Should Christians Celebrate the Feast days?

[Ron Amnsn]

7 "" THEN I SAID, "BEHOLD, I HAVE COME (IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME) TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.'''

8 After saying above, "" SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them'' (which are offered according to the Law),

9 then He said, "" BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL.'' He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

Here then is your problem not only are the animal sacrifices ended - but the law regarding animal sacrifices comes to an end. That law is "predictive" it predicts that a REAL valid and effective sacrifice (The Messiah dying for the sins of the whole world 1John 2:2) would one day come. This is the point of Col 2 - regarding the "Shadows" of the past that merely "predict" future events. And as Heb 10 has stated those old shadows have no ability at all to forgive sins!

I think this is where your (and most of Christians') assumptions are showing. When God gave the Law, he said it would last throughout the generations of the Israelites. There are presently still generations of Israelites. When Jesus was on earth he said that not a stroke of the Law would disappear until heaven and earth pass away and all is accomplished. Heaven and earth are still here and not all the prophecies have been accomplished. You are assuming that God and Jesus didn't actually mean what they said; that by some unknown means parts of the Law have ended; that this has happened by God's authority, even though the Scriptures do not say that it has happened; that the apostles of Jesus were mistaken when they continued to practice those parts of God's Law that man-made tradition has declared ended.

You have described a doctrine about "predictive law" that disappears, which is not found in Scripture. You are saying that parts of God's Law have disappeared because parts of the prophecies have been accomplished. That is significantly different than what Jesus taught.

Yes, Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. But there's nothing about that which would necessitate (or allow) parts of God's instructions to become void.

Colossians 2 is a powerful discourse against gnostic asceticism, but when people try to make it apply instead to the setting aside God's OT instructions the argument becomes so weak and out of context that only those who already deem God's Law to be defective would accept it as evidence that parts of God's Law are ended. The traditions of men have taught us (contrary to Scripture) that God's Law is defective. Let's look closely at the pertinent parts of Colosians 2.

First, the word "mere" or "merely" in Colossians 2:17 is not in the existing Greek manuscript at all. It has been added by the translators who were not content with what the text actually says so they added words to Scripture to support their own doctrinal biases. That the word "mere" was added by the translators is indicated by the italics in which it is printed in the KJV and the NASB. The fact that the translators felt the need to tamper with Scripture is fairly strong evidence that Scripture does not actually support the doctrine that would be propped up by adding the word "mere". It's too bad that this tampering of the Bible translators has misled many sincere people like you.

Also, in verse 17 the Bible translators in many Bible versions have taken the present tense of the "shadow" and changed it to past tense, and have also taken the real future events depicted by the "shadow" and moved them to the past. This change is unwarranted by the Greek text and is further evidence that the translators feel the need to tamper with Scripture in order prop up the man-made doctrines which they believe. Paul did not say the "shadows" are "of the past" as you assert, but rather that they are of the present to depict things that "are to come". Again, it's too bad that this tampering of the Bible translators has deceived many people.

The ESV translates verse 17 as, "These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." Notice that God's feasts and Sabbaths are a shadow, rather than were a shadow; and they point to things that are still future. The ESV translation of this verse would be even better if they had translated the "but" as "and" (as it is correctly translated in hundreds of other places in the New Testament). By choosing to use "but" instead of "and" the translators added an element of contrast to a verse that would be better understood without that contrast.

Also, the document that Colossians 2:14 says was nailed to the cross was not any part of God's Law or instructions. Paul used the word "dogmasin" to indicate what was nailed to the cross. That word and its derivatives are never used in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) or the Greek New Testament to refer to any of God's many instructions or Laws. For evidence see this thread.

[Lysimachus]

You are very confused, Ron Amnsn, regarding the difference between "remedial laws", and the "base law".

Remedial laws are laws put in place to "deal" with the problem of sin against the base law. All the feasts, all the ceremonies, all of it, was not the Moral Law. They were additional laws given to deal with the main law.

