almighty, the Lamb and the HS are the temple?
Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
Why isn’t the light of God, Jesus Christ and the HS?
Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Why isn’t the throne of God, the Lamb and the HS?
Do these Scriptures give you pause that the doctrine of the Trinity might be suspect?
Exodus 31:12 The Lord then gave these instructions to Moses: 13 “Tell the people of Israel: ‘Be careful to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you from generation to generation. It is given so you may know that I am the Lord, who makes you holy. 14 You must keep the Sabbath day, for it is a holy day for you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. 15 You have six days each week for your ordinary work, but the seventh day must be a Sabbath day of complete rest, a holy day dedicated to the Lord. Anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death. 16 The people of Israel must keep the Sabbath day by observing it from generation to generation. This is a covenant obligation for all time. 17 It is a permanent sign of my covenant with the people of Israel. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day he stopped working and was refreshed.’” 18 When the Lord finished speaking with Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two stone tablets inscribed with the terms of the covenant, written by the finger of God.
ReplyDeleteJohn 13:33 Dear children, I will be with you only a little longer. And as I told the Jewish leaders, you will search for me, but you can’t come where I am going. 34 So now I am giving you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other. 35 Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples.”
Notice the different signs that identify the people of the Old Covenant and the people of the New Covenant?
Dt 5:29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
DeleteHeb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Love could have been a sign under the OC if the people had a proper heart in them:
Lev 19:2 Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.
Lev 19:18 but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Dt 10:19 Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Pr 24:17 Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:
Pr 25:21 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:
A new commandment but not yet a new covenant until after Christ's death.
DeleteNothing is said about abolishing sabbaths.
Scout writes:
ReplyDelete“Look, if you are fascinated by Judaism and want to keep the Sabbath, knock yourself out. You don’t have to contort NT scripture to give yourself a pretext. What you cannot do is declare that the Sabbath is required for salvation and teach other people that.”
For what it is worth, I do not believe that I am contorting the NT scripture.
Ro 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Ro 7:22 FOR I DELIGHT IN THE LAW OF GOD after the inward man:
"Man is expected to respond to God's grace. But how? This is the role of the law. The law explains how men are to imitate God. THE NT INSISTS THAT THE LAW IS NOT A MEANS TO SALVATION, BUT A RESPONSE TO SALVATION. The disciple is not merely to observe the letter of the commandments. His righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees... (Matt 5:17-48)" (Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, p.34).
"Paul argued that keeping the law is the fruit of justification rather than the means of justification... The law was given to the covenant people after their redemption from Egypt..., not as a moral hurdle they had to clear if they wished to be saved" (Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, p.261).
I agree with Gordon Wenham that one keeps the law as a response to salvation.
Sabbath and law keeping did not save/release Israel from Egypt but once they entered into covenant with God, He required Israel to keep his laws as a response to His salvation.
So I am OK with saying that one is required to keep the Sabbath as a response to salvation (cp. Mt 5;19). But once one accepts Jesus’ sacrifice it shouldn’t be seen as a requirement but something that you would want to do — the thought of coercion wouldn’t even come to mind.
Mt 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mt 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Dt 5:12 Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.
Dt 5:15 And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.
I would suggest that if one truly loves God one would want to keep the Sabbath.
Isa 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; AND CALL THE SABBATH A DELIGHT [‘ONEG], the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:
By keeping the Sabbath one honors God. If you don’t keep the Sabbath after salvation one is not only dishonouring God and Jesus, one is in open rebellion against Them.
“Is our religion for our “pleasure” or for God’s — that is the issue... Why do we engage in these ceremonies?... One should engage in these ceremonies ... for the sole purpose of bringing oneself to the feet of God, where once again one may express joyous surrender to him for the achievement of his purposes in and through oneself in the world.
