The Disciples' Message Forgotten

[Ron Amnsn]

JoeB,

I've read through the first 125 pages of the book, skimming through some sections. There is good information there about Judaism, but it is presented with a strong bias against Judaism. From the author's comments, it seems that he attended the Jewish synagogue when he was young and became aware of the shortcomings, which he explains well. However he leaves out a lot of information that would give the reader a balanced view of how the Jews live and what they believe.

By reading the the first 1/4 of the book a person would think that Jews today and the Pharisees of old were always legalistic and never motivated to do what they do by love for God. That may have been the author's experience when he was young, but it is not the experience of every religious Jew.

An example of information left out is when discussing the phylacteries the author explains how they are donned and tied, but leaves the reader with the impression that they are worn all day. It is possible that some people wear them all day, but most Jews remove them after morning prayers. They put them on physically in the morning to remind themselves of the spiritual aspect throughout the day (kind of like SDA's do footwashing -- physical obedience to a command that is also spiritual).

The author doesn't seem to realize that some people obey God's commands because they love God and they are wanting to obey even the commands they might not understand very well. Just because they have been taught a traditional way to fulfill the command does not mean that their heart's desire to honor God is somehow tainted.

Righteousness is doing what God asks us to do. Like Jesus did. With all our hearts. The author almost makes it sound like a Jew who tries and misses is less valued in God's eyes than a Christian who neglects to even try.

Another example of information left out: When talking about the tassels, the author says something to the effect that the woman who was healed thought there was power in Jesus' tassels, but that Jesus discounted that. The author missed the point of the story. The author neglects to point out the connection to the prophecy that the Messiah would "come with healing in his tassels [or wings]" and that by touching his tassels the woman was acknowledging her faith that Jesus was indeed the Messiah and reaching out for the healing that Scripture said would be there. Jesus stopped and drew attention to the woman's touch because what she did was such a powerful statement of fulfilled prophecy.

If a person described the beliefs of the SDA church by emphasizing the negatives they experienced in their youth, and leaving out the positives, they could make the SDA church look as bad as this author makes the Pharisees look (or maybe worse). Over the years there have been enough inane rules written into SDA school handbooks and poor decisions recorded in the minutes of SDA board meetings, that if those were collected together as an "SDA Mishna" we would see ample examples of deplorable legalism, merciless punishment, women devalued, and the traditions of men placed above the Word of God.

[Ron Amnsn]

JoeB,

Here's an example of the strong bias against Judaism in the book that you recommended. On page 268 of the online version the author states this:

Quote:

After the return from Babylon, Ezra, Nehemiah, and a few others sought to reform the priesthood, and for a while met with good success; but soon after the men of God passed away, corruption again was rife among them, and so wicked were they, that when the Lord came to earth every bit of sacredness and solemnity connected with that office was entirely lost; and the priests in general were among the worst of the people.

To support his point the footnotes refer to several passages in Malachi (which was 400 years before Jesus) and a few passages in the Gospels that talk about the chief priests doing evil. However, Luke 1 gives information showing that the author is totally wrong about "every bit of sacredness..." was entirely lost. Here's what Luke has to say:

In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord. But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and they were both advanced in years.

Now it happened that while he was performing his priestly service before God in the appointed order of his division, according to the custom of the priestly office, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense. And the whole multitude of the people were in prayer outside at the hour of the incense offering. (Luke 1:5-10)

The book of Acts also tells us that there were good people among the priests:

The word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith. (Acts 6:7)

I think the author was not intending to be malicious, but was only repeating the prejudiced traditions of Christianity, which is why we need to test everything by Scripture.

[Ron Amnsn]

JoeB,

In the Explanatory Notes at the end of the chapter (page 278) the author provides a quotation from Josephus to illustrate the condition of the priesthood at the time of Messiah's first advent. Josephus tells how they cast lots to see who would be high priest and chose an unworthy man and then mocked the office of high priest. At the end Josephus says, "This horrid piece of wickedness was sport and pastime with them, but occasioned the other priests.....to shed tears, and sorely to lament the dissolution of such a sacred dignity."