Hence, when Jesus said not one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, He was not dealing with the remedial services. He was dealing the base law that the remedial services dealt with.

Those remedial/atoning services have now transferred to Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. Keeping a "feast" is not in harmony with keeping God's "law". You can keep a feast, and still be unclean, unholy, committing sin. Those feasts were only meaningful when the person was truly living up to what he believed, and the outward ceremony was only an outward celebration, an outward acknowledgement of his decisions to follow the Lord.

Your posts are too long with too much rambling. It is tiresome reading your posts, because they have no substance. Just long drawn out explanations that can be refuted in a single sentence or two.

[Lysimachus]

The ESV translates verse 17 as, "These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." Notice that God's feasts and Sabbaths are a shadow, rather than were a shadow; and they point to things that are still future. The ESV translation of this verse would be even better if they had translated the "but" as "and" (as it is correctly translated in hundreds of other places in the New Testament). By choosing to use "but" instead of "and" the translators added an element of contrast to a verse that would be better understood without that contrast.

Present tense syntax is no proof of actual present tense. When John the Revelator speaks of many future events, he speaks of them in the "present-tense". When Paul said "are", he was simply taking you back, figuratively, when the feasts were present. It's like a time capsule.... you jump in, and travel to a different place in time, and now suddenly, what is occurring is "present-tense" based on where you are in the time capsule.

Your "are" argument is baseless, and has been refuted by a number of sound expositors. But even if the "are" was present, it doesn't necessarily mean that because they are a shadow, we must keep them. In our understanding, those "past" feasts that were a shadow "are" a shadow in our minds of what is to come.

Building theology like this is extremely dangerous.

[Lysimachus]

Also, you seem to pretend you are a better expert at Greek than the translators. I see you revamping almost every sentence, rationalizing how somehow the sentence doesn't say what it says.

I can assure you the translators of the Bible knew far more Greek and Hebrew than you do.

[Ron Amnsn]

You are very confused, Ron Amnsn, regarding the difference between "remedial laws", and the "base law".

Remedial laws are laws put in place to "deal" with the problem of sin against the base law. All the feasts, all the ceremonies, all of it, was not the Moral Law. They were additional laws given to deal with the main law.

[Ron Amnsn]

11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;

12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,

ONE sacrifice for ALL time -- means that all mankind that has the NEED for a sacrifice - forgiveness of sins, paying the debt owed, a substitutionary sacrifice - sin offering - HAS that ONE sacrifice and it is for ALL - for ALL time! Impossible at this point to "invent" a NEED for the "done away with" system that "had no power at all to forgive sins".

Who is inventing a need for a sacrifice? God was the one who told the Israelites and their forefathers to offer sacrifices. If a need was invented, God invented it, even though those sacrifices which He instructed people to offer were not effective in the way that Messiah's sacrifice was effective. God never told the Israelites to stop offering sacrifices. Jesus told the Pharisees and chief priests a number of things, but to stop following God's instructions was not one of them.

Apparently God had a different purpose for animal sacrifices than to forgive sins, even from the beginning.

[Lysimachus]

Which passages of Scripture could you point me to that would teach me what you are teaching. I have searched the Scriptures diligently and have never encountered the terms "base law" or "remedial law" nor have I found the term "Moral Law" nor have I found a place where these terms are defined in Scripture. If the concepts you are espousing are not found in Scripture, it seems that they are merely the traditions of men.

[Ron Amnsn]

1. Question - what denomination does Ron belong to - that still has animal sacrifices?

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

1. Question - what denomination does Ron belong to - that still has animal sacrifices?

Ron doesn't belong to a denomination.

[Ron Amnsn]

Present tense syntax is no proof of actual present tense. When John the Revelator speaks of many future events, he speaks of them in the "present-tense".

[Ron Amnsn]

Also, you seem to pretend you are a better expert at Greek than the translators. I see you revamping almost every sentence, rationalizing how somehow the sentence doesn't say what it says.