“Of all the ceremonies, the Sabbath is the one best suited to the purpose just outlined. Here we cease our work and remind ourselves that it is God who supplies our needs, not we. Here we reorient the compass of our spirits to the true north of him and his concerns that all out time is his. For those who approach the Sabbath in this way, the day is a precious gift (the sense of ‘oneg, delight, v.13). It is a special day, a holy one, to be guarded jealously, not because God will destroy us if we lit a pencil or throw a ball, but because here we have another chance to remind ourselves about what matters and what does not, not what passes away and what survives, about the fact that all we are and have in his, a gift freely given and freely returned to be returned to the Giver” (John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah Chapters 40-66, NICOT, pp.508-09).
BB writes:
ReplyDelete“Yes, and actually if you want to "keep" the sabbath, you should read and be informed by "Shabbat", the first tractate in Seder Moed (Order of Festivals) in the Talmud.”
(Eze 43:13 And these are the measures [middot] of the altar after the cubits:
(Sefaria is in my favorites; I have been using the Mishnah tract “Middot” the most lately as I work my way through the Scriptures on the Millennial Temple; for example just on the Altar I have over 45 pages of texts and graphics on just five verses).
If you don’t want to keep the Sabbath in the NT ‘spirit’ go to the Talmud.
What’s in the OT and Jesus’s example and teaching is all I need.
Mt 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Mt 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
It is no coincidence that after 11:30 the sabbath comes up in the next verse.
"The chapter division is unfortunate, since 12:1 does not begin a new section. The opening words ... binds this unit to the preceding text. The theme of conflict, which dominates 11:20-12:14, continues in this section, as well as the themes of rest/sabbath..." (M. Eugene Boring, Matthew, NIB, Vol.8, p.276
"At that time" need not mean the same day as the events of chapter 11 but "at about that time"... Here it introduces an EXAMPLE of burdensome Pharisaic regulation (arising out of 11:28-30)..." (D.A. Carson, Matthew, EBC, Vol.8, p.279).
"Matthew here refers to the sabbath for the first time, gathering all his sabbath material into this one story.
"... the two scenes in 12:1-14, as rewritten by Matthew, should be seen as picturing Jesus' participation in this Jewish debate as to the proper observance of the sabbath, not as a Christian rejection of "Jewish legalism." Matthew has taken care to rewrite the stories to emphasize that his position is not a rejection of the Law or the sabbath as such. He does not dismiss the issue, but enters into a debate still going on in Judaism. It is clear that Matthew does not pit the ceremonial law against the moral law (see 5:17-48) and that there is no polemic against the sabbath or the Law as such, nor is the sabbath denigrated as mere ceremonial ritual" (M. Eugene Boring, Matthew, NIB, Vol.8, pp.277-278).
Mt 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest [anapauo].
Deu 5:14 but on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do in it no work ... that thy man-servant may rest [anapauo], and thy maid, and thine ox, as well as thou. (Brenton, LXX).
"These two stories are both concerned with the keeping of the sabbath... It is probably not accidental that it follows the offer of "rest" in 11:28-30, since "rest" was the declared aim of the sabbath law (Exod 23:12; Dt 5:14). Jesus' arguments attempt to restore the "rest" to what was in danger of becoming, under the weight of scribal elaborations of the law, more a burden than a blessing...
"At that time" links these stories... Both the theme of rest ... and that of Jesus' "kind yoke" in contrast with the burdens of scribal demands (23:4) will be illustrated as Jesus' understanding of the sabbath is contrasted with that of the Pharisees - note especially "the mercy" of v.7" (R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT, pp.454-455 & 457).
I've sent a new post to NO2HWA to address the question of the Trinity raised in this thread.
ReplyDeleteIf a person truly delights in the law of God then they would not be a liar nor a troublemaker, nor a truce breaker.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous (Multi-part) 6:37 wrote, “Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people”
ReplyDeleteThe question is what does this mean? You must go to the NT to learn that. Your hermeneutic must be formed within the boundaries of Pauline Theology. Your interpretation above, which is an advocacy of the Law of Moses, does not even take into consideration its immediate context in the Book of Hebrews.