Yes, those who treated the office of high priest with such disdain were wicked, but doesn't the author notice the reaction of the other priests? They shed tears and lamented sorely. These are the priests about which the author stated, "every bit of sacredness and solemnity connected with that office was entirely lost; and the priests in general were among the worst of the people." The author's quotation from Josephus shows that his own statement about the priests is false.

I think the author's strong bias against Judaism is required in order to support his idea that the Jewish nation deserved to be discarded by God and replaced by "the church". Of course, God's covenant with Israel was not based on "deserving", but was based on the faithfulness of God.

[Ron Amnsn]

JoeB,

Starting on page 404, in paragraphs 16 to 36 the author starts an interesting discussion about the yoke of bondage and what it was and wasn't. I agree with the author's conclusion that it was the man-made traditions that were the unbearable yoke from which Jesus set men free.

The author also says correctly that the God's Law of Moses was not the "yoke" that Jesus freed us from, but unfortunately the author incorrectly asserts (without evidence) that the "ceremonial laws" were abolished, expired, and "nailed to the cross". That doctrine is not taught in Scripture, and is contrary to Word of God.

If you look up Colossians 2:14 in the the Greek you find that what the apostle Paul said was nailed to the cross was "dogmasin" a form of the word "dogma". That Greek word was never used used in the Greek OT (the LXX) to refer to any law, command, statute, or instruction of God. In the Septuagint "dogma" always refers to man-made decrees or rules. Of course, when we read the Gospel accounts of what was actually nailed to the cross, we find that there was a man-made handwritten proclamation nailed to the cross -- it was the placard that listed the "crime" that Jesus committed -- "King of the Jews". Simply nailing something to the cross doesn't make it obsolete. Jesus was nailed to the cross, but he certainly didn't become obsolete. Colossians 2:14 is talking about the placards that list all our crimes that belong on our own crosses if we were required to pay the penalty for our own sins. Those are taken out of the way because Jesus nailed our placards to his cross and paid the penalty for our sins. The law is satisfied (not abolished). Justice is served. We are redeemed!

If the Scriptures talked about the God's Law of Moses as something defective or bad, then it would understandable that Christians feel they are better off without the Law of Moses and want it to be abolished. But the Scriptures only have good things to say about God's Law. Jesus lived by the Law of Moses and proclaimed, "My burden is light", "Follow me", "I am the way." King David lived by the Law of Moses and proclaimed its virtues in the Psalms.

One thing the author of the book does, that is better than most Christians, is that he doesn't speak of the Law of Moses as if it were something objectionable. He recognizes that it was the man-made traditions added by the scribes that were objectionable.

[joeb]

Ron,

So you see a Jew as being an anti-Semite. I just have to shake my head....

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron,

So you see a Jew as being an anti-Semite. I just have to shake my head....

JoeB, there's a difference between having a bias against Judaism, and being an anti-Semite. An anti-Semite will be opposed to Jews whether they are religious or not, even if they are Messianic Jews, Christians, or whatever. A bias against Judaism causes a person to notice the negative aspects of the religion and overlook the positive aspects.

By the way, Jews can be some of the most anti-Israel (against the modern State of Israel) people around. It was something that caught me by surprise when I first became interested in Israel. There are religious Jews that actively oppose the State of Israel because they believe that what we see in the Middle-East today is a counterfeit, and that the Jews shouldn't be returning to the Land until Messiah comes.

There are also liberal secular Jews who oppose all forms of Zionism and all forms of Judaism.

I don't think F.C. Gilbert was anti-Semitic. He was Christian. And modern Christianity (including SDAism) has inherited definite prejudices and biases against those who follow Judaism (modern or 1st-century) and even against those who follow God's Old Testament instructions the way Jesus did. I've been actively weeding out the non-Scriptural biases against Jewish things that I absorbed as a child in the church, yet I sometimes still find myself avoiding, resisting, or disdaining things simply because those things are associated with Judaism. While reading Christian materials and in conversations with my SDA and Protestant friends I encounter the same biases and prejudices against Judaism that I grew up with, so I know those attitudes are still prevalent in the church.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: RLH

Not true. He said he believed all of it, and rightly so. I believe all of it too, but I am not still killing lambs. Are you still killing lambs?