I can assure you the translators of the Bible knew far more Greek and Hebrew than you do.

Thanks. I am well aware of my limitations in Greek.

That's why I use the tools I use which rely on what the experts say. All of my assertions about the Greek can be verified by comparing the existing English translations and interlinears. My assertion about "takes away" in Heb 10:9 is the only one I'm kind of sticking my neck out on because I built my case from what the Greek dictionaries and lexicons say about the word and how it is actually used in other passages in the NT and LXX. I may have missed some nuance that an expert could correct me on.

I am also aware that virtually all of the Bible authors (except Nebuchadnezzar) loved God's OT Law enough to live according to the precepts of the Law of Moses. On the other hand, virtually none of the men who translated our English versions of the Bible love God's OT Law enough to model their lifestyle according to it. That gives the translators a strong bias that is quite different than the perspective of those who wrote the original Scripture.

[phkrause]

Apparently God had a different purpose for animal sacrifices than to forgive sins, even from the beginning.

So let me ask you, what than were the sacrificing of the animals suppose to show the Israelites??

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

Which passages of Scripture could you point me to that would teach me what you are teaching. I have searched the Scriptures diligently and have never encountered the terms "base law" or "remedial law" nor have I found the term "Moral Law" nor have I found a place where these terms are defined in Scripture. If the concepts you are espousing are not found in Scripture, it seems that they are merely the traditions of men.

Don't be silly Ron. You know very well what these terms mean. It's obvious. Don't get hung up on words, letters, and expressions, but concepts.

[Ron Amnsn]

You, brother, are legalistic, in thinking there is some form of Holiness associated with these feasts. They will get you nowhere closer to Jesus.

[Ron Amnsn]

Quote:

Why don't you offer any Scriptural references for your pronouncements? You say that keeping a "feast" is not in harmony with God's law, but you don't back that up with Scripture. God's Word plainly tells the Israelites to keep God's feasts, and nowhere does God tell the Israelites to stop keeping God's feasts. So how does obedience to God's instructions suddenly become "not in harmony with keeping God's law" as you claim? Did the death of Messiah somehow turn God's perfect OT Law into something to be avoided?

We have already provided many scriptures. But every time people have provided you scriptures, you twist and minipulate them and try to say that they really don't mean what they say, because the Greek or Hebrew is "different".

[Dr. Rich]

Where does one find where Jesus ever said that one must keep the feasts in order to inherent the Kingdom of Heaven? Matthew 19 is a key and so is Rev. 12:17. Both places do not say anything about keeping any feasts in order to be saved.

Also, what did Jesus mean when He cursed the fig tree and it died? What did Jesus mean that the house of Israel became desolate? What did Jesus mean when He said what He did in Matthew 21:43? And who is it that is now the Kingdom of Heaven as found in Matthew 25:1-13?

[Lysimachus]

If you know people who keep the feast days and believe others should as a salvational issue then check out the new book coming out soon (2nd printing coming soon). du Preez has preached at my church and I've been to his seminars at GYC (you can listen to some here: http://gycweb.org/presenters/ron-du-preez/) and he's on www.audioverse.org.

------------------------------------

Quote:

Announcement from Ron du Preez (I really enjoy his very thorough studies!!):

Since I had only a limited amount of time to address the extensive issues related to the "feasts days," I obviously dealt with some major concerns, primarily. Incidentally, there is so much more on this topic, including a careful, biblical study of Colossians 2:14-17, which similarly demonstrates that all of these pilgrim festivals (i.e., Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles), new moon observances..., and ceremonial sabbaths (such as the Day of Atonement), were "shadows" that pointed forward to the reality, Jesus Christ. By the way, for those who may be interested, this is not simply my "personal opinion," but rather, this is the standard view of the entire Seventh-day Adventist Church, as seen in the book "Seventh-day Adventists Believe," especially pages 274-287.