From the point of view of praxis, if you are so certain that the scripture cited supports the Hoeh/Meredith theory, then why doesn’t Armstrongism practice the Torah in toto. That is the scope that the scripture above is referring to – the whole law. Armstrongism posits a reduced Torah that incudes all the commandments, laws, judgements and statutes minus the sacrifices and the execution of death penalties (referred to as the Ministry of Death which is actually the entirety of the Torah). And Armstrongists do not even keep this reduced set.
This is a serious flaw in the Hoeh/Meredith viewpoint. To my knowledge Armstrongism has never addressed it.
Scout
Anonymous (Multi-part) 6:39 wrote, “Well-wishes with two divine sources”
ReplyDeleteA greeting that was customary for Paul is not a well-reasoned discussion of the ontology of the Holy Spirit. We could counterpose against your greetings argument the Triads used in the Epistles and arrive at a stalemate. Unless you want to resort to something sophomoric like counting the number of occurrences to break the tie.
Paul regards the Holy Spirit as volitional which is an important part of any ontological analysis of the Holy Spirit. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians:
“Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”
God is absolute. He does not need a prosthetic energy source to aid him in teaching people. Just one simple argument. I look forward Miller Jones’ future post on this.
I do not believe there is a strong Trinitarian foundation in scripture. But I do believe the Nicene view is the best thing in town. I certainly do not believe in the Bi-theism of HWA. That is one more step in the wrong direction from the form of Binitarianism held by the Church of God Seventh Day – Binitarianism as described by Elder Robert Coulter, at one time President of CG7.
Scout
Like Scout, this is my second attempt at a comment for I believe my first one was lost due to faulty equipment and lousy Wifi.
ReplyDeleteI have been impressed with the dialogue this thread has generated, very informative on both sides. If I have to choose, I believe my viewpoint is best expressed by multi-part man (is this the same guy from the past or a newby?). That said, I will attempt to make a valid contribution without repeating what has already been established.
The book of Galatians informs us that there are 2 contrary principles at work in man that are at variance with one another, which is stated in Ch.5:17:
The desires of the flesh verses the desires of the spirit--our human nature vs. the nature of God, and what WE want to do vs. what God wants and tells us to do. This is the true battleground of this argument.
It is a mistake to believe God deals with everyone alike. He doesn't! We should be able to understand that. In society we have laws that discriminate according to age, such as curfews, voting, driving a car, drinking alcohol, etc. The law is the same for all but how it applies depends on the given situation and circumstances. It's the same with child rearing. Some children require more instruction and discipline than others, yet the rules are the same for all.
In the old covenant and the future Messianic age, God is dealing with the carnal and profane, as a collective. This should not be confused with the New covenant church age where He is dealing with His spirit begotten children on an individual basis. These are 2 different administrations altogether, but the SAME God and the SAME law are at work.
The constant in all this as I see it is God and the law, which is identified in Scripture as His will, His way, that which is right in His sight. It is referred to by several names, but it's the SAME law but administered accordingly to the prevailing circumstances. One administration does not fit all even as it does not in society or at home.
I believe what is witnessed in Acts 15 is a conflict of administrations, where the flesh (the manner of Moses) is at variance with the spirit (the manner of Christ). God's law was not the villain here, but it had become the instrument of controversy because of it's misuse (in order to be saved), Acts 15:1, Galatians 5:4.
The carnal approach to the law is performance (doing), Exodus 19:5-8, with the aim of establishing one's own righteousness, while ignoring and refusing to submit to God's approved way, Romans 9:30-33, 10:1-3, the Gospel, which is the way of allowing God to do what He has promised, to write His law upon our heart while we "wait for the hope of righteousness by faith", Romans 4:21, Hebrews 8:10, Galatians 5:5.
Though circumstances may differ, from the viewpoint of Scripture, " the law is not abrogated but remains the rule of life, the standard of righteousness " for all dispensations of time,
the past (OC)--Exodus 20
The present church age (NC)---Romans 7, 1 Corinthians 5,9, Hebrews 8:10
The future Messianic age--- Isaiah 2, Zechariah 14.
See International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1939, vol.3, page 1849.