We actually have lambs to sell this year (hopefully alive). The Law allows people to kill lambs at home, but not as a sacrifice. If the lambs are a sacrifice, the Law only allows them to be killed at the Temple with a descendant of Aaron officiating.

So is that a yes then? Sure sounds like it. What a slap in the face that must be to Jesus.

Why would anybody who knows what Jesus did, and why He did it, keep sacrificing lambs to try and atone for their sins? This is like saying He didn't do anything. Or that what He did doesn't mean anything.

Speaking of sacrificing animals for sin, Hebrews 10 says:

Then He said, "Lo, I come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first so that He may establish the second.

By this will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Heb 10:9,10

These texts plainly state that the first (the sacrificing of animals) was taken away because of what Jesus did. There is no more need for it.

But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God; ...Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Heb 10:12,18

By a new and living way, which he has consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having a high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith.. Heb 10:20-22

If these plain passages don't do it for you, then I don't know what would. Certainly nothing I could say.

It seems that one would have to either not believe in Jesus, or have a total lack of understanding, concerning the plan of salvation, in order to keep on killing lambs to atone for sins after Calvary.

[Ron Amnsn]

So is that a yes then? Sure sounds like it.

[Ron Amnsn]

Speaking of sacrificing animals for sin, Hebrews 10 says:

Then He said, "Lo, I come to do Your will, O God."He takes away the first so that He may establish the second.

[phkrause]

However, if the Temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt and the descendents of Aaron are consecrated as priests and the Temple service is restored again, then people in Israel would be able to sacrifice animals as God instructed at the Temple in Jerusalem.

So Ron do you believe the Temple will be rebuilt? I for one don't! Just my opinion. Have you ever talked to Pastors Doug Batchelor, Alex Schusler, Herb Silver (I believe he's still alive) J. M. Hoffman, when he was alive, Steve Wohlberg, etc., also Clifford Goldstein. The reason I ask is, they are or were all Jews and became SDAs, so the they don't come from a Christian background, about the sacrificial system and how they perceive it to be? They all accept that the sacrificial system pointed to Jesus and his sacrifice, and that after that there would be no more sacrificing of animals anymore. Have you read the book "Our Father Abraham" by Marvin R. Wilson? Unfortunately I don't believe he talks about the sacrificial system, will have to check it out.

[Ron Amnsn]

So Ron do you believe the Temple will be rebuilt? I for one don't! Just my opinion.

When Jesus cleared the Temple just a week before his death (Mark 11:17), Jesus quoted from the prophecy in Isaiah 56:1-7:

Thus says the LORD,

“Preserve justice and do righteousness,

For My salvation is about to come

And My righteousness to be revealed.

“How blessed is the man who does this,

And the son of man who takes hold of it;

Who keeps from profaning the sabbath,

And keeps his hand from doing any evil.”

Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say,

“The LORD will surely separate me from His people.”

Nor let the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.”

For thus says the LORD,

“To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths,

And choose what pleases Me,

And hold fast My covenant,

To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial,

And a name better than that of sons and daughters;

I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off.

“Also the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD,

To minister to Him, and to love the name of the LORD,

To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the sabbath

And holds fast My covenant;

Even those I will bring to My holy mountain

And make them joyful in My house of prayer.

Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar;

For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.”

The Lord GOD, who gathers the dispersed of Israel, declares,

“Yet others I will gather to them, to those already gathered.”

Jesus applied this prophecy to the earthly Temple in Jerusalem. As far as we know, this prophecy has not yet been fulfilled. I believe it will be fulfilled one way or another.

[Ron Amnsn]

Have you ever talked to Pastors Doug Batchelor, Alex Schusler, Herb Silver (I believe he's still alive) J. M. Hoffman, when he was alive, Steve Wohlberg, etc., also Clifford Goldstein. The reason I ask is, they are or were all Jews and became SDAs, so the they don't come from a Christian background, about the sacrificial system and how they perceive it to be? They all accept that the sacrificial system pointed to Jesus and his sacrifice, and that after that there would be no more sacrificing of animals anymore.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

So Ron do you believe the Temple will be rebuilt? I for one don't! Just my opinion.