So as to address virtually all the questions raised by "feast-keepers," I have done extensive research into their major books, DVDs, etc., and compared these views with what the Bible actually says about this matter. The results of this research is now published in the book "Feast-Keeping and the Faithful." Committed Bible-believing Adventist scholars and administrators have now enthusiastically endorsed this volume. For example, the recently retired Director of the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference, Dr. Angel Manuel Rodiguez, has the following to say about this book:

"Dr. Ron du Preez has produced an excellent exegetical and theological study related to the question of the relevance of the Israelite festivals for Christians. Every argument used to support its observance has been carefully evaluated and a biblical answer provided. This is not a study simply aimed at the mind, but throughout it there is a genuine pastoral concern interested in the unity of the church and its message. May this volume contribute to intensify that unity."

Dr. Herbert Edgar Douglass (retired religion professor, academic dean, and editor) writes: "Not often do we see a book that is more timely or more remarkably helpful than this latest study by Dr. du Preez. It seems that nothing in the Bible or in the general literature has escaped his attention. With studied graciousness, and with a synoptic sweep of this perennial subject, he gently demonstrates the flaws in the expositions of those who are not careful in checking the original biblical languages. I can't think of any argument for the modern 'feast-day' emphasis that Dr. du Preez has not addressed. This subject is not a mere theological discussion. Emotions run high and deep. This book is as thorough and as gentle as the subject deserves. The footnotes are almost as valuable as the text itself. I strongly urge the reader to read the introductory pages to get the authentic background and passion for the author's reasons for investing his time in preparing this volume."

As I studied the Scriptures, I have had to be willing to allow the Holy Spirit to change my personal opinions, more than once (i.e., related to the above matters). I trust that those who are truly open-minded, and willing to follow the biblical data where it leads will be blessed by this study, and drawn closer to Jesus the Messiah, the one to whom all of these "feast days" ultimately point.

I hope that Ron Amnsn purchases this book and reads it carefully through.

It is my prayer that this book will serve to refute, silence and convict all proponents of literal feast keeping once and for all that this doctrine is a huge distraction from completing the Three Angel's Messages. It is an unbiblical, heretical plague that has been infesting Adventism, and it is creating unnecessary barriers.

[Gibs]

Jesus was born on or about the first day of feast of tabernacles and it don't look like that was recognized yet by the pioneers and today it should be the time to give thanks not only of harvest and also at the same time for the Saviour of the world. And EGW did have this to say about it,

Like the Passover, the Feast of Tabernacles was commemorative. In memory of their pilgrim life in the wilderness the people were now to leave their houses and dwell in booths, or arbors, formed from the green branches "of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook." Leviticus 23:40, 42, 43. {PP 540.4}

The first day was a holy convocation, and to the seven days of the feast an eighth day was added, which was observed in like manner. {PP 540.5}

At these yearly assemblies the hearts of old and young would be encouraged in the service of God, while the association of the people from the different quarters of the land would strengthen the ties that bound them to God and to one another. Well would it be for the people of God at the present time to have a Feast of Tabernacles--a joyous commemoration of the blessings of God to them. As the children of Israel celebrated the deliverance that God had wrought for their fathers, and His miraculous preservation of them during their journeyings from Egypt, so should we gratefully call to mind the various ways He has devised for bringing us out from the world, and from the darkness of error, into the precious light of His grace and truth. {PP 540.6}

Really what was nailed to the cross? All things have not met complete fulfillment yet! How can I be a historicist?

[Ron Amnsn]

Where does one find where Jesus ever said that one must keep the feasts in order to inherent the Kingdom of Heaven?

Where has anyone on this thread said that one must keep the feasts in order to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven?

After a person is saved, I think there are some things they can learn to do to honor God-- something more than just "what's the least I can do to squeak into God's kingdom?". Keeping the feasts could be part of "love the Lord Your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength".

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

Apparently God had a different purpose for animal sacrifices than to forgive sins, even from the beginning.