Anonymous (Multi-part) 8:02 wrote, “So I am OK with saying that one is required to keep the Sabbath as a response to salvation (cp. Mt 5;19). But once one accepts Jesus’ sacrifice it shouldn’t be seen as a requirement but something that you would want to do — the thought of coercion wouldn’t even come to mind.”
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this. The statement above is the entire fallacious predicate of Armstrongism. “… something that YOU would want to do.” What you should want to do is what the NT tells you to do. The Jerusalem Conference makes the prescription. It does not advocate the keeping of the Sabbath. The Jerusalem Church, principally Jewish, kept the Sabbath, a shadow, as a form of liturgy based in culture and history. It did not keep the Sabbath as requirement for salvation (If they had they would have dramatically split with Peter and Paul and hey did not) and if it is not a requirement for salvation its observance is optional.
Scout
"The Jerusalem Conference makes the prescription. It does not advocate the keeping of the Sabbath."
ReplyDelete______________________________________
They didn't have to. They knew the Gentiles would come every sabbath and learn more - Acts 15:21
Scout writes:
ReplyDelete“The Jerusalem Conference makes the prescription. It does not advocate the keeping of the Sabbath.”
This is eisegesis.
Ac 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
The prescription at the Jerusalem dealt with circumcision and table fellowship.
Ac 13:16 Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and YE THAT FEAR GOD, give audience.
Ac 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
Ac 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and RELIGIOUS PROSELYTES followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
The Sabbath wasn’t an issue. The Gentiles - God-fearers and proselytes - that formed the early church were already Sabbath-keepers. Peter, Barnabas and the Gentiles at Antioch were sabbath-keepers.
Ac 17:2 As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
Ac 17:4 Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of GOD-FEARING GREEKS and not a few prominent women.
Ac 18:1 After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth.
Ac 18:4 Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
Ac 18:6 But when the Jews opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”
Ac 18:7 Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, A WORSHIPER OF GOD.
Ac 18:8 Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.
Ac 18:9 One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision:“Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent.
Ac 18:10 For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city.”
Ac 18:11 So Paul stayed for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God.
How long the early church kept meeting in the disapora synagogues would depend on individual circumstances. When the break came from the synagogue non-proselyte and non- God-fearing Gentiles were joining sabbath-keeping congregations. The problem would come when the Gentiles were in the majority.
The prescriptions for the Gentiles in the Act 15 decree was to facilitate the Jews acceptance of Gentiles. Two views:
"The biblical context for understanding the importance of these injunctions against pagan religious practices is Leviticus 17-18, a text from Moses that is "read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues" (Acts 15:21). This text legislates the behaviour of "resident aliens" living in the holy land among Jews and sounds a cautionary note about possible effects of "aliens who sojourn in your midst" whose practices may defile and subvert the people's covenant relationship with God. The exhortation to avoid "the practices of the nations" is deeply rooted in the prophet's keen awareness that Israel's single-minded loyalty to God (and so its future) can be imperiled by the manner of a people's worship in a heterogeneous culture. This same concern is here adapted by James to guide the behaviours of converted Gentiles who share Christian fellowship with repentant Jews in the urban synagogues of the diaspora (cf. 15:21).
Part 2
ReplyDelete“In effect, James implies that Jews should treat uncircumcised Gentiles who otherwise share the same sacred space as "resident aliens." James offer guidelines to ensure that Christian fellowship in the mixed congregations of Paul's urban mission will nurture faith rather than contaminate. The lack of sensitivity to the church's Jewish legacy would surely have an adverse effect on a congregation's Jewish membership (cf. Rom 14, 1 Cor 8-10)...” (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, pp.219).
"The council's decree ... is a compromise solution that pacifies the circumcision party (by treating Gentile converts as God-fearers) rather than ratifies Gentile converts' full status as members of God's people. Nevertheless, it was a compromise that saved the day and prevented a major schism from forming" (Craig S. Keener, Acts 15:1-23:35, An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 3, p.2194).