When Jesus cleared the Temple just a week before his death (Mark 11:17), Jesus quoted from the prophecy in Isaiah 56:1-7:

Thus says the LORD,

“Preserve justice and do righteousness,

For My salvation is about to come

And My righteousness to be revealed.

“How blessed is the man who does this,

And the son of man who takes hold of it;

Who keeps from profaning the sabbath,

And keeps his hand from doing any evil.”

Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say,

“The LORD will surely separate me from His people.”

Nor let the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.”

For thus says the LORD,

“To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths,

And choose what pleases Me,

And hold fast My covenant,

To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial,

And a name better than that of sons and daughters;

I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off.

“Also the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD,

To minister to Him, and to love the name of the LORD,

To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the sabbath

And holds fast My covenant;

Even those I will bring to My holy mountain

And make them joyful in My house of prayer.

Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar;

For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.”

The Lord GOD, who gathers the dispersed of Israel, declares,

“Yet others I will gather to them, to those already gathered.”

Jesus applied this prophecy to the earthly Temple in Jerusalem. As far as we know, this prophecy has not yet been fulfilled. I believe it will be fulfilled one way or another.

Not sure I'm in total agreement with you here. This is how the CJB translates Mark 17 Then, as he taught them, he said, "Isn't it written in the Tanakh, My house will be called a house of prayer for all the Goyimp But you have made it into a den of robbers!" That passage to me doesn't say anything about the Temple being rebuilt.

[phkrause]

As far as I know, the people you mention have never come to my area of the world. So I haven't talked to them. It's not surprising that they accept the traditional denominational teachings regarding animal sacrifices. However, truth has never been determined by popularity, but rather by God and his Word. Both Scripture and history reveal that sacrificing of animals continued at the Temple for four decades after the death of Jesus, and Scripture shows that the followers of Jesus took part in that. So, if what you say is true, it seems that these men haven't even started to look into the topic, relying instead on the traditions of men.

One of my SDA friends loaned me a book by one of the men you listed, telling me the author had been Jewish before converting to SDAism. I looked up his biography and found the author had been a non-religious Jew raised in a non-religious family before he became an SDA. So he was basically a Jewish apostate almost totally ignorant of the Scriptures. After reading his book, I felt that the Jewishness of the author has been grossly over-rated. The author himself won't know what he's missing, and those who tout his Jewishness don't know enough to know that they are misleading people.

What was the name of the book? If I might ask.

[Ron Amnsn]

Not sure I'm in total agreement with you here. This is how the CJB translates Mark 17 Then, as he taught them, he said, "Isn't it written in the Tanakh, My house will be called a house of prayer for all the Goyimp But you have made it into a den of robbers!" That passage to me doesn't say anything about the Temple being rebuilt.

Because context is often ignored when SDA's interpret prophecy, I'm not really expecting SDA's to agree.

Jesus used the authority of the prophecy in Isaiah as the reason for clearing the Temple. From that we see that Jesus regarded the prophecy in Isaiah as authoritative (rather than conditional). Jesus quoted a phrase from the prophecy in Isaiah and applied it to what should have been happening at the Temple in Jerusalem (but wasn't). If that phrase of the prophecy in Isaiah 56 pertains to the Temple in Jerusalem, then it would make sense that the parts before and after the quoted phrase also pertain to the Temple in Jerusalem.

If Jesus thought the whole system of worship and sacrifice at the Temple was going to end permanently in less than a week, it seems very odd that Jesus would quote from a prophecy in Isaiah that refers to God bringing foreigners to the Temple to pray and offer burnt offerings at the future time when God would regather Israel as promised.

If author of the Gospel of John thought that the system of worship and sacrifice at the Temple was no longer valid after the death of Jesus, it seems very odd that he would point out decades later (when the Gospel of John was written) that after Jesus cleared the Temple his disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for your house will consume me." (Psalm 69:9 quoted in John 2:17) If that zeal and the Temple itself had actually passed into insignificance at the death of Jesus (decades before the writing of the gospel) it would have been very appropriate for the author of John to point out that the zeal for that Temple pertained to a former era, but the author makes no mention anywhere that the status of the Temple had changed since the events occurred.