So let me ask you, what than were the sacrificing of the animals suppose to show the Israelites??

God doesn't always tell his people all the reasons for the things he asks them to do.

Off the top of my head, here are some things God may have had in mind to show people through the offered sacrifices.

• the result of sin
• the seriousness of sin
• the cost of redeeming sinners
• one of Messiah's roles in redeeming sinners
• the concept of atonement
• God's provision for the Levites and priests (their inheritance)
• God has an effective way to resolve guilt
• God forgives
• the difference between holy and common
• God accepts holy and unblemished offerings
• give to God from our best, not our leftovers
• the lesson of the red heifer
• God's laws are not burdensome

[John317]

I have searched the Scriptures diligently and have never encountered the terms "base law" or "remedial law" nor have I found the term "Moral Law" nor have I found a place where these terms are defined in Scripture. If the concepts you are espousing are not found in Scripture, it seems that they are merely the traditions of men.

The concepts are certainly found in Scripture, although the terms are not. It appears you are looking for the words. That is like saying the Trinity doctrine is not in the Bible because the word "Trinity" does not occur. We believe in the incarnation of Christ even though the word "incarnation" appears nowhere in Scripture. It's enough for the concepts to be taught in Scripture. Scripture makes a clear distinction between the moral law, the civil laws, and the ceremonial laws.

[John317]

Off the top of my head, here are some things God may have had in mind to show people through the offered sacrifices.

• the result of sin
• the seriousness of sin
• the cost of redeeming sinners
• one of Messiah's roles in redeeming sinners
• the concept of atonement
• God's provision for the Levites and priests (their inheritance)
• God has an effective way to resolve guilt
• God forgives
• the difference between holy and common
• God accepts holy and unblemished offerings
• give to God from our best, not our leftovers
• the lesson of the red heifer
• God's laws are not burdensome

Yes, I think all SDAs would agree with you on this. The primary reason for the sacrifices was that they all pointed to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. Once He died, fulfilling the animal sacrifices, there was no need to offer animals. Thank God you and I don't need to kill a lamb or goat, etc. Jesus' shed blood is enough to cleanse all sinners from their sins without any more sacrifices.

[John317]

...After a person is saved, I think there are some things they can learn to do to honor God-- something more than just "what's the least I can do to squeak into God's kingdom?". Keeping the feasts could be part of "love the Lord Your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength".

Have you see this website:

http://www.bibleexplorations.com/html/shop#books

I believe it would be wrong for anyone to teach that keeping the feasts is a salvation issue; but I do think that if people want to keep them, there's nothing wrong biblically with doing so.

[John317]

... Think about it....What is a feast or an offering for? Because to do it constitutes righteousness? Or is it symbolic of atoning and dealing with the problem of sin?

Is Christ'as meditorial work in heaven "the law", or is His work a "remedy" to deal with the problem of sin?

The feasts themselves do nothing. They are not the law itself. They are symbols of what we must do to put away sin in our lives. The Moral Law is not stealing, not killing, not committing adultery, loving one another, doing unto others as we would have them do unto us, honoring our parents, keeping the Sabbath, not putting anything above God...living a life of holiness. A feast is not going to solve this problem; it is only an outward celebration of what it means to solve and atone for our transgression against this Moral Law.

[John317]

(quoting EGW): At these yearly assemblies the hearts of old and young would be encouraged in the service of God, while the association of the people from the different quarters of the land would strengthen the ties that bound them to God and to one another. Well would it be for the people of God at the present time to have a Feast of Tabernacles--a joyous commemoration of the blessings of God to them. As the children of Israel celebrated the deliverance that God had wrought for their fathers, and His miraculous preservation of them during their journeyings from Egypt, so should we gratefully call to mind the various ways He has devised for bringing us out from the world, and from the darkness of error, into the precious light of His grace and truth. {PP 540.6}

Very interesting, significant quotation.