"It is clearly wrong to cause needless difficulty for Gentiles turning to God (Acts 15:19), nor should there be any concern that the law will be neglected (15:21). But as a compromise solution, Gentiles can be asked to follow some basic, minimal expectations for table fellowship to maintain unity with the Jewish believers (15:20). Not each of the expectations is moral, but all are necessary qualifications for Jews (both believers and nonbelievers in Jesus) to regard these believers as righteous, trustworthy Gentiles, with whom table fellowship might appear less problematic for Jewish believers" (Craig S. Keener, Acts 15:1-23:35, An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 3, p.2258).
"Whatever else may be said, these rules at the least allowed Gentiles to be seen as God-fearers rather than idolaters for both the Jerusalem church and other pious Jerusalemites...
"... this compromise would not, in fact resolve the circumcision question decisively; it simply makes the Gentile converts acceptable to circumcisionists as God-fearers — not full proselytes. The compromise falls short of the Pauline view, which, presumably, Luke's circle of churches held; it would not prevent division over the status of Gentiles, though it should have made it acceptable to eat with them (Gal 2:11-14). What the working compromise does achieve is temporary peace in the church, a silencing of demands for Gentile converts to be circumcised, and time for the Gentile churches to continue growing in their own way. AFTER JERUSALEM'S DESTRUCTION, THE CHURCH'S NUMERICALLY LARGEST FUTURE WOULD LIE ESPECIALLY WITH THEM" (Craig S. Keener, Acts 15:1-23:35, An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 3, p.2269).
"The compromise solution of Acts 15:20, 29 does not resolve the theological difference between Paul and some of his detractors as to whether Gentile adherents now belong to God's people; IT DOES PROVIDE A PRACTICAL, WORKING BASIS FOR TABLE FELLOWSHIP BY ACCEPTING THEM AS AT THE LEAST ANALOGOUS TO GOD-FEARERS ATTENDING DIASPORA SYNAGOGUES" (Craig S. Keener, Acts 15:1-23:35, An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 3, p.2215).
"...by Luke's day, the Gentile mission was too widespread and the remnants of the Jerusalem church too scattered for the circumcisionists to remain a primary potent threat for Luke's Diaspora audience. Luke thus reports a theological battle important in the historical development of the Gentile church of his day, but it was no longer a major battle in his day. CONTINUITY WITH THE CHURCH'S HERITAGE, HOWEVER, REMAINED AN IMPORTANT THEOLOGICAL ISSUE, MAKING THE EVENTS OF THE COUNCIL A MATTER OF CONTINUING INTEREST" (Craig S. Keener, Acts 15:1-23:35, An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 3, p.2194).
"Here the original Jerusalem church officially ratifies the direction of the Gentile mission, stipulating only a few prohibitions that, for the most part, the Pauline movement would have observed anyway" (Craig S. Keener, Acts 15:1-23:35, An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 3, p.2207).
As most Armstrongist do, the Anonymous in Parts commentator, revises the clear history of the scriptural account of the great council at Jerusalem. Circumcision was a SIGN of the covenant between God and Abraham's physical descendants. You quote the first verse of Acts 15 and ignore the fifth verse entirely.
ReplyDeleteBut some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them ANDand to order them to keep the law of Moses.”
AND TO ORDER THEM TO KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES! I hate it when my finger slips.
ReplyDeletePaul quoted from the law of Moses.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous (Multi-part) 2:31 wrote, "This is eisegesis."
ReplyDeleteAre you referring to what you wrote or to what I wrote. If you are referring to me, I have not provided you with the details of an interpretation for you to evaluate. You can hardly conclude that it is eisegesis.
In fact, you have gotten a little eisegetic yourself. You state that this does not refer to the Sabbath then you fail to quote Acts 15:5 which states the the topic is the Law of Moses. Are we to assume that you do not consider the Sabbath to be a part of the Law of Moses?
I don't want to re-litigate this. I worked in my wife's garden this afternoon and I'm tired. If you look along the right margin of the blog homepage, you will find an article that I wrote titled "Notes on the Jerusaem Council." It gives my views.