[phkrause]

Because context is often ignored when SDA's interpret prophecy, I'm not really expecting SDA's to agree.

Not sure what your meaning is here? The way the Bible verse is interpreted or the way I'm reading the verse?

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

Jesus used the authority of the prophecy in Isaiah as the reason for clearing the Temple. From that we see that Jesus regarded the prophecy in Isaiah as authoritative (rather than conditional). Jesus quoted a phrase from the prophecy in Isaiah and applied it to what should have been happening at the Temple in Jerusalem (but wasn't). If that phrase of the prophecy in Isaiah 56 pertains to the Temple in Jerusalem, then it would make sense that the parts before and after the quoted phrase also pertain to the Temple in Jerusalem.

Nobady is saying its not.

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

If Jesus thought the whole system of worship and sacrifice at the Temple was going to end permanently in less than a week, it seems very odd that Jesus would quote from a prophecy in Isaiah that refers to God bringing foreigners to the Temple to pray and offer burnt offerings at the future time when God would regather Israel as promised.

I disagree

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

If author of the Gospel of John thought that the system of worship and sacrifice at the Temple was no longer valid after the death of Jesus, it seems very odd that he would point out decades later (when the Gospel of John was written) that after Jesus cleared the Temple his disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for your house will consume me." (Psalm 69:9 quoted in John 2:17) If that zeal and the Temple itself had actually passed into insignificance at the death of Jesus (decades before the writing of the gospel) it would have been very appropriate for the author of John to point out that the zeal for that Temple pertained to a former era, but the author makes no mention anywhere that the status of the Temple had changed since the events occurred.

Jesus' seal for his temple, it seems to me had to do more with worship than sacrifice's.

[Guest]

In verse 22 Paul says "Let us draw near". Drawing near is almost always associated with the sacrificial services of the Tabernacle/Temple. If it was Paul's intention to discourage the Jewish believers from continuing to offer animal sacrifices, he totally blows his argument when he tells the Hebrews to "draw near",

[debbym]

Quote:

But if you shall at all turn from following me, you or your children, and will not keep my commandments and my statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods, and worship them:

Then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all people: 1Kings 9:6,7

The same conditions were put to Solomon:

1Ch_28:9 ...if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever.

powerful words,

God is not mocked, whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap.

[Guest]

Amen!

[Ron Amnsn]

What was the name of the book? If I might ask.

I don't remember now. It was apologetics for the SDA sanctuary doctrine and 1844.

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

Because context is often ignored when SDA's interpret prophecy, I'm not really expecting SDA's to agree.

Not sure what your meaning is here? The way the Bible verse is interpreted or the way I'm reading the verse?

[Ron Amnsn]

So you've decided that the only possible meaning of "Let us draw near" is to sacrifice? I'm not going to make that assumption.

[Ron Amnsn]

The ceremonial laws, or ordinances have been set aside. When Jesus died, and the dividing curtain in the temple was ripped from top to bottom, that was the end of it.

[Ron Amnsn]

The promises to the Jews were conditional. Just like the promises to you and I are conditional. Go and look at how many times you see the word "IF" in connection with those promises.

IF you do this, I will do that. IF, IF.

[joeb]

I don't think F.C. Gilbert was anti-Semitic. He was Christian. And modern Christianity (including SDAism) has inherited definite prejudices and biases against those who follow Judaism (modern or 1st-century) and even against those who follow God's Old Testament instructions the way Jesus did. I've been actively weeding out the non-Scriptural biases against Jewish things that I absorbed as a child in the church, yet I sometimes still find myself avoiding, resisting, or disdaining things simply because those things are associated with Judaism. While reading Christian materials and in conversations with my SDA and Protestant friends I encounter the same biases and prejudices against Judaism that I grew up with, so I know those attitudes are still prevalent in the church.

OK. I misunderstood you. What is it that you see as F.C. Gilbert's bias? Give me an example out of the book.