I don't mean to be dismissive. I do appreciate you participation in NO2HWA's blog. You seem to have really thought about these theological concerns. Most Armstrongists come here with sound bites that they hear from their pulpits and they believe that is a logical argument. I believe it is evidence that they have been brain washed. It's a little creepy. You will find many sound bites in the comments for this post. They are almost always short slogans and almost always have familiar wording from Armstrongist literature.
So here's a clue. What you call an eisegesis is widely believed among millions of people in the Christiain community. Your interpretation is held by a small cohort of Armstrongists who have taken a serious interest in little booklet theology. Your view is a minority within a minority. While that condition may not mean anything, it just might mean something if you investigate.
Scout
Part 1
ReplyDeleteAc 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
“More significant, James no longer appears interested in the original question of whether converted Gentiles should be circumcised according to Mosaic teaching. The matter of halakhah (teaching on legal matters) he now introduces concerns the purity of diaspora Christian congregations where uncircumcised Gentiles and repentant Jews worship together, with a potentially deleterious effect upon the authority of the Jewish legacy they share (15:19-21, 29; cf. 21:25). The vital issue of Gentile purity for James is not the same as for Peter, who claims that uncircumcised Gentiles were purified of heart by their faith in Christ (see 15:9). The relevant issue for James is ecclesiological — and more sociological than spiritual.... If the implied question raised by Jewish believers about the salvation (15:1) and solidarity (15:5) of uncircumcised Gentiles is whether repentant Gentiles should “become like Jews,” then the thematic shift signaled by James’s use of the Semitic form of Peter’s name addresses the same question in reverse, whether repentant Jews (= Simeon”) should “become like Gentiles” ” (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, pp.213-14).
Lonnie writes:
As most Armstrongist do, the Anonymous in Parts commentator, revises the clear history of the scriptural account of the great council at Jerusalem.
I did not. I wrote:
“The prescription at the Jerusalem [Council] dealt with circumcision and table fellowship.”
Ac 15:19 Wherefore my sentence [krino] is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Ac 15:20 BUT [ALLA] that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
I took “prescription” from Scout; I should have used “sentence” as in the A.V.
At least I said “circumcision,” which James refrains from mentioning in his “sentence”. But he didn’t use table-fellowship.
For the Jews: trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: (v.19).
For the Gentiles: abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (v.20).
"The force of the word translated "trouble" (parenochleo) denotes pestering someone, against the person's will" (Robert W. Wall, "The Acts of the Apostles," NIB, Vol.10, p. 220).
"The strong adversative conjunction ... (alla, "But") cues the shift in the gravity of James's concern from "Judaizing" repentant Gentiles to "gentilizing" repentant Jews..." (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, p. 220).
Part 2
ReplyDeleteAc 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Lev 17:7 They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat idols to whom they prostitute themselves. (NIV).
Lev 17:10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. (AV).
Lev 18:6 None of you are to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.(BSB).
“Based upon the evidence of experience and Scripture, James proposes that “we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God” (v.19). Luke’s Jesus has separated salvation from Torah, or at least has found a way to include gentiles without first making them Jews. Yet Christian love and the concerns of community temper this inclusive spirit. Out of care for the sensibilities of Jewish Christians (a major concern of Gal. 2:11-21), gentile Christians are asked to observe four things: eat nothing sacrificed to pagan gods, abstain from incestuous marriages, eat no meat of strangled animals, abstain from partaking of blood (15:20-21). Leviticus 17-18 applies these rules to both Jews and to aliens who reside within Israel. James seems to regard these gentiles as analogous to “strangers” in the Hebrew Scriptures. Thus, gentile Christians are compelled to observe the minimum requirements that have set for strangers wanting to enjoy fellowship with conscientious Jews. At the table of the Lord, we gentiles continue to be the guests of a Jewish host.
“Converts into the church are welcomed, but not without limits. Even as change was required of Jewish Christians to include converted gentiles in their fellowship, so converted gentiles must change for the good of the fellowship. Luke, in his enthusiasm for the gentile mission, does not claim that old Israel is replaced by a new Israel, the church. Rather, gentiles are welcomed into a reconstituted Israel with demands that they adhere to certain basic Levitical standards for the good of all.
“Nowhere does Luke suggest that Jesus abrogates the Torah. Even gentiles are to keep that part of the Torah which applies to them as non-Jews. Our Protestant tendency to equate Torah with legalism deters us from seeing the Torah as Luke sees it. In Judaism, Torah was not a means of winning salvation. Jews knew that God is gracious and forgiving. For Luke, the law is not a means of salvation but rather is a means of signifying ones identity as a member of God’s people — although, strictly speaking, no Jew would have understood a separation of salvation by God through the gift of the Torah and identity as God’s people. Ceremonial rules for eating were just as important as ethical rules for marriage, money and murder. Jews must be witnesses in the midst of a pagan world of God’s gracious determination to have a people. As other signs of Jewish distinctiveness were destroyed, like their king, their land, and their temple, Torah held the people together. Torah was the Jews’ joyful witness to the one true God in a world of idols (E. P. Sanders).
“This was Luke’s view of Torah. God’s people will live by God’s law. To fail to do so would be to risk the distintegration of the community of the elect into another co-opted cult of the Empire. Paul solved the Jew-gentile problem one way, Luke in another. Luke would never have said, “Christ is the end of the law...” (Rom 10:4). Gentiles must be included in God’s family, but on the family’s terms — through belief in the Word and gift of the Spirit” (William H. Willimon, Acts, Int., pp.130-31).
Like annon 213 I also believe both Lonnie and Scout have drawn the wrong conclusion from Acts 15:5.
ReplyDeleteThe context of Acts 15 is clearly set in verse 1:
"Except you be (circumcised) AFTER THE MANNER Of Moses, you CANNOT BE SAVED".
How one is saved is the real issue here, not the validity of proper law keeping.
Bullinger says, " The question was whether Gentile converts entering by the door of faith (Acts 14:27), could be saved by faith alone without the seal of faith", (Rom.4:11--circumcision). See Companion Bible note at Acts 15:21.
Acts 15:5---the Pharisees were saying, "it was needful to (circumcise) them and commanded them to keep the law of Moses (in order to be saved, verse 1)."
Scout says the topic is the law of Moses, but we know from the rest of the NT that the law is good when used lawfully, but not good when used for the wrong purpose. Also, Paul used the law of Moses (the right way) when instructing the Gentile Corinthians (1 Corinthians9). The law was the point of contention but it was not the problem.
Acts 15:24---"certain men have troubled you with words subverting your souls
(verse 1)". For some reason, what follows in the KJV about the law is considered by certain scholars as not being supported by original manuscripts and are therefore left out of certain translations (see NIV, NASB, MOFF, LIVING).
The book of Galatians is a fitting commentary on Acts 15:1-5. The Apostle address the following questions: Justification HOW? Receive the spirit HOW? Righteousness HOW? Inheritance HOW? He asks, receive the spirit by works of law or the hearing of faith?, chapter 3, verse 2. Verse 3 says, are you so foolish, having begun in the spirit are you now made perfect by the flesh?
These are salvation issues, plain and simple!
Ch. 5:2-4 summarizes this contention:
2) If you be CIRCUMCISED (in order to be saved, Acts 15:1), Christ shall profit you nothing.
3) If you think circumcision (the law) are methods of salvation, you are a debtor to do the whole law.
4). Christ is become of no effect unto you, if you seek justification by law, you are fallen from Grace.
How many times on this site, when the subject of "law" comes up, Scout goes into default mode and starts railing that the law is not a pathway to salvation?
He's right. Acts 15:1-5 is in full agreement!
In my article titled “Notes on the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15), I wrote the following paragraph:
ReplyDelete“The congregations established by Paul and Barnabas would have been taught the Gospel (Acts 14:21). These were Gentile congregations (Acts 15:12) but they apparently had some access to the Hebrew scriptures (Acts 15:21). Other scriptures indicate that there were also some Jews in these early congregations. The Circumcision Party was preaching to them that in order to be saved they had to 1) be circumcised and 2) keep the Law of Moses. They were diligently trying to undo the work that Paul and Barnabas had done. Paul and Barnabas opposed them vehemently (Acts 15: 2). It is obvious from this sequence of events that Paul and Barnabas preached the Gospel to these newly planted churches and the preaching did not include anything about being circumcised or keeping the Law of Moses. This absence of the Law of Moses in Christianity engendered the conflict that led to the Jerusalem Council.”
The argument that Armstrongists use to preserve the idea that the Law of Moses should still be kept is that all the churches had already been taught the Law of Moses by Paul and Barnabas so it was not matter of question. The entire account of the Jerusalem Council assumes the keeping of the Law of Moses. But in Acts 15, Luke writes the following (ESV):
“But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved … But some believers who belong to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them (the new converts of Paul and Barnabas) and to order them to keep The Law of Moses (the legislation in toto). The Apostles and elders were gathered together to consider this matter.”
I checked this in David Bentley Hart’s New Testament translation (painfully literal) and the meaning accords with the ESV cited above. From this, the scope of the Jerusalem Council’s consideration is simply undeniable. The issue is salvation by circumcision and observing the Law of Moses. The passage above does not use the wording “saved by the Law of Moses”. It states rather that the new converts should be “ordered” or required to keep the Law of Moses. Unless the keeping of the Law of Moses were essential to salvation in the beliefs of the Circumcision Party, there would be no basis for requiring it.
If Paul and Barnabas had been already teaching the new churches that they must keep the Law of Moses as Armstrongists claim, there would be no reason for the Law of Moses to even be considered within the scope of the Jerusalem Council. But it is within the scope. And this means that the Circumcision Party was teaching that the Law of Moses must be kept but Paul and Barnabas had not been so teaching. This means that the conclusion of the Jerusalem Council only identifies four items from the Torah that should continue to be observed (in addition to the Law of Christ which is what Paul and Barnabas actually taught the new churches).
Scout
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets - Mat 22:40.
ReplyDeleteWhat law? It cannot be only the two commandments but other laws. They include the TEN, of course. Not nine. If you love the Lord your God you will observe the sabbath day.
Those who have accepted Jesus Christ and received God's Holy Spirit are observing the ultimate Sabbath rest - the one that Friday-Saturday sundown pointed to - Jesus of Nazareth. They have accepted what he did for them and have ceased from their own works and internalized the Two Great Commandments in their hearts.
ReplyDeleteScout 250
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that those believing Pharisees (Acts 15) and the Circumcision party wanted things done THEIR WAY, and like HWA, they put their particular spin on things. They were stuck in the only way they knew, the old national covenant made with Israel. They viewed everything through that lens, the manner of Moses (physical), and not the manner of Christ (spiritual).
As the church grew and departed the old covenant, they were viewed by the Jews as "forsaking Moses", and the physical customs of the law (Acts 21:21). Even Stephan was accused of blasphemy against Moses, God, and the law (Acts 6:11-14) for no other reason than preaching the truth that " true worshippers MUST now worship God in spirit and truth" (John 4:21-24) , which was considered by the Jews as "contrary to the law" (Acts 18:13), which in reality was not! We all know how that works. Any suggestion that HWA was wrong about ANYTHING was considered heretical rebellion and departure from the living Christ, putting one's salvation in jeopardy.
Paul maintained like charges against him were false accusations, for even though he now "worshipped God in spirit" (Phil.3:3), he still " worshipped the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets " (Acts 24:14); only now, all was done "after the inward man, in newness of spirit" (Romans 7), according to the full magnification and spiritual intent as taught by Christ (Matthew 5-7).
I think the tag "the Way", see Acts 9:2, 19:9,23, 22:4, (which they called heresy, Acts 24:14) is a fitting designation of that change of administrations, national to individual, flesh to spirit, old covenant to new covenant. Perhaps a change from law of Moses to law of Christ would give clarity and serve that purpose as well, even though I don't see a wholesale example of it in the NT.
Scout, your papers on the Jerusalem conference are well written and praise worthy even though I would word a few things differently. Good